Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Style question

I was editing Gilby Engineering and noticed that all the cars were listed with separate links for manufacturer and model, i.e: Cooper T45 rather than just Cooper T45. I was going to combine them all as this seemed erroneous, but perhaps that is how things are supposed to be done? Is there a rule for this? At Tyrrell Grand Prix results, both methods are used which is giving me a headache. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In a driver results table, the convention is to link the manufacturer and model separately, e.g. Cooper T45, per the 5th bullet point under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Driver_results_table. The sample constructor/team results table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Constructor/Team_results_table, contains direct links to the models, e.g. Jordan EJ13, but this is not explicitly specified in a footnote. DH85868993 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't like it, but I restored the content accordingly. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I was suggesting that the results table at Gilby Engineering, being a constructor/team results table, should have (for example), links to Maserati 250F, per the sample constructor/team results table, not separate links to "Maserati" and "250F" as would be found in a driver results table. Sorry if my previous comment didn't make that clear. I've updated the table accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@DH85868993: that's much nicer, great.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Results data proposal

I will always keep admire Template:F1stat. And I think it is time to think about a new step to the simpler updates of the results tables.

We update the same info about the result of one driver at least in the four similar tables (we probably can find a way for a driver table).

So my proposal is to keep all the season result data in one template. There are my first concept of the template and demonstration of how it actually works.

I believe that if we store information about one season in the template, it will be good not only for the current season, but for all previous. Because it will be easier to monitor the changes for data in one template, than in four articles.

Hope to hear about disadvantages of my proposal and/or something about how to make my code for the template clearer and easier. If community will be satisfied with the proposal and the code in the current state I will extend the data for all 2020 drivers and create the template. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea. Some comments/questions:

• Can it/does it work when the value in the template has not yet been populated? i.e. at the start of the season, could we populate all the results tables with appropriate references to the template (which at that time would appear blank) and then after each race just update the template and have the results "automagically" appear in all the tables? (If this doesn't currently work, I'm sure we should be able to make it work). Obviously 2020 is a bit of a weird season in that the calendar has changed multiple times; I'm more thinking of a "normal" season where the calendar is set at the start of the season and doesn't change.
• I'm in two minds about whether it's better to have lots of simple templates (e.g. F1-1, F1-2, F1-3, etc) for the different race positions, or to have a single "smart" template which works out the background colour based on a "race result" parameter. Obviously the former arrangement is simpler but more of a maintenance burden. I might have a go at trying to write a "smart" template.
• It would need to support the "dagger" (for classified but did not finish), but I think this should just be as simple as adding the dagger after the call to the lower-level template.
• There are very rare occasions where the standard background colours aren't used, e.g. if a driver finishes 4th but is awarded no points, but we could always just not use the template in those instances.
• It would be good if it worked for "DSQ" (where the text is a non-standard colour), but if that ends up being too hard, we could just not use the template in those instances.
• We'd need to make sure that the template substitutes properly at the end of the season, but that's just a technical issue. I remember when we substituted {{F1stat}} at the the end of the first season - rather than just inserting numbers like "3", it inserted the whole template code!

DH85868993 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and detailed feedback! Yes, it can work without populated value, and we can fill all at the start of the season, but I had to remove the first "|" from the F1-1 and similar templates to make empty cells possible.

I agree that one single "smart" template will be much better, but I haven't find any working examples for table cells at first. I will try to work with Template:Coltit for the solution.

I will think about what to do with different point systems and non-standard bgcolors, probably your proposal is the easiest solution.

It work with DSQ and dagger, exactly like with Template:F1 race position. I have updated my demonstration page. To show this.

