Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from AFC side[edit]

User:UtherSRG, User:Liz - Okay. I have accepted the new draft, and the history is in the draft position. It appears that the article is still ECP-protected because it carried its protection through the move. Should I request that it be unprotected (or can one of you unprotect it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... I couldn't directly unprotect it, but I could re-add and then remove the protection. Should be all set now. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:UtherSRG - Maybe you couldn't directly unprotect it because it hadn't been directly protected. You protected the title to make it a locked redirect. A page mover then moved the redirect to user space, and then moved the article from draft space to article space via script, and then moved the redirect from user space to draft space, overwriting a redirect. So the article had not been protected, only the title had been protected. Anyway, new editors can edit it now. Thank you on their behalf. We will see whether they behave properly. (Some motorsports editors are fanatics. There was an ArbCom case about two of them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the redirect from draft space to the article is ECP-protected because it carried the ECP-protection with it. I think that we should leave it that way, because it contains history, rather than content, and it is more likely that a new editor might accidentally mess with it than that a new editor would have a reason to edit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page name[edit]

Why was this page moved? Who agreed it and why? Consistency with the previous seasons name please. Island92 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamás Szüts seemingly moved it without any comment. I fully support a move back to align with previous seasons. H4MCHTR (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the same page. Island92 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting this as an undiscussed move, which is inconsist and goes against existing consensus' SSSB (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a misunderstadnig from my side. I apologize. Officially the series name is 2024 FIA Formula One World Championship, but from a standing point every Wikipedia Article is named without the "FIA". Tombitker talk 17:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Island92 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on why this is the case, the outstanding consensus is that "2024 Formula One World Championship" (without the FIA) is the WP:commonname - and that it should take precedence over the WP:OFFICIALNAME. SSSB (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph[edit]

This is never easy to express but the season isn't over just yet, so for the following season, 2024, Red Bull 'will be' the reigning champions, but not before (which is now, 2023). Perhaps the wording could be more appropriate. What do you think? Mickey Smiths (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been changed. Just so we are clear, the verb is defending, so it is a case of "will be" until the season actually starts, not when this season ends. As the team doesn't start defending the title until the competition actually begins. SSSB (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Mickey Smiths (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023[edit]

@Island92: Please see MOS:EGG and MOS:MORELINKWORDS for why presenting the link as cancelled in 2023 is more aligned with the MOS than 2023. Will you revert yourself after reviewing these guidelines? Cerebral726 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebral726: for the benefit of other readers of this page, can you please consider including links to the edits you are talking about, or being more specific about the issue you are discussing. It seems this issue is resolved now, but for future reference... SSSB (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sure thing! I gave way too little context for anyone else. Thanks for the advice. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section with only one Level 3 subheading[edit]

@Island92: in regards to this edit, it is uncommon and not useful to have a section with only one Level 3 (aka ===) subheading. If a section needs one subheading in it, then that should just be the Level 2 subheading or it doesn't need to be included. Having that subheading is useful when there are multiple types of regulation changes, but since there are only sporting regulation changes at the moment, it is superfluous. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to distinguish between sporting and technical regulations in any case. The contents we have now (Tyres and sprint events) relate to sporting regulation. Island92 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no technical regulation changes though, so there is nothing to distinguish here. So perhaps the section headings could be "Sporting regulation changes", though I will say that still feels needlessly specific? Cerebral726 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although not covered in this article yet, I believe that there are already some minor changes to the Principal Roll Structure (see the 2024 Regs). I understand a future technical change will be made to make a cooling scoop mandatory in hot races, but that has yet to be implemented. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy for the section to be re-added in once we have something to put in there and divide up. But for now, the section heading is fairly pointless and only there because it is needed in previous years' articles. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB, 5225C, and H4MCHTR: Pinging other frequent editors of this page. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cerebral. We don't need a header to distinguish if they all fall into the same category - because we aren't actually distinguishing anything, are we? The point of section headers is to break up long sections of text into more manageable sub-sections. They aren't breaking anything up at this time, so what purpose does it serve? SSSB (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as there will be more distinctive contents for the section, I will add sporting and technical regulations sub-titles, as well as pre-season sub-title, as there will be opening round, mid season and closing round sub-titles. Island92 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with that, and think they are very useful in that context. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final rounds[edit]

@Island92 and SSSB: I agree with SSSB, the term "most rounds" is factually incorrect, considering Lawson competed for so many rounds after Hungary. The line up with Ricciardo was 7 (maximum 8 if you count Dutch GP) rounds to De Vries 10. "Final rounds" just means the final few rounds, and is totally serviceable for this purpose. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I simply forgot that Ricciardo had to miss some Grands Prix for the crash in the Netherlands.--Island92 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sauber confirmed?[edit]

Based on this article, the return of Sauber branding is confirmed by its team principal, right? Lustigson (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my interpretation, Sauber has not confirmed their name yet. There's lots of quotes of "expected to revert to Sauber" from news sources, but we don't have true confirmation on the name they will choose. The most recent relevant post on Formula1.com and their official website don't have any confirmation. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The team principal is quoted as saying "On the 10th of December, [...] we will of course announce the new team name. I think will be a surprise and we cannot wait to start the partnership with our new partners." [1] so I don't think it is that simple. SSSB (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sauber name not final?[edit]

Sauber posted this on instagram which heavily implies that "Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber" is not final (apologies for primary source, I'm sure there's a secondary source out there, but I can't seem to find one easily). Would it be worth mentioning this in the article? Post caption (again heavily) implies that a new name will be revealed 2024-01-01.

