Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Discussion at WikiProject[edit]

There is further discussion about the various merits of the template here, including changing the meaning of the DNP term to something more meaningful, hopefully at the same time creating less clutter.

It would be great if no-one changes the template before getting everyone's agreement first  :o) Bretonbanquet 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

One or two people think this template is too long, and there's a discussion here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Template Size[edit]

Why is the template larger in size than before? It doesn't look right next to the standings. - mspete93 [talk] 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the font size was set to 89%, rather than 85%. I had always wondered myself, just couldn't figure out what the issue was. TheChrisD RantsEdits 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - if I touch templates they go horribly wrong - mspete93 [talk] 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we not make it smaller back to what it was because it's just too big and unnecessary. Also, shouldn't 'Disqualified' be written as 'Dsq' not 'DSQ' as it's one word not three (like 'Ret')? <-- That would also apply for 'EX' to 'Ex' and 'WD' to 'Wd'. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that's all that important, but if you want to do it, make sure you invent a bot that changes all the results tables. Can't just change the key. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Who made it big again?!?! *sigh* TheChrisD RantsEdits 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I did. At least until this completely inappropriate template (we should never be using colours as the sole identifier in tables in the first place) is deleted, it should at least be legible. For non-footnote text, that should mean a minimum font size of 88%. Editors should be working on incorporating the text in this key directly into the tables it accompanies, at which point this will be binned entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Colours are not the sole identifier in any tables using this template, and there's no need or prospect of the text in this key being incorporated into the tables. The chances of this template being deleted are slim-to-zero. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not if I can help it. It's useless from an accessibility point of view, and the idea of linking directly to templatespace as a sort of help page for article content is obviously wrong. My action plan is basically to incorporate what little value this key has directly into any pages which link to it; once a fair few are done (it hasn't been difficult so far) it should be easy to point out how to do the rest. The constructors should be trivial, the drivers (at least the more experienced ones) a little trickier. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be your opinion and what else? Is there a guideline? It's worked rather well for a very long time and the WikiProject will, I suspect, be very reluctant to change it, not least because it links to around 1000 articles. I suggest you look for consensus first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
For a start, it hasn't "worked rather well for a very long time" for any blind or partially-sighted reader who has to use a screen reading program, nor for anyone who's tried to create a spoken-language version of a page, nor even for anyone printing a page off. if you've any valid reasons for why this shouldn't be attempted I'm all ears. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, because it won't get done. Are you going to do them all? Please explain how a screen reading program will read the table anyway. Where is all this information going to go? Furthermore, many articles with tables relating to different series use more than one key and link to different templates. Do you plan to incorporate different sets of information into these articles? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It will get done if it is proposed and a plan is made. At the very least, the template has to be transcluded rather than linked, or the key is completely inaccessible in non-Web formats (such as when the page is spoken or printed). The eventual outcome is still up for debate, but I see no need to have one grand unified key which must be used for every motor racing table - other sports seem to manage just fine by individually marking up their tables. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the tables will not work without the keys. Secondly, the template already is transcluded in season articles like 2009 Formula One season where it is absolutely necessary that the font size remains as it is. If you are argueing about the induvidual driver articles then you could have two seperate templates - although it will take a lot of work to change all the transclusions (seeing as they're used in more than just F1 despite the name) - if you want the work then go ahead. I don't agree with the colour blind issue as I don't feel (warning: just my opinion - no offence intended) that the majority of users (those that are not visually impared) should be affected in order to suit the small minority (those that are colour blind). The light shades (and black) used ensure that the tables can still be read and understood even if the reader cannot differentiate between the colours. Please do not throw Wikipedia guidlines at me because I'm not particularly interested (WP:IGNORE). I repeat that that was just my opinion, nothing else - I am always happy to go with the concensus even if I think it is wrong. - mspete93 [talk] 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would still like to know how the tables are managed by non-web formats and spoken-word programs. If they do not manage the tables adequately anyway, then this whole thing is a moot point. Also, who is going to do this work? Furthermore, you don't need colour to read the tables, it's just an extra aid. I suspect the main reason for having one key rather than thousands is fairly self-explanatory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