As I said previously part of my proposal is to avoid substition at the end of season at all, and use these even for the previous seasons to take away the neccesity of checking that in all tables the same result after somebody's edit. Also it will decrease the level of test and vandal edits in the tables. Other words, I propose to copy the approach of the Template:F1Laps2020 and create templates for every single season. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S.I have changed my single templates to Coltit. It works beautiful, and doesn't require additional template for bgcolor, and now we don't have problems with different point systems and can choose any bgcolor. We almost ready to start to make complete 2020 template. I think that we should also think about how make it work in the driver articles. Via template I was able only to make it upside down, result and link to the GP below. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I notice on the demonstration page that when you hover over a cell, it produces a tooltip of the colour value (e.g. "colour FFFFBF"). I think this is probably undesirable, but that it can be turned off by adding "|x=" to the end of the calls to {{Coltit}}. Apart from that, I think the updated template and demonstration page look good. I'm not entirely convinced about the idea of having templates for previous seasons though:

• Because we rarely need to update the results for previous seasons, it seems to me like a lot of effort for comparatively little benefit, i.e. compared to a template for the current season which means that after each race, we only need to update each driver's result in one place rather than 4.
• Perhaps more of a concern is whether we might hit template transclusion limits in large team results pages, e.g. McLaren Grand Prix results or (especially) Ferrari Grand Prix results. I'd suggest setting up a copy of your template with 20 race results for each of 20 drivers (since we're only testing transclusion limits, they could all be the same result if you like, so it could all be "copy and paste", but maybe use {{F1 race position|10|f|p}}† as the result, as a "worst case scenario"), then doing up a test version of Ferrari Grand Prix results with 2120 (= number of individual Ferrari race entries to date) calls to the template (again, since we're just testing transclusion limits, you could just have 53 repeats of the same season of 2 drivers x 20 races). Then double that to simulate the "Ferrari as an engine supplier" and "non-championship results" tables and a bit of future expansion. If you hit the template transclusion limit you'll know because the bottom of the page won't render properly.

Having said all that, if there are no issues with template transclusions, and you're happy to put in the effort to do templates for previous seasons, I have no objection to them. DH85868993 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your great help with this and noticinig things which I have missed, really appreciate it. I fixed the tooltip issue. And you convinced me to wait and think more about neccesity of adding it to the previous seasons. We can at least wait and see how will work 2020 template. Certanly we should substitute the template at the end of the season in team and engine suppliers articles due to transclusion limits (I have a test and reached the limit, as you said), but I think we don't have neccesity to substitute it in season and chassis article and we can start new template for 2021 season just like with F1laps. I will work on template documentation and then I will add to 2020 season article and 2020 chassis articles.

My proposal for the update algorythm in the drivers' standings is to add f1stat template to the points section, and after the update of the f1 stat and our new template just to copy the driver row to the his current actual position. Using F1stat for the current position wouldn't add much help as it will still require to switch factual location of the rows. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking a lot about or tables and I have been wondering for while wether it wouldn't be a good idea to start using Modules. Modules are far superior to the basic templates we still use an can easily be programmed to automatically perform a myriad of function like for instance adding a specific background color based on the entered value. It's even possible to allow an optional parameter to override the automatically generated color if desired. Other sports Wikiprojects like WP:FOOTY use them extensively and I think we can benefit from them. Module:Sports rbr table actually has functionality that comes close to what we would need.Tvx1 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly like it more than the template as it will also reduce template transclusions, but Module:Sports rbr table doesn't work with Template:F1 race position and even with bold and italics. It will be great if somebody has an ability to write a module for motorsport tables. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course that module is not at present compatible with our needs. But it does quite clearly show a lot of the functionality that we desire. So it could be used as a basis to write a F1 (or even motorsports) module or we could request one be written from the ground up here.Tvx1 18:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tables in F1 driver's articles proposal

We may save some width if we decide to use this option. Corvus tristis (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this idea in general, but I have a few questions/comments:

• How would you handle a mid-season team change, such as we had with Albon and Gasly last year? Obviously we could just list both entrants/chassis/engines in the "entrant/chsssis/engine" line, but I think many readers would be keen for the table to show which races the driver drove for each team.
• The formatting looks quite nice in the sample table, but I'm wondering how it will work with longer entrant/chassis/engine names, e.g. "Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team", Mercedes AMG F1 W11 EQ Performance", "Mercedes M11 EQ Performance 1.6 V6 t", as in the "2020" row of Lewis Hamilton's results table. To partially answer my own question, I tried previewing these names in the sample table and (unsurprisingly) it just made the first 14 columns wider, but I guess this could be overcome by either inserting judicious line breaks in the entrant/chassis/engine names, or perhaps by specifying a fixed width for the table, so that the names wrap automatically?
• Do you propose to continue colour-coding the WDC and Points cells for the top three positions, as we currently do? The current location of these cells, at the extreme right of the table, makes it very easy to quickly see where a driver finished in the championship, e.g. if I look at the right-hand columns of Lewis_Hamilton#Complete_Formula_One_results, for the last 7 rows, I see "gold, gold, silver, gold, gold, gold, gold" which instantly tells me he finished "1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st" in the last 7 championships. In the revised format, that information is still there, but it's buried in between (coloured) race result cells, so it may not be as easy to see at a glance.
• If we decided to update all the driver result tables to the new format, that's over 700 tables to update, so if the benefit is only marginal, then it may not be worth the effort.

DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right the first proposal creates more problems than it solves. So I have a new proposal to use id links to have links for both racing record and results table. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the link from the Career Summary table to the detailed results table. I'm not so sure about the "pared back" detailed results table though. I think most readers would still want to see at least the entrant and WDC position/points columns in the detailed results table. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like this? I have moved the link from extra column to the "Races" column. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is unnecessarily convoluting a already effective system, and, as DH85868993 has mentioned, the benefit (and I would dispute there is any) is marginal compared to difficulty of implementation. These proposals make the results, especially over time, much more difficult to follow (both visually and navigation wise), and the only discernible benefit is less horizontal scrolling. I don't see any added usability from this.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen the last proposal? The first two not on the table anymore (but probably the first one will be good for the chassis as their usage lasts just one season), or you consider this as a better idea?). In general, there are two questions: 1. Why do you oppose an opportunity for quick jump from the racing record table to the relevant line in the result matrix? 2. Are we really need chassis and engine info in the result matrix? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at all the proposals you've posted here, but I take issue with the difficulty in scanning through results and comparing them year by year. The table implemented at the start of this year on the vehicle pages were very effective and I'm a fan of them, but they don't work on driver/team pages for the same reason - it makes scanning through results over years exceptionally difficult.
This test is, in my opinion, the best of your proposals so far. But, as I mentioned in my first reply, I just don't see the advantage of this change. Horizontal scrolling isn't that big of deal, and the loss of easy visual navigation (one row per year, entry on the left, results through the middle, standings on the right) just to reduce page width doesn't sound compelling to me.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is vehicle info is neccesary in the driver result matrix? The main purpose of the table is to give a quick detalisation of results. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• That vehicle information is important for both context of both results and entry, particularly in early years when it was common for a driver or team to use multiple vehicles in a single season. Seeing what vehicle/driver pairings achieved what results is pretty significant for the reader to properly understand what they're seeing. That's completely lost in this system.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:32, 24 July 2020 (UT

Ok, understood, would not push this idea. Though certain that it will not hurt nobody if we introduce scheme with id link from races in racing record to the result matrix with keeping the current format. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Might I remind all of you that Wikipedia possesses many technologies at present, like one that can make this tables scrollable?Tvx1 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• If I'm understanding that documentation correctly, the table is limited to 30 rows. That would be fine for all driver/vehicle articles (assuming they aren't prolific team switchers) but probably wouldn't work in engine manufacturer/team results.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the documentation, extra rows beyond 30 can be added.Tvx1 18:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't oppose the link to jump from career summary to results, but I do oppose any changes to the results table itself.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at 70th Anniversary Grand Prix

There is a move discussion at 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. This is different to the previous discussion which was regarding the inclusion of "70th" in the article name. I invite interested editors to participate in the discussion there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results