This is similar to the AlphaTauri situation, where the name is known not to be finalised as of yet (cite note 41 in article). Is it worth adding to the "Team Changes" subsection? 3nt0 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a secondary source (the heavily implies of the primary falls under WP:OR) then go for it. At the same time, I wouldn't worry to much about adding it. We will find out in 2 days either way. SSSB (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say we should just call them Sauber per WP:NOTPROMO. The same applies to all the years where they were claiming to be Alfa Romeo due to a title sponsorship without actually being a proper works team. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NOPROMO, which is why we called them Alfa Romeo, and my understanding of this thread was that we are talking about the official team name which appears in the entry table. The common name of the team (again, as I understand it) will be Sauber and that is how the team will be referred to in running prose. SSSB (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I've just seen what the new team name is. I'll repeat what I just said - and add to it. We need to respect WP:COMMONNAME. What we can't do is call them Sauber, if every source calls them "Stake". Not only would that be wholly confusing for everyone who reads the article, it would also be blatant WP:OR. Also, as this is a new constructors (technically), Stake F1 Team needs an article, because officially their results will not be credited to Sauber (or at least that has been the approach in the past. Our (Wikipedia's) our tied here - we have not got a lot of wiggle room. SSSB (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it currently stands I'm only seeing "Stake F1 Team" coming up in sources that are quoting press releases heavily and many sources still seem to be primarily referring to the entity as "Sauber" (eg. Motorsport Magazine or The Race). Also note that all the coverage so far seems to be relating specifically to the change in title sponsorship so is not a great place to gain insight about the WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe in a few months time the situation will be clearer, but for now we need to be a lagging indicator regarding these things. There's also the issue that if teams continue being allowed to arbitrarily rebrand willy-nilly we're likely to start running up against WP:PAGEDECIDE pretty soon (articles like Racing Point Force India are already highly questionable in that regard). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with everything said. A major issue we have at the moment is that all/most sources talking about Stake/Sauber are talking about the name change which means they need to refer to them as Sauber to give readers the context necessary to make sense of the article. And this is likely to continue for some time (like we see "X, formerly known as Twitter"). I would like to draw this to.your attention though: this article refers to the team exclusively as "Stake F1" and is a better gauge of commonname as it doesn't deal with the name change (see my earlier point for why this is pertinent) SSSB (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a case where we need to avoid jumping the gun, regardless. Personally I would oppose creating a "Stake F1 Team" article or a "Kick Sauber" article for the time being as I do not believe said article would be meaningfully distinct from the article about the Sauber C44 car (when it gets made) from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective (given the information about the organisation should all still exist at the Sauber article). If either of these terms becomes a WP:COMMONNAME and continues to be used in 2025 then that subject would be worth revisiting, but for now I think we need to try to keep WP:NOTDATABASE in mind. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The constructor article would be meaningfully distinct from the car article, because it contains organisational information. It is from the Sauber Motorsport that a Stake F1 Team article that it might be considered indistinct. I think the counter-arguement to your page decide arguemnt is WP:NOTPAPER. The opening sentence of page decide talks about helping the reader to understand. I would argue, as Stake f1 Team's results are unlikely to be attributed to Sauber, it would be more beneficial to readers of we made that explicitly clear with a seperate article. Otherwise Sauber Motorsport#Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber (2024–2025) will require an infobox detailing the results. I don't really see how WP:NOTADATABASE is applicable - this is not about creating a database, it is about provide a separate article for each separate (sub-)entity so that it is explicly clear to readers which results are attributed to which (sub-)entity. I agree that we should wait, to a) determine commonname, b) wait for other opinions, and c) wait to see how the FIA attribute results (are these considered Sauber's results or not) SSSB (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Redlinks[edit]

@Tvx1: regarding this edit, I believe the correct course of action is to request for the redirects to be deleted (so they are proper WP:REDLINKs) or to allow the current links to stay, as they will soon be turned into full articles on the cars, and it will be useful to have them there automatically. As they stand, linking to the section on the team's article regarding the 2024 season is a decent redirect. Regardless, please do not edit war, engage in discussion rather than just trying to force your perspective. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly reverted yourself, so you should take a heeding to you are own edit-warring warning. I have no issue with having these redirects deleted, so you can go ahead and start the procedure as far as I’m concerned. We should not be redirecting people to pointless places, like back where they started.Tvx1 20:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar[edit]