They are read out one cell at a time, usually with little context to help out except the semantics of the table elements. And yes, it is possible to create tables which are usable by the blind and partially sighted: they are not to be ignored simply because it would mean more effort on behalf of sighted editors (and frankly I cannot understand why you'd suggest such a thing). The W3C has various guidelines on how to make tables accessible, of which my main concern here is not to make meaning dependent solely on colour: presently there are many tables where "finishing in this position earned points" is denoted solely by the hue of the table cell. This should not be some "value added bonus" for readers who are not colourblind. The work will be done by those Wikipedians who choose to take the time to make our articles more accessible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, what is the W3C? I reiterate that these tables are not dependent on people being able to see colour. The only instance where this is otherwise is the green for points-scoring positions, and I sincerely doubt that anyone bothering to read these tables in such depth would not already know that the top eight in F1 score points. All the others are self-explanatory beyond colour, as there are codes in each cell. Has there been any feedback on the tables from partially-sighted or blind readers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium, the organisation charged with the development of the Web. It has put out numerous recommendations on how to optimise Web content for the widest audience. We also have our own guidelines. As for your point about the tables being "self-explanatory", it seems logical that a table described as "self-explanatory" does not need a key. So either these tables are self-explanatory and do not need a key in the first place (which you have rejected), or they are not self explanatory and thus need additional information with which to best understand them (in which case we should be striving the the best such solution possible). If the colours are, as you suggest, superfluous because readers will be expected to know such information anyway, then the colours should be removed from the tables as they are serving merely as decoration. And whether or not these particular tables have been commented on yet by a reader who cannot navigate them is beside the point, as it would be far better not to end up in that situation in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The key is an aid to those who have extra problems despite the fact that the key is self-explanatory. It was already assumed that some more challenged readers might have issues, and I believe that the current system is the best one available. It is not as clear-cut as you seem to make out. I did not say the colours were superfluous, I said that understanding the tables was not dependent on colour. Understanding a photograph is not always dependent on colour, but I am sure you do not advocate rendering them in black and white. The colour is an aid to identifying results more clearly, without that colour being essential. I'm sure you understand that, and I'm also sure that there is simply no chance at all of removing colour from the tables. I disagree that reader feedback is unnecessary - we appear to be embarking upon an enormous amount of work, when nobody is directly complaining about the current system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I could respond to the points therein, but I don't think it would be productive to continue arguing along these lines at this time. I am simply pointing my rationale out to the wider community. As I examine the transclusions in more detail I'll try to come up with some suggestions on how to move forward. For now, it does not seem controversial that where the template is currently linked rather than transcluded that it should be transcluded instead, so I'll be proceeding with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We have previously considered the issue of the template being linked to rather than transcluded. As I recall, general opinion at the time was that simply transcluding the template at the point where it is currently linked was undesirable, due to the size of the template and the risk that it might "overwhelm" the actual results table. Transcluding the key next to the table (as is done in the season summary articles) was also considered unsuitable, as the results tables are already very wide. One solution (devised by User:Midgrid) which I quite liked was a collapsible version of the key: {{F1 results key}} - which may be seen in use at Forti#Complete_Formula_One_results. (I think it's slightly out of date compared to the current version of this template, but it could easily be updated). DH85868993 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I rather like the collapsible key. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that there are still a couple of outstanding issues from the previous discussion, i.e. whether to locate the key above or below the table, and whether or not to include explanations of "bold" (pole position) and "italics" (fastest lap). DH85868993 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. That discussion does indicate that others have already pointed out that keys should always be transcluded rather than linked. Unfortunately, collapsible content outside of specific exemptions (such as navbox / infobox tables) is a no-no due as pointed out in MOS:COLLAPSE, again for a11y reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does that not suprise me? The issue is that a transcluded key is too big for the tables, in fact in many cases, it would be bigger than the tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a "landscape" version of the key, which might(?) be more suitable for transclusion above/below a results table than the current "portrait" version. The vertical height could possibly be reduced still further by having four pairs of columns rather than three. Although personally, I still prefer the collapsible solution. DH85868993 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's still very large, especially when it's going to be shoehorned into articles like this one. Why swamp the table with the entire key when 90% of it is irrelevant? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a very good argument for splitting this key into several different keys which can be used depending on the context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's very clearly going to be a lot more than several. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of multiple templates - almost every driver/constructor/car has a different combination of results. Another option (and I can hardly believe I'm typing this, considering how much effort it would involve) would be to have a single parameterised template, with customised transclusions such that it only displays the codes relevant for the particular driver/constructor/car, e.g. in the case of Mikko Kozarowitzky, we would have something like {{F1 results key|DNQ=yes|DNPQ=yes}} so it would only display "DNQ" and "DNPQ". But customising every transclusion of the template would be a lot of work. And I still think the collapsible template is a better option. DH85868993 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion got... heated, in a hurry. I'm not sure what's being argued now, since it started with my remark being moved to a new section and then replied to (to which I reply with: at full text size, it takes emphasis away from the table itself when it is transcluded into large season summary tables) and now we're going on about whether to link or transclude it? IMHO, the way it is transcluded into season articles is fine (although it does rape those on 1024px monitors, but not too much as to be a nuisance - besides people with that small a screen size are in the minority). However, the landscape option would be good for individual driver, team/constructor articles, as they would generally not have as many rows as the season articles. Rather than making a separate template, perhaps we could edit this one so that if the transclusion specifies landscape format, it'll come out like that? TheChrisD RantsEdits 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion covers several related topics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) changed the font size on the grounds of accessibility, i.e. his belief that the smaller font size was illegible. That led to a discussion of a couple of other accessibility-related issues:
  • that colours should never be used as the sole identifier in tables (noting that, as pointed out by Bretonbanquet above, the only case in which that occurs is green denoting points finishes and, personally, I can live with that)
  • that the template should be transcluded rather than linked (noting that if the template is linked, then screen readers, etc won't display its contents)
In regard to your suggestion about having a single template that could be displayed in either portrait or lanscape format, it sounds to me like a lot of effort for (imho) not much gain - there are numerous examples of the same template existing in both portrait and landscape formats, with different articles transcluding each as appropriate. DH85868993 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the font size, it may be small, but it is of comparable size to the tables themselves. Also, increasing the size of this one and not the others (e.g. the general motorsports one, the IndyCar one) doesn't make much sense for continuities sake.The issue with transclusion would be that if the template were to be updated, then it would need to be edited (if applicable) on all occurences of it. Same argument goes for having a separate template for landscape format rather than editing this one to use parameters - if the template needed to be updted, then it would need to be edited in more than one location. TheChrisD RantsEdits 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing transclusion with substitution. Transclusion is the usual method for including a template into a page, i.e. when you write {{template-name}} in the wikitext. So, if you update the template, all the pages which transclude the template are automatically updated. You are correct that if we had two versions of the template (portait and lanscape), then each one would need to be updated separately, but hopefully the results key template shouldn't have to be updated all that often. DH85868993 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Query[edit]