I have recently added the 1953 French Grand Prix fastest lap discrepancy to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results and noticed that many of the other disputed results were not discussed on the article talk pages for the particular race (instead either not discussed, or discussed on this page). Given also that the disputed results page is quite hard to find (it's more than one click away from the main wikiproject page for example) I think it would be useful to have some kind of note (perhaps in the form of a template) to put at the top of the relevant article talk pages linking both to the disputed results page and a link to any relevant discussion establishing the consensus interpretation of the sources, but I'm interested in others' views. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Whether we use a template, or just come up with a standardised wording/format, I'm not especially fussed. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support your idea. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely support.
  SSSB (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Seems sensible to me. Good idea to direct them to the disputed results page. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential wording(s)

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but here are two suggestions (one where there was a discussion, one where there was not): Eg for van der Lof at 1952 Dutch Grand Prix:

Reliable sources sometimes disagree about race results. In this case there is disagreement over the result of driver Dries van der Lof. Current consensus is that he was NC (Not Classified). Before changing this, please see the 52 NED entry on the disputed results page, then start a discussion either on this page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. The consensus regarding other disputed results are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results.

For Fisher at the 1967 Mexican Grand Prix:

Reliable sources sometimes disagree about race results. In this case there is disagreement over the result of driver Mike Fisher. Current consensus is that he was DNS (Did not start). Before changing this, please see the 67 MEX entry on the disputed results page, read the archived discussion then start a discussion either on this page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. The consensus regarding other disputed results are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results

Thoughts? A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I should (I think?) that the first sentence is taken directly from the first sentence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented these two since there were no objections. I will probably eventually add the others (probably not the "restarted races" ones which aren't disputed) using more or less the same layout. A7V2 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Imola circuit

With Imola having been announced as a returning venue for the 2020 championship, I have been reading through our article on the circuit. I noticed that our coverage of its early existence is quite poor and even at some spots incorrect. We apparently have no maps depicting its early configurations on Wikimedia. The infobox incorrectly list the version of the circuit used for its inaugural formula one world championship race (in 1980) as the "original configuration". That is quite incorrect. The circuit has existed since the fifties and its original layout was quite different to the one used in 1980 as well as to later revisions. The circuit has even been used for formula one races, albeit non championship ones, before 1980. A full chronology of all the different layouts can be found for instance here.Tvx1 18:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"None" or "TBD" for Next race box

In the "Next_year's_race" section for the race report template should "None" or "TBD" be used when another race hasn't been held? I think it's best to be consistent here. "None" is the text currently in use the most with older Grand Prix entires. I personally don't find that "None" means that no race will ever be held there again but I'd like to get a consensus on this. FozzieHey (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• TBD - firstly I had every intention to apply it across all relevant article. Anyway, to me "none" has an implication of finality behind it (I.e. it implies there won't ever be another one)
  SSSB (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss it here before we change it across all articles to get a consensus, I think it'd be better for a bot to do this if we did get a consensus to change? FozzieHey (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I was simply pointing out that I had no intention of keeping it inconsistent.
SSSB (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Depends on the situation - TBD implies that some sort of effort is taking place to host another race in the near future or that an agreement exist, but it hasn't been confirmed when the next race is expected to be. In case like for instance the Pacific Grand Prix using TBD is just nonsensical. In such a case using none is better. I don't think this has an implication of finality, but only states that no subsequent edition of that race is scheduled to happen in near future.Tvx1 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:F1 race position

Do we really need this template? What does it do which could not do a simple sup tag?

1''' <sup>P F</sup>'''	{{F1 race position|1|f|p}}
1P F	1PF

I see a potential issue with the big articles like Ferrari Grand Prix results and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results because at some point we may reach template transclusions limit and the pages would not load correctly. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging template creator: @Krea:
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The template was created as a result of this discussion. I think one of the perceived advantages of using a template is that if that we decide in the future to change the formatting/annotation used to denote pole position and fastest lap (again), it only needs to be changed in one place, (the template) rather than in all the individual results tables. DH85868993 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't deny this advantage. But what will you do when you reach template transclusions limit? P.S. Also the template doesn't work inside the module if we will decide to use it at some point. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