@Balenda: A Grand Grand Prix having a new slot in the calendar schedule is not considered to be a calendar change. Island92 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning a Grand Prix to take place on a Saturday is redundant. Island92 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Saturday thing I agree, 100%. That is something that only belongs on the event page.
However, I think that an event moving several months on the calendar could be noteworthy here, given an appropriate reason. The event moving to help with sustainablity and climate can be noteworthy if dealt with properly within the article. SSSB (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason explained when Saudi Arabian Grand Prix was moved from December to March spot. Island92 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that could still be done. Environment reasons, efficiency in cargo transport. BTW Saudi Arabian GP already moved in 2023 compared to 2022. It must be said that before Covid times shift on calender with several months was mentioned, so why not do it again to be consistent? Balenda (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covid times is regarded as special circumstance. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues with both your comments, so I am just going to deal with it all here.
  • Firstly, Balenda is talking about pre-covid times, not covid times (ie. pre 2020).
  • Secondly, just because we did something before doesn't mean we should continue to do it. So, we could easily add the explanation of why Saudi moved from Dec to Mar, and we could also remove the info about calendar moves from the pre-covid articles (which is one of the many reasons why "see previous articles" is a bullshit reason. (excuse my language, but I end up explaining this almost every time and I have had enough of it).
  • Thirdly, (not strictly relevant here, but I thought I would bring it up as an aside). I removed several instances of "event x moved spots on the calendar" as breaching Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. Unless a sources explitly disucsses that an event has moved positions, we cannot discuss that an event has moved positions.
  • Finally, I believe that we should decide if an event moving within a calendar is noteworthy on a case-by-case basis. To pick extremes, mentioning that Mexico and USA swapped places on the calendar from 2015 to 2016 is not notable. Firstly, they moved by a week, so you can't claim it changed the dynamic of the race becuase it was now happening in a different season. Secondly, there was no reason for them to swap - they just swapped. On the other hand, if there is an actual reason to move an event, or the moving of an event has a major impact on the event itself (beyond it simply happening at a different time) you could make the argument that this change is worth mentioning in the season article. Now, as far as I can tell Saudi's move is more inline with the Mexico and USA example I mentioned earlier (enviroment and cargo transport are unsourced and would also be nonsense reasons because it moved from before Abu Dhabi (Qatar's current spot) to after Bahrain, so it has made no difference to either of those things - it still has to move across the Arabian penisula). However, events moving several months as part of F1's attempts to be greener (as well as it being both sourced and true) seems like it is something we could reasonablly mention.
SSSB (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, we know exactly why Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are Saturday races early in the season – it's out of respect for Ramadan. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Saudi moving from Dec (2021) to Mar (2022) as this was mentioned by Island92. The 2024 races being on a Saturday isn't a move of 24 hours and therefore has no real relevance when discussing the season calendar as a whole - it only really belongs on the event specific page, regardless of why it is taking place on a Sat. SSSB (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even discussie a change that didn't even happen for the 2024 calendar? It's Japan that changed from on end of the calendar to an other for 2024, not Saudi Arabia. Tvx1 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japan is notable as it is the first time it has taken place towards the beginning of the season (apart from Pacific 1994), whether at Fuji or Suzuka. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that make it notable? (By itself) the only impact that has on the event is the likelihood that a championship will be decided there. Since that isn't something that is discussed (unless it happens to be mathematical possible) that doesn't make the move notable. SSSB (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it deserving of a mention on the Grand Prix’s article, but not on a season’s article. Tvx1 21:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a huge case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from you two. China moving from October to April was notable enough in 2009, and given the longevity of the Japanese Grand Prix compared to China back then this is more than notable in comparison. WP:CONSISTENCY exists for a reason. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency can also be achieved in the other direction. Tvx1 06:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENCY is not relevant. Those policies refer to consistency in article titles and consistency within articles, not consistency among articles. Secondly, who said that China's move in 2009 was notable? It wasn't. It isn't even sourced, making it original research. I will therefore be removing it. You claim this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it isn't. I have explained the basis for my position very clearly - it has no impact on the individual event or the season so I don't how its notability can be justified. Even if it were a case of us not liking it, it is a bigger case of WP:ILIKEIT on your behalf. How is a Grand Prix moving to a different place in the calendar notable if it has no impact on the season or the individual event? It seems as though you want us to list every Grand Prix that moves more than (what?) three months (or some other arbitary amount) simply for the sake of it? There is no justifiable reason for doing so. SSSB (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Category[edit]

I noticed that there is a category named "Results and Standings" that doesn't appear on the page. I checked the source code and the information is there in the code, but still doesn't appear on the public page or the previews. I checked it on different devices and don't see it. How do I fix this problem? User:DualSkream 6:00, Feb 27th, 2024 (EST)

@DualSkream: the section has been "commented out", so it effectively exists as a draft. I would imagine this was done so as not to include large empty tables on the viewable version of the article before the first race has taken place. (Also FYI, new talk page discussions go at the bottom of the page). A7V2 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why it was done. My preference is always to simply not add the tables to the article until the first race, to avoid this exact confusion. The tables should be unhidden after qualifying (at the latest) SSSB (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s intentionally coded to be hidden until such time as the first qualifying session of the season has been completed at the latest.Tvx1 15:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haas-Ferrari 066/10[edit]