What's the difference between disqualified and excluded? Do they both need to be in there? Apologies if i'm missing something obvious. 86.17.186.211 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Disqualified" applies to drivers who are thrown out of a race after it has started. "Excluded" applies to drivers who are thrown out during qualifying or practice sessions, often for missing or failing weight checks etc. It rarely happens these days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Injured?[edit]

Should the "Injured" (INJ) status be added to the 'white' section of the drivers' results legend? Consider that Felipe Massa was injured during qualifying at the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix and since then, the Massa'a record in the drivers' result's table has been marked with "INJ" with no definition of what that means. Ladislaus (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This used to be included but they were all taken out recently in line with a discussion held somewhere. Britmax (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There was recently a long discussion about this, and it was decided that it be removed. These are results tables, and an injury is outside the scope of a results table. Any race which is missed for whatever reason should be left blank, and any instances of "INJ" are removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)



– Request reversion to original names, per consensus at the Formula One WikiProject. The template was renamed by the admin who closed this TfD discussion, where it was pointed out that in addition to being used for Formula One results tables, the template was also used for some non-Formula One results tables. (Note that the idea of renaming the template was not brought up as part of the discussion). The template contains some elements which are specific to Formula One and since all non-Formula One uses of the template have now been removed, the template should revert to its original name. Please don't leave a redirect, as the more general name of the redirect may encourage mistaken use of this template for non-Formula One results tables. DH85868993 (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Race Ban?[edit]

Shouldnt their be something like this (BAN) in black for when a driver is banned from the race. Daniels Renault Sport 19:18 - 2 September 2012

It might be a good idea given the number of numpties who keep using "EX" to show a banned driver. It's the same for Schumacher's ban way back, and BAR's ban a few years ago. Although a black background may not be the best colour to use as it is already used for disqualifications. Maybe a grey or white background would suffice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's really that necessary. Race bans don't happen often to begin with, and I think this discussion is mostly a reaction to frequent IP edits over Grosjean's ban. I expect the 2012 season page will settle down in the next few hours, and after that, it should not be a problem. We might have another flare-up next weekend coinciding with the Italian Grand Prix, but after that, I expect it won't be a problem (at the very least, it will be manageable). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I had to revert at the 1994 season article just the other day [1]. We also get occasional problems with BAR's ban in 2005. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's still an isolated incident. As you said, we get "occasonal" problems. Nor "frequent", or "regular".
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm just preaching moderation for now. I fully expect the 2012 page to calm down in the next few hours, once everyone in Europe goes to sleep. If the problem persists, then I'm all for finding a solution, but I don't think we should rush to a conclusion if we're never going to use it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I do feel like I've explained the difference between exclusions and bans a thousand times. OK, hopefully it'll calm down, but I don't think adding a ban cell to the key would be overkill if it serves a purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Adding a ban cell to the key is the solution. Give the reader all the facts, don't suppress them. Eff Won (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not about anyone suppressing facts - it's about not filling the tables with so much stuff that they become unusable. There's already a lot of variations within them. In this case, I don't think a ban cell would be a problem, but tables aren't the place for "all the facts". Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that their should be a Ban cell, It would make things much simpler. Maybe it could be Grey or dark blue

Daniels Renault Sport 22:55 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. It seems silly not to, seeing as there is no honest alternative, and it is needed now. Sas1998 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Theirs no valid reason why their shoulnt be a Ban cell. The accident with Grosjean has shown us the ban penalty is still around in Formula One and that it could be used in the future. In that case to stop future debates about this their should be a Ban cell in the key. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, lets assume for the moment that we want to go ahead with this: how do we want to represent it in the key?

Personally, I don't like "BAN". It's a litte too on-the-nose, a little too big within the table for my liking. It doesn't seem right, like it's rubbing the driver's nose in it. I kind of feel like it's not neutral. So here are a few suggestions for what we could use:

  • "Sus" - for "suspended". Alternatively, it could simply be an "S".
  • "LS" - for "(super)licence suspended" or "(racing) licence suspended". When the FIA ban a driver, they technically suspended his (or her) racing licence, preventing them from exiting the pit lane and taking to the circuit. Alternatively, "DS" for "driver suspended" might work better.
  • "FA" - for "forced absence". I'm not so keen on this one, because it sounds a bit draconian. "IA" for "involuntary absence" might be the better choice, but I think there are better ones available.