First thought is we would split it (Ferrari Grand Prix results (1950-2029) and then Ferrari Grand Prix results (2030-)). Then we can either have them as separate pages (with a summary on the main page) or transclude them into the main page (if that's a way of going around the transclusion limit). (I.e. Ferrari results would have a code of {{Ferrari Grand Prix results (1950-2029)}} {{Ferrari Grand Prix results (2030-)}}
SSSB (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have no more questions on this one, thank you both. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Headings to break up the 2020 season

Typically when discussing the season we break it up into multiple sections. For example, the 2019 season is broken up into "Opening rounds", "European rounds", and "Closing rounds", while the MCL34 article is even more specific and refers to "Opening rounds" (4 events), "European and Canadian rounds" (10 events), "Asian rounds" (3 events), and finally "Closing rounds" (4 events). Presumably, this is done for ease of navigation and to break up the 'legs' of the season. However, I have no idea how we're going to split up this season given it is almost entirely on continental Europe. I would tend towards not splitting this season, but if it reaches its expected length of 15–18 races it would be useful. Seasons such as 2001 that were not split resulted in big walls of text. However, if we are going to split it up, how will we go about it? One possibility would be to split it evenly into groups of 5 or 6 races labelled "Opening rounds", "Mid-season rounds", and "Closing rounds", but these are clearly less useful than the geographic labels.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Template:F1R2020

Hi, everyone. I have an idea how to make possible work the template {{F1R2020}} with "Complete Formula one results" tables in the drivers article. This is the demonstration of how it works. I don't went all WP:BOLD and implemented it because I am not sure if it is easy solution for our community to use in regular updates. But I believe that the benefit of updating all the data in one place is huge and prevails. I think it is ridiculous that we need to open and edit such amount of articles if a driver got a penalty for example. The line of code for Bottas Austria 2020 update if we decide to implement this:
| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{safesubst:<noinclude />#switch: {{{3|}}} | WDC = '''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>}}{{F1 race position|1|p}}

So, what do you think? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of not having to manually update the driver results tables after every race, and having the tables auto-update using {{F1R2020}} (in the same way that the car results tables, constructor results tables and Championship tables in the season summary article do). However, I see a couple of issues:

1. It makes the markup for each line of {{F1R2020}} quite complex (although, in reality, it's likely to be either you or me updating the template after every race anyway, so that's probably not that much of a problem), and
2. For drivers like Hamilton, Bottas and Verstappen, the "2020" rows in their results tables will have "P" and "F" for pole and fastest lap (as well as bold and italics), whereas the rows for preceding years won't, which might cause confusion for some readers.

I think we might be better off sticking with manual updates to the driver results tables for the rest of 2020 and then have a discussion about whether we want to update the driver results tables (either for current drivers or all drivers) to use the "P" and "F" notation throughout. Alternatively, if people are happy for current driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation, we could probably update those fairly quickly (and populate the cells for the remaining 2020 races with {{F1R2020}}), and then have a discussion later on about whether we want to update all driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation. DH85868993 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with the P and F notation (personally I don't see any downside) but I do see a potential problem if only half of the results matrices use letters. It not so much a problem if different articles use a different style temporariy (so long as the new key is made clear) but it is a problem if Lewis Hamilton has 13 rows of just bold and italics and for row 14 we suddenly add Ps and Fs. Its confusing.
SSSB (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather continuing doing the results manually personally, but then I mainly focus on tables away from F1, 2 and 3 which do not receive such "quick" attention after a weekend. I'm not sure how it would work for other series either, take the WEC or GT World Challenge for example, not every driver either has a page or has a results table. Would you complete their results as well? I also dislike having P and L next to the number as it makes it look cluttered and clunky in my eyes and that's just in the tables on each series' page. Alright I understand not every driver has the amount of poles and fastest laps in their table that Lewis Hamilton has for example, but frankly I don't see what is wrong with bold and italics. If someone really doesn't understand, that's what the Key is for which is basically universal anyway. RewF12012 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained countlessly, using font variations like bold and italics is an accessibility issue. And in all honesty, I find it very difficult to spot bold and italics in some very large tables.Tvx1 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well I've not been part of those explanations so forgive me for not knowing about what accessibility issue this would cause. And I'm sorry you have those issues with spotting fonts. However in my mind, some people may have equal issues in making out P and Fs with numbers as well. Unfortunately you can't please everyone. RewF12012 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, we can't possible make everybody happy. However, through the discussions we established that using the P and F letters cater to more people than the font variations and thus we chose the former. We ignored the accessibility issue prior to 2019 because poles and fastest laps were supplementary information and not vital. However since then points were awarded for one of these concepts and we finally decided to rectify the accessibility issue.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• If we don't want the P and F notations in the driver articles, update all the tables with the templates to have this notations in all tables and have a code that a bit clearer we may use this solution. It leaves table in the driver articles exactly like it looks now. But it will require to add the information twice. Example of the code for Bottas Austria 2020 data:| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{F1 race position|1|p}} | AUT2 = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}}'''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>1
  