@Tvx1, 5225C, Balenda, and Island92: Unfortunately it doesn't seem like we have a source stating what many believe to be Haas's correct engine of 066/12, just 066/10. Is there any source that does list it as 12? Starting a discussion as there has been a lot of editing around this topic. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarity, section 17.5.4 of the technical regulations (found here) states The components supplied as TRC by a Supplying Competitor to a Customer Competitor must be components identical to those used by the Supplying Competitor in the same Championship or a previous one. So it is technically possible that Haas is running last years engine...I guess? Also, Sauber used a previous iteration of Ferrari's engine in the 2017 Formula One World Championship, so there is precedent. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that article 17.5 deals with power units. Anyway, appendix 4. Its various articles state that some difference between the power units used by different customers are permitted and that customers can even refuse component upgrades. The homologated Ferrari unit here for the 2022-2025 period is the Ferrari 66. And all customers use that same homologation. The /10 and /12 and other designations refer to variations in specifications.Tvx1 15:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Haas website specifications state Ferrari 066/10. https://www.haasf1team.com/vf-24
But who can verify this is truly the case? Contradiction between FIA and Haas maybe? Peculiar. Balenda (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrari 066/10. Island92 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you might struggle to use that as a reliable source in this instance given it lists the "AlphaTauri VCARB 01", the "Honda H002", "Stake F1 Team", and "Sauber C44", all of which are incorrect. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the information given by this source (apparently the best one, from the constructor), cannot be underrated. Island92 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, there's a distinct possibility that it's been copied over from 2023. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinct possibility that the secondary sources are simply assuming Haas will use the current engine. The most reliable source at this time is Haas, and the only source I see being more reliable are the FIA (via official documents) or Ferrari (as the engine supplier) SSSB (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I was thinking at the time: yes, Sauber used a previous year's engine in 2017, however, in 2018 App. 4 of the Sporting Regs. was changed and a TD issued requiring customer engines to be identical to works engines. So it's entirely impossible for Ferrari to be using an old spec. engine. However, as Tvx1 points out, that rule is no longer present (at least not in that form), I imagine because there's an engine freeze for 2022–25. The 066/12 and the 066/10 are technically the same engine, one with a new upgrade package and one without. I consider it extremely unlikely that Haas would refuse the /12 upgrade, but it is definitely possible, and as you state there is no alternative source to turn to. So we leave it as is, which on the balance of probabilities is likely incorrect but is at least sourced, or we change it which would clearly be original research and inappropriate. Obviously with the information we have right now the most tenable option is to leave it as is, but that surely cannot be a satisfying resolution to this issue. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep 066/10 until there is an update throughout the season on this engine for Haas. Balenda (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: it should be RB VCARB 01, Honda RBPH002, Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber and Kick Sauber C44 instead. Balenda (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone keep deleting my edits?[edit]

Please tell me! Julius Hardware (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why my edits keep getting deleted? Julius Hardware (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because some simply make the information incorrect, while an other adds information of little importance to this article. Tvx1 07:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically you keep claiming Sainz didn't participate in round 2 when he very clearly did unless you think that's his dad finishing 7th in FP2. Duds 2k (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Julius, it is common for new editors to change the rounds column to reflect Grands Prix started instead of Grands Prix entered. This was probably a good faith misinterpretion of what the column represents. SSSB (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of {{nowrap}}s[edit]

@Island92: why don't you actually explain why having it on one line improves readability. Because from my point of view (assuming that the columns are not excessivly narrow) it improves readability. It allows users to view multiple columns at once. In fact, with the nowraps spanning the entire row, it reads "United States Miami International Autodrome, Miami Gardens, Flo" before it cuts off - and my is larger than average. So please, justify why you think having it on one line improves readability.