Personally, I think "LS" works best. It describes what happened, and it doesn't come across as aggressive or draconian. And we could insert it into the key like this:

Grey Racing licence suspended (LS)

I think that's the best way forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem with that is, and it's a big one, is that their racing licences aren't necessarily suspended. They're free to go and race somewhere else, but they're not allowed to race in one or more specific F1 events. We've got nothing to say Grosjean's licence has actually been suspended. Also, we have no way of verifying if anyone's licence was suspended in historic cases like Patrese in '78, for example. I think an "S" is best, if we're going to do this. The 359's point at the WP page bears up though, non-participating drivers are usually left blank, and I don't want this to set a precedent for more cells. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. Perhaps F1 License Suspended would be better (it would still be LS of course)? Sas1998 (Talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I find this to be a horribly blown out idea. I can count the number of drivers, in any top tier FIA series, who have received temporary bans on one hand, maybe two. The chart already has a symbol - blank space - and an explanation of what that symbol means - Driver did not participate. The results matrix is to show the results for the races in the season, every single element of the key relates to what happens in those three days on that race track with the exception of "Cancelled" which has obvious merit. The matrix and key are not for events that take place outside of the race weekend, and certainly events that take place outside of the race circuit altogether. Starting to list suspensions or injuries or some other personal issues is not something that should be cluttering up the results matrix. What next, are we going to list all the races a driver could have raced for a team, under a season long contract, if they were fired midseason? In the microcosm of the 2012 Italian Grand Prix on its own, Romain Grosjean does not exist because he cannot and will not participate in the event.
If someone wants an explanation, it should be incredibly easy to find in the prose of the article, either in the season review or in their individual driver biography, plus mentions in the race reports for their banned races as well as, in the case of Grosjean, the race in which he was banned. Yes, we are here to make the article easy to understand for the casual reader, but we are not here to lead every reader by the hand and make sure through constant repetition and reexplanation that they can figure everything out without having to do the slightest bit of further reading themselves.
Giving in and simply saying that "people will keep adding something if we keep it blank" is silly. People continue to add P for pole positions, we still continue to remove it. We do not simply go lax because it'd be easier. The359 (Talk) 08:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If a driver is not taking any part in the weekend, the reason for is not important for the results matrix in anyway. The results matrix carries the results it does not analyse them. The parallel to placing Banned, Suspended etc is equivalent to analysing Retirement modes. You're essentially suggesting replace Ret with the myriads of Acc, Fir, Mec, Tyr, Hyd, Ele, Ill. This sort of information is supposed to be written out in prose and added to season articles and race reports.
We should never try to use tables to substitute for text. The matrix tables are best used for displaying the complex data the sentences can't easily carry. We've never needed a describer for suspensions before, of which there has been plenty, so why do we need to create one now just because Grosjean has a spasm and wipes out four other cars?
So no. Not just no, but hell no. --Falcadore (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but in that case why are DNA, DNP, and WD still on there? Sas1998 (Talk) 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
These are used when a driver has actually entered a Grand Prix. Grosjean will not enter the Italian Grand Prix, so let's keep it blank, no matter why he's not going to race. Maimai009 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. If we start including drivers who aren't entered in a race we be including driver who got fired five races previously or broke their legs at Silverstone and felt they didn't want to support their team mates bid to be world champion in their absens five months later.
Race results don't normally list the drivers who aren't in the entry. Such a list could run into the thousands. --Falcadore (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? If somebody DNA (did not arrive) or WD (withdrew) then they are not entering the GP. And if somebody DNP (did not practice) but still competed in the race then surely the text would be displayed their result. Therefore these are useless. Sas1998 (Talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't appear to understand the terminology involved. You can't be DNA if you weren't entered to begin with. Did Not Arrive implies that arrival was expected so there had to have been entry if they were expected to arrive. Withdrawn is withdrawn from the race or qualifying, it does not mean the entry is withdrawn. Frequently in the case of WDs another driver takes up the entry so it definately is not the case that there was no entry.
Perhaps you need to have a read of Glossary of motorsport terms before proposing changes to drivers legend key. --Falcadore (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. My confusion is solved Sas1998 (Talk) 15:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Daniels Renault Sport says: Theirs no valid reason why their shoulnt be a Ban cell. The valid reason is that this is a key for a table of race results and BANNED is not any form of a race result. It's an explanation as to why a driver did not participate in a race at all and therefore has no place, none at all in this key. It's that simple. --Falcadore (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this today (slow day) and I've got to come down on the side against implementing this idea. As has been said by Falcadore and others, a ban is not a result, and these tables are above all results tables. When these tables start going beyond simply showing the basic results for drivers entered in races, then they will rapidly become overcomplicated. I still think it's a pain when editors put an inappropriate "EX" in these boxes, but I don't think there's an acceptable alternative to just reverting and leaving the box blank. This idea could even spawn the return of "INJ" and other abominations... can't let it happen. Let's keep the tables simple. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any consensus on adding "Racing license suspended" to the table? I removed the LS from the 2012 table thinking it was a random edit, but I've just noticed it was added to this table by Prisonermonkeys, and I don't see anyone really agreeing with it. I can't say I agree with any sort of banned or suspended entry, as has been said it's not a result, if you're not there the box should be left back.