Although it still makes our life easier because we don't have to open and edit 20 pages, we edit just one template. And we have more certainty that in all articles with the template is the same data, and it will be easier to spot if it is not. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. I wonder if it would be worth adding "WDC pos" (with appropriately coloured background) and "Points" (with appropriately coloured background) to {{F1R2020}} as well - that way we shouldn't need to update the driver tables at all after each race. (I'm aware there's already a "Points" field without a coloured background in {{F1R2020}} that's used in the Drivers' Championship table, but if we can have two versions the race result, I don't see why we can have two versions of Points as well). DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Support your idea. Do we really need to wait the start of 2021 then? I think we can wait till the week in Spa for the other comments. If we did not get arguments why we should not do it, we can implement it. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I would support applying the P and F letters to all the pre-2019 tables as well. After all the current font variations in these tables are an accessibility problem.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against despite I personally don't like it. But I can not deny the accessibility problem, so the letters is probably the only solution here. I am not that interested to do such task due to other wiki tasks, will be happy if someone will do it. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we could actually request a bot for that.Tvx1 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@RewF12012: The creation of the template does not require to make work of the template happen all the driver articles and/or result tables in them. I.e. you have articles for drivers A-Y, but you have not article for driver Z, then you update the data for all the drivers (A-Z) which will be featured in the drivers' and teams' standings and update the second parameter for the tables in the driver A-Y articles and just not creating parameter for driver Z. Also really don't understand what is the motivation behind the manual updates. It requires to do the same actions but with excessive opening, editing and saving, and you brought the information to the reader much slower. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My motivation is because I enjoy doing it. The results tables, honestly are my only real thing I care about on driver articles. Why do you think I go through and do so many? I'm not contending that it would be simpler, but for my, shall we say, simple thinking mind in this case, it's like taking away something I enjoy. And frankly, I don't even know how to get to these templates. I'm just here to help out with what was a pretty simple thing to do. But there we go. I barely ever do F1, 2 or 3 anymore as they are done fairly quickly and now with these templates, potentially even faster. I get the P and F's being handy in the Championship tables on the championship tables, but I still don't see the need in the driver's tables. And you can say accessibility all you like, it doesn't change my opinion, sorry (mainly because I don't have any of these problems myself, but that is of course, not a particularly valid argument against). So clearly I can't nor do I really look to change anyone else's as it has already been discussed and changed. So when do these get rolled out to WEC, BTCC, NASCAR, Indy etc? RewF12012 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume that if nobody will express interest to change the bold/italics in WEC, BTCC, etc than nothings gonna change. The same with templates, I see only the interest from WP:F1 community now, but not from WP:MOTOR (the editors who commonly updates result cells), so I would not push for it. My proposal now is only to create a template for interested editors, but I haven't time to update everything. If everyone fine with the current state, then would be it. Anyway thank you for your opinion on both F1 and other series aspects of the proposal. P.S. If you want to ask anything about templates in general, you may visit my talk page. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Don Edmunds

Sources differ regarding Don Edmunds' date of death. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Don Edmunds#Date of death. DH85868993 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes/Trivia