Also, "you and IP are both wroing." makes you sound like a 5-year old having a tantrum. Having a different opinion does not make us wrong. As for "All the seasons adopt this standard," that's not true. It is the standard for only the last decade's worth of seasons, and from memory it was you who changed them all. SSSB (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire table has a better presentation (one line from normal view and from mobile view) and there is no use of excessive nowraps. Nowraps are only used for the longest GP name (Emilia Romagna) and circuit name (Miami International Autodrome), whether necessary to make it one line, indeed. There is no point in adding <br/> which is the first thing that creats and double line reading. The same is done for engine into Entries table (Mercedes-AMG F1 M15 being the longest). I find always one line for Entries table, drivers championship table and constructor championship table and so on, hence it is not me who changed them all. Island92 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, Aston Martin Aramco-Mercedes can create a double line for Constructors Standings. But nowrap is used to make it only one line also for mobile view reading and better presentation of Constructors Standings table itself. Island92 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why is better presentation? Why is having it on one line better? Is it purely aesthetical (because my practicality arguement beats that, Wikipedia is not supposed to be pretty), or is there an actual purpose beyond making it look good (FYI, don't think it looks good, don't think the presentation is better. I think it is worse, as the table doesn't fit on screens). And my definition of "excessive" here is forcing everything to be in one line, you only using that code for the longest entry does not make it non-excessive. I would also support removing the nowraps for the entry table and the championship tables, espically for the constructors where its use doesn't even decrease the tables length (as those cells span two rows already) SSSB (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a major ordered table. This is the point. And it looks perfect. Nowrap is only used where needed (the longest names into that table involved). Island92 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is your opinion. But it is an opinion I disagree with. If you want any chance of "winning" this argument you are going to have to explain why you hold this opinion and your opinion is going to need to have reach beyond "it looks good". Not only are you outvoted on this (me and the IP vs you") it also has less weighting than my practicality argument. Please see WP:PRETTY (yes, this is about deleting articles, but it highlights that prettiness should not factor into decision making). Please also see MOS:NOWRAP which says "it may be counterproductive in a table (where an unattractive break may be acceptable to conserve precious horizontal space)". And this line break isn't that unattractive. Finally see Template:nowrap which says "Use this template sparingly. [nowrap] can negatively influence the ability of the page to adapt to smaller screens, or alternate representations of the content." (emphasis not added by me, exists on template documentation). Meanwhile I cannot find a single instance where the use of nowrap in cases like this is endorsed in any way. SSSB (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Island92 on this one, the table is substantially more readable when you don't have a random number of rows breaking over two lines. You generally want to vertically scan through the rounds which is easier when they are a consistent height. All mobile views support horizontal scrolling, and in every case you would scroll vertically to find the correct entry before reading horizontally. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, an actual reason. Thank you, 5225C. Unfortunately, your arguement is still just an opinion, and the guidance on the use of nowrap does not support this point of view. I think it is substantionally more readable to see multiple columns at once, or even (in extreme cases) see the entire cell at once. And your arguement is based on how you like to use the table, other users may want to use a table differently. Unless we poll users on how they use the table, any arguement along the lines of "I use the table like this" doesn't hold much water. SSSB (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile users aren't going to be able to see all columns, so what horizontal space are we trying to preserve? The table is already going to be very wide, so why not make it as easy to navigate as possible? We aren't really presenting complex information in the cells in this instance, so regularity is going to be more useful than denseness. The guidance you're referring to sounds like it was written for cases where there is substantial data being presented, not for our situation here. I'm inclined to just ignore it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mobile users aren't going to be able to see all columns," - depends on the table. If the calendar didn't include nowraps you can see all the columns. It also depends on the device. By default, tablet users are directed to the mobile view, and they could see all the columns even for the wider tables when we remove the nowraps (e.g. entries or the table summarising winners and polesitters).
"so why not make it as easy to navigate as possible? We aren't really presenting complex information in the cells in this instance, so regularity is going to be more useful than denseness". Is the complexity of the data relevant? (In fact, I would argue there is very little complex data on Wikipedia at all, so to have a policy targeting complex dara seems conterproductive) And again, I don't agree with this assessment and neither do the polices and guidelines I mentioned.
"The guidance you're referring to sounds like it was written for cases where there is substantial data being presented, not for our situation here." - what makes you say that? There is nothing in those guidelines to suggest it only applies to "substantial data". It seems entirely relevant to our tables here. SSSB (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nowrap is there to help mobile users navigate easily and read all the information reported into the table in the best way possible. There is no reason to have a double line. At the same time, the whole table consists of a better presentation thanks to nowrap. Island92 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Again, both I and the nowrap usage guidance disagree with you about the easiest format for readers and what the better presentation is. There is no reason to force this onto one line, and there is a reason to have a double line (so that all the columns can fit on the screen). SSSB (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SSSB, both because it is by far the strongest (or really only) policy-based argument, but because I think for a mobile user having the line breaks actually looks better. I did some experiments at my sandbox, and the nowraps made thing so rigid it was difficult to browse. The natural formatting of wikitables is set up in a logical way, and we should utilize it. One change to help break up the complexity could be to introduce a "location" column which helps in mobile view with clarity and looks just as good in browser view. Regardless though, to match policy and allow for the flexibility tables should have, we need to remove the no wrap (except for dates, again per MOS:NBSP).
Round Grand Prix Circuit Location Race date
1 Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit Sakhir 2 March
2 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Saudi Arabia Jeddah Corniche Circuit Jeddah 9 March
3 Australian Grand Prix Australia Albert Park Circuit Melbourne 24 March
4 Japanese Grand Prix Japan Suzuka International Racing Course Suzuka 7 April
5 Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit Shanghai 21 April
6 Miami Grand Prix United States Miami International Autodrome Miami Gardens, Florida 5 May
7 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix Italy Imola Circuit Imola 19 May
8 Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco Monaco 26 May
9 Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve Montreal 9 June
10 Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya Montmeló 23 June
11 Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring Spielberg 30 June
12 British Grand Prix United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit Silverstone 7 July
13 Hungarian Grand Prix Hungary Hungaroring Mogyoród 21 July
14 Belgian Grand Prix Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps Stavelot 28 July
15 Dutch Grand Prix Netherlands Circuit Zandvoort Zandvoort 25 August
16 Italian Grand Prix Italy Monza Circuit Monza 1 September
17 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit Baku 15 September
18 Singapore Grand Prix Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit Singapore 22 September
19 United States Grand Prix United States Circuit of the Americas Austin, Texas 20 October
20 Mexico City Grand Prix Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez Mexico City 27 October
21 São Paulo Grand Prix Brazil Interlagos Circuit São Paulo 3 November
22 Las Vegas Grand Prix United States Las Vegas Strip Circuit Paradise, Nevada 23 November
23 Qatar Grand Prix Qatar Lusail International Circuit Lusail 1 December
24 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit Abu Dhabi 8 December
Sources:

Cerebral726 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, if we're trying to improve readability for mobile users, we could remove the repeating "Grand Prix" from all the rounds. I think this version looks pretty clean on mobile and browser:

Round Grand Prix Circuit Location Race date
1 Bahrain Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit Sakhir 2 March
2 Saudi Arabian Saudi Arabia Jeddah Corniche Circuit Jeddah 9 March
3 Australian Australia Albert Park Circuit Melbourne 24 March
4 Japanese Japan Suzuka International Racing Course Suzuka 7 April
5 Chinese China Shanghai International Circuit Shanghai 21 April
6 Miami United States Miami International Autodrome Miami Gardens, Florida 5 May
7 Emilia Romagna Italy Imola Circuit Imola 19 May
8 Monaco Monaco Circuit de Monaco Monaco 26 May
9 Canadian Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve Montreal 9 June
10 Spanish Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya Montmeló 23 June
11 Austrian Austria Red Bull Ring Spielberg 30 June
12 British United Kingdom Silverstone Circuit Silverstone 7 July
13 Hungarian Hungary Hungaroring Mogyoród 21 July
14 Belgian Belgium Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps Stavelot 28 July
15 Dutch Netherlands Circuit Zandvoort Zandvoort 25 August
16 Italian Italy Monza Circuit Monza 1 September
17 Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit Baku 15 September
18 Singapore Singapore Marina Bay Street Circuit Singapore 22 September
19 United States United States Circuit of the Americas Austin, Texas 20 October
20 Mexico City Mexico Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez Mexico City 27 October
21 São Paulo Brazil Interlagos Circuit São Paulo 3 November
22 Las Vegas United States Las Vegas Strip Circuit Paradise, Nevada 23 November
23 Qatar Qatar Lusail International Circuit Lusail 1 December
24 Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates Yas Marina Circuit Abu Dhabi 8 December
Sources:

-- Cerebral726 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The nowra must be used where needed.Island92 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the results table we have Grand Prix and Bahrain Grand Prix soon below, too. What's the problem? Island92 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated your opinion, but have failed to provide any policy-based argument. I have no problem with including Grand Prix or not including Grand Prix. As I said, I'm simply trying to find a way to reduce redundancy and information density, since that seems to be a concern once nowrap is removed. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, the Manual of Style is NOT a policy. So, no there is no policy-based argument here.Tvx1 19:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not policy based. But there is guidance based argument. It comes to the same thing. Namely, all the guidance (which is based on Wikipedian consensus) suggests that the current use of nowraps is inappropriate and unhelpful to readers. SSSB (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the slight misphrasing, I should've said "guidance"-based, but the MOS is so widely accepted and critical to Wikipedia, that I'm not sure trying to undercut it is a particularly logical argument, if that is indeed the point of your "unfortunately for you". Cerebral726 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not understand though why this is now made into a major issue when no one ever had a problem with this for years. The format was established gradually over multiple years through multiple discussions (some of that can be found (here, here, here and here). It was ultimately the project's consensus that keeping everything on one line provided the best readability in both desktop and mobile views. All columns can not viewed on screen simultaneously anyway, because the resolution of mobile screens is just too small for that. I simply cannot support SSSB's proposal because the random wrapping of text lines is just unacceptable and is much worse than what we have now. Having a new line starting with words like "course" underneath a flag is just ridiculous. It's exactly what we have strived to prevent for years. As for Cerebral726's proposals, splitting off the locations in a separate column was already discussed before and consensus was against it. Also, I see no real benefit in removing "Grand Prix". Tvx1 00:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I assumed this was an informal convention and didn't think to check for previous discussions and consensus, thank you Tvx1. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly find decade old discussion threads convincing. Large scale Wikiprojects like this can and should evolve and grow. Just because some group of users in 2014 decided that they could ignore the Manual of Style (or perhaps the MOS didn't even have the clear guidelines it does now) doesn't mean we are beholden and can never improve to better align the articles with Wikipedia as a whole. There are legitimate reason why the nowrap should be removed. If it is removed, some improvements could be made to readability by splitting the circuit column into circuit and location. Cerebral726 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Consensus can change. The most recent of these discussions happened 6 years ago. Secondly (without having read through the discussions in full) the reasons given for using nowraps are just opinions. I and Cerebral726 have both explained that we do not agree with these opinions. Thirdly, just because I haven't raised it before does not mean that "I haven't had a problem with (I've always had a problem with it to the extent that I find tables on other websites to use instead, afterbI was reverted several years ago and couldn't be bothered to start a discussion), I just haven't brought it up before. Finally, depending on the device and table, you could see all the columns at once if it werent for the nowraps, and why is "Having new line starting with words like "course" underneath a flag" "ridiculous."? SSSB (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entries[edit]

Would it be worth noting under 'Entries' that this is the 74 consecutive season that both a British and French driver has competed in F1 - to the best of my knowledge only the British and French have had at-least one driver represent their country in every F1 season since 1950. 92.28.74.111 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would it be worth including a team location in the 'Teams and drivers competing in the 2024 World Championship' table indicated with a flag? A suprising number of teams are based in the UK;