On the same token though, does DNA really belong in the tables? It's not a result either, since you didn't even appear at the race. I do think any DNA's should be left blank as well. QueenCake (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed there was no consensus, I've removed Racing license suspended from the key, and from the table again. Maimai009 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding DNA, there's a decent explanation within this discussion. If a driver had an entry and doesn't turn up, DNA is the result as regards what happened to that entry. It obviously doesn't happen now, but it was fairly common in the 50s and 60s. Grosjean doesn't have an entry so his case is different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said about DNA. And what about TD? That's not a result either. If these are there, then LS should be too. Sas1998 (Talk) 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. A driver who DNA has at least got an entry. A Friday test driver, while he doesn't have an entry to the race, has an entry to the event. These are explanations of what happened to the driver's entry. Grosjean has no entry for the Italian GP at all. Nothing. In any case, "LS" is way too cryptic for a results grid like this, and no other results source anywhere uses anything like it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)That sounds a reasonable explanation Bretonbanquet, looks like we're basing the table on what happens to each entry. As for TD Sas, that's kind of an odd one. It gets used on driver pages, but not on the season pages. While drivers whose only participation that season can't be included in the drivers championship table, since they never tried to race, those who did race and were a Friday driver don't get included either. I don't know the decision behind that. QueenCake (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that, but it in itself is not a race result. Sas1998 (Talk) 21:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how the TD usage came about either, but I'm OK with it. Sas, we're not just talking about race results. DNQ isn't a race result either, to take it a small step further, nor is EX. These tables are concerned with explaining how an entry turned out. If we take out DNA and similar cells, people would rightly ask, "So what happened to this guy, he had an entry for this race", and there's no explanation there. With Grosjean, he has no entry, as can be shown in the Rounds column in the driver table etc, and not least, the text in this article, the race article and Grosjean's own article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That's well explained, thank you. I am leaning towards being against changes now. Sas1998 (Talk) 22:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just like we mark drivers excludad from a race or missing due to injuries, we should mark suspended drivers in results tables with "SUSP". It's as often as injuries, and very relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't mark out drivers who are injured. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just make it easy, combine both exluded and banned under the same code, EX.... There isnt that big a difference...

Exluded = to keep out; prevent from entering Banned = to prohibit, especially by official decree

Blank Excluded/Banned (EX)

--81.167.233.136 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference is pretty big really. There isn't much difference between 15th and 16th either, but they're still different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)