BWT Alpine F1 Team

  • Enstone, England, UK
  • Viry-Châtillon, France

Aston Martin Aramco F1 Team

  • Silverstone, England, UK

Scuderia Ferrari

  • Maranello, Italy

MoneyGram Haas F1 Team

  • Kannapolis, North Carolina, United States
  • Banbury, England, UK

Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber

  • Hinwil, Zürich, Switzerland

McLaren Formula 1 Team

  • Woking, Surrey, England, UK

Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team

  • Brackley & Brixworth, England, UK

Visa Cash App RB F1 Team

  • Faenza, Italy

Oracle Red Bull Racing

  • Milton Keynes, England, UK

Williams Racing

  • Grove, Oxfordshire, England, UK

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.74.111 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 75th season of F1. There have been British drivers in all 75. French drivers have only competed in 70. German drivers have actually competed in 71 (West Germany and Germany are considered together, in line with convention across most sports).[1] This is exactly why WP:VERIFY exist. And we shouldn't mention it because no other reliable (non-stat) source does, indicating that it is not as notable as you make it out to be.
It is also not worth mentioning where the teams are based because it is not relevant here. This information (probably) only belongs at Formula One constructor (not the list but specifing most are based in the UK. SSSB (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/nation/gp/saison.aspx

Grands Prix Results[edit]

Round Grand Prix Pole position Fastest lap Winning driver Winning constructor Report
1 Bahrain Bahrain Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
2 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Monaco Charles Leclerc Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
3 Australia Australian Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Monaco Charles Leclerc Spain Carlos Sainz Jr. Italy Ferrari Report
4 Japan Japanese Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
5 China Chinese Grand Prix Report
⋮ ⋮
Source:

I would like to change the formatting for the Grands Prix Results to the one show above. All these extra lines in the current version do not add anything, as the schedule already shows the rounds and their location. It also causes a bunch of self referential links (the report links link to the 2024 Formula One World Championship until the week of the race, typically). The vertical ellipses indicate the season is still in progress. Island92 seemed to object, so bringing it to the talk page. I will point out to them (again) that not having done something before is not a reason to revert an addition, else the entirety of Wikipedia could never improve. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this style being adopted for a Formula One Wikipedia article for the first time ever. We have as well flags (which indicate the Grand Prix round and empty spaces just below) into tables for standings (they too do not add anything IMOP). The point is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting information, rather than an in-season page in progress as the Formula One calendar (the next stop is in China as per schedule). I oppose this version. Island92 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standings table do not have any bearings on these changes to the Grand Prix Results being an improvement or not. I would understand if only the drivers' or the constructors' standings had been updated, but this table is independent of the others. Further, we could also update the other tables like I have mocked up at User:Cerebral726/sandbox/Rankings, though I feel less strongly about that for now. I am unsure though what point you are trying to make by saying this is "an encyclopedia reporting information". The season is in progress 80% of the year, so the current year's article will almost always be a "page in progress". Improvements to the readability and reduction in redundancy should be implemented. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This new table lets me think when it's Miami Grand Prix's race week, we can add the line for this specific round, just because the article 2024 Miami Grand Prix has no longer a redirect. To me, it doesn't work like that. By clicking on the single GP report in this table, or on a flag into tables standings, you have the same results for the time being (the redirect). Island92 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. The redirect in the Standings is also useless, so therefore, this should also be worse than it needs to be? Why not fix both if you think they're both useless? Or why not improve one of them if the other needs to have a useless link for some reason? Why force all these extra lines of redundant information if they aren't serving a purpose? Cerebral726 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you think these lines are redundant information and not serving a purpose. What about then those white boxes waiting for drivers results for GP not yet held into Drivers' Championship standings and Constructors' Championship standings tables? Are the same white boxes for each line in the regarding table for races to be held yet. I do not improve them (may be because I'm used to their display) and let things how they stand. Island92 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned, this table is independent, though we can also revise the Drivers' and Constructors' tables if we feel it would be an improvement. Regarding the matter at hand, the GP Results table, the empty cells serve the purpose of allowing the currently active race report to be linked in the article once an article has been started. Without them, there would be no line to link the current race's article. So in that instance, the blank squares have a purpose as a place holder. In the current table, the lines below serve no purpose: the full scheduled order of races is already shown by the schedule table, and the reports lead nowhere useful. It is wild to say "I do not improve them". You think it's an improvement and yet you revert it because your not "used to" it...? You being "used to" something has no bearing on what is the best formatting for the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted because this style had never been used/adopted before, plus it's a bold change. The best solution was to bring it into talk page, as it happened. Island92 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD doesn't say "revert things that haven't been done before". If you have no reasonable objections beyond not having done it that way before, then there is no reason to revert. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Island92, let me get this straight. Your primary objection is that we are not also hidding the empty cells/redirects in the results matrix? The solution to that is simple: hid them.

Your other objection seems to be thatbthis makes it look like an article in progress? But it looks like an article in progress anyway, because we have row and row and column after column to show future race results. In fact, in my opinion, hidding these rows and columns makes the article look cleaner and more professional (and some secondary media: like the BBC, I'm sure there are others). And the truth is that this is an article in progress - nobody is under any illusions about the fact. In fact, Wikipedia is always in progress. SSSB (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have to ping other users active in editing this page for their opinion. I'm not the only one against this style, that's for sure. Island92 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. We do not require consensus first on this page. If you are not against this style, revert yourself, as no one has disputed it's inclusion with any actual reasonable cause. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my opinion about this new style, and I'm agaist it. This new style is a bold change/bold move for the article itself, and was brought into talk page for a reason. Now I think other users will give their take about it. Island92 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: pinging since you also edited the table after I made my change.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with how we presently do it. I don't agree that it's redundant and I also don't care even slightly about the self-referential redirects. I also don't see anything wrong with your proposal. There's no substantive change other than that the results/reports and revealed gradually. Functionally, they're doing the same thing. I should also point out that we have the full schedule in the WDC and WCC tables, and the same reasoning you've applied in this instance would apply to those. This is a solution in search of a problem, but it's a pretty harmless change (although we can surely find a better solution than the vertical ellipses). 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: User:Cerebral726/sandbox/Rankings Here is a mockup of making similar changes to the WDC and WCC tables. Any thoughts on these?

In terms of the vertical ellipses, perhaps something like this would be better:

Round Grand Prix Pole position Fastest lap Winning driver Winning constructor Report
1 Bahrain Bahrain Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
2 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Monaco Charles Leclerc Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
3 Australia Australian Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Monaco Charles Leclerc Spain Carlos Sainz Jr. Italy Ferrari Report
4 Japan Japanese Grand Prix Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Netherlands Max Verstappen Austria Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT Report
5 China Chinese Grand Prix Report
⋮ Season still in progress
Source:

-- Cerebral726 (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That WDC table looks really really silly and I wouldn't support implementing that. The benefit (if any) of abbreviating the reports table is reducing how far you need to scroll – obviously that doesn't apply to the WDC/WCC tables since the width is horizontal. Again I don't really see what the issue is with the status quo. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm fine with that, though I feel more strongly the GP results should be improved. The self-referential report links, the redundant listing from the schedule table, the wasted vertical space, and just generally making the table appear more professional are all worth it. Each of them are minor, but I don't see any downside to making these improvements, and some clear (even though slight) upsides. In terms of status quo, I think it's important that as many of the "in-progress" elements of the current seasons are as polished as possible, since they receive a huge portion of the views for this WikiProject. Since these can be improved so easily without any impact to past Championships, the barrier for implementing an improvement is also significantly lower. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your argument for changing the reports table is reasonable, so if other editors are ok with it I have no objection. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You, were bold and you were reverted so WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is out of the window. I do not see any benefit in what you're proposing. The rows of the full table are not redundant at all. They show the readers in a glance how far in the season we are. By removing the still empty rows, you leave the readers with little idea of how much of the season is still left to be completed. It could alsi imply that the season was ended prematurely. It does more bad than good. I really don't appreciate how for a couple of weeks now you've been repeatedly trying to implement significant changes to aspects of these articles that literally zero readers have a problem with and most importantly with how intolerant you are to opposition to your proposals. Please stop trying to fix things that aren't broken. And canvassing isn't appreciated either.Tvx1 17:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a good way of knowing if "zero readers have a problem with" the way the table looks. It may be stable because it's serviceable enough, but not ideal, and not worth it to most people to try to improve. Institutional inertia can stifle a project from improving. Ideas should be considered on their actual merits, not whether it's been done that way for a while. On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it. The project and the articles will never improve with the mindset "we've been doing it this way for a while, no need to re-evaluate ever". Wikipedia is a work in progress. In this instance, there are a bunch of self-referential links on an article 70-80% of the year in an otherwise redundant line taking up vertical space. I think that's a bit broken (WP:SELFRED). You have expressed concern for a very similar issue Talk:2024_Formula_One_World_Championship#Non-Redlinks.
With regards to your concerns of the edits being an improvement, I'm not sure that table's primary purpose is to communicate how far into the season we are. However, if that is key, leaving the WDC and WCC tables as they are as 5225C mentioned above shows that progress already. I think this possible information being communicated (season progress) is outweighed by the negatives I have previous mentioned. I respect your opinion to the contrary though.
You are correct about the implicit consensus. That was a mistimed comment, I was fighting back against the idea that Island92 seemed to think I should have tried to gain consensus before making the edit, and that that was reason enough to revert me. However, no, it was not canvassing. SSSB edited the table before Island92 reverted, showing an interest in the topic, so I pinged them. If anyone else had showed interest in the topic, I would have given them the same courtesy (as I have done consistently such as here and here). I apologize for speaking aggressively at times, such that it comes off as intolerant. I feel strongly that there are improvements to be made, and take real issue with what I perceive as a dug in mindset I often see in this WikiProject. However, I appreciate that raising the temperature of the conversation through overly aggressive responses does not get anyone anywhere, so I appreciate the feedback and will do my best to tone that down. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar view[edit]

Please warn user @Wiki wikied: to stop editing the calendar section. See history page. He has to stop insisting on that, just because he thinks there is a different view from desktop view and mobile view by changing the position of }} along with nowrap. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=1220212476"