Noticing there is a return to trivia sections - again labelled as "Notes" in grand prix articles. Can a stop be put to this again and restore these "notations" to race reports? --Falcadore (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

100% agreement. Trivia/notes sections are against Wikipedia's policies. There is even a maintenance template for these sections asking editors to intergrate them into prose ({{trivia section}}).
SSSB (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like the current version of 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix (permanent link in case it changes)? That article contains a whole 3 separate "notes" sections but I'm not sure there's much that could be done about them as they all really are just explanatory notes? Could you give an example of what you mean if not that? A7V2 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@A7V2: this is the kind of section I mean (but Falcadore may be targeting something different.)
SSSB (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes definitely that is just quite arbitrary trivia. Especially bad is "21 of the 24 race starters were race winners at some point during their career; the remaining three (Jarier, Stuck and Giacomelli) would all have podium finishes" - this could be done for any race, and where would one draw the line as to when to mention it and when not to?! I would definitely support removing these kinds of things, or at least put them in the report somewhere (but even then I'm not sure I'd bother mentioning unless it was something really interesting like the 1961 Dutch Grand Prix which has three things in the notes section, all of which are probably worth putting in the lede/report. A7V2 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Points in brackets

I believe that the decision to show RP's points prior deduction is wrong and confusing. If I see this information in brackets for the first time I should read the note anyway to understand what numbers are actual. So the better decision is to left this info for the note solely and show only the actual points which we can verify. I maybe wrong, as it is only my assumption but none of the sources tracks amount of points without deduction. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. No sources keep records of points scored if penalties had not been issued. These points no longer exist therefore should not be tracked at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How about McLaren in 2007? Keeping those points show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed. It accounts for why total awarded points in the season doesn't match total points in the standings. Most importantly, it gives readers context on the team's actual performance rather than their apparent performance. I think it's appropriate to keep for context, and I do not see how it could be confusing.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I just don't think it should be in the table as it is a table of facts. Would haves and if onlys don't belong in it. This stuff is important but should be explained in text with a footnote. Again, do any other sources include points teams would have scored if they hadn't cheated? Their actual performance was that they cheated, so they didn't score any constructor points. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But the points were still awarded, weren't they? So it would be suitable to report Racing Point's total before the penalty was applied, same as we did for McLaren in 2007.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• @5225C: Thank you for this case, because it is combo. If you remember McLaren not only lost WCC points at all, but also lost the 15 points in Hungary, so basing on your logic we are obligate to show this fantasy points based on actual performance too and it will be "0 (McLaren points with deduction) (McLaren points without deduction)" and also move their row behind the Ferrari to give such context. On this case confusion is even bigger. 166 points are the points with or without Hungary deduction? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that there should be two layers. The first is factual what we actually see in every source. Because it maybe just a reader who just want to quickly get the verifiable factual information without reading the note or trying to understand why he sees two or three different amounts of points. The second is the note (with an article itself as well) for the readers who desire to know the reason why McLaren has zero points. Showing points in the brackets is imposing of the information which I may be don't need at all. Like if I want to know what comes from 2x2 and calculator shows me 4 (5-1). Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this is confusing for a reader at all, even in the McLaren case as everything is adequately explained in the notes. This issue is very simple: the number itself represents the championship points, the number in the brackets indicates the total points scored before the penalty. This is explained in the note.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, place yourself in the shoes of reader who wants just quickly retrieve factual information without reading a note and who does not know in case of RP meanings of each amount of points. From this side I don't understand why I should have distracting inverifiable info in brackets. If we already have note, the info in brackets gives us more help or overload us with unnneccesary stuff? I think that the note itself is quite explanatory already. Corvus tristis (talk)

Once again, this is not confusing. And if it is, that's what the note is for. No reader is going to be in such a rush they cannot take the additional few seconds to read the note.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, with regards to McLaren in Hungary 2007, there was no deduction. They were penalized prior to the race and never scored any constructors' points at all there. Likewise, they weren't awarded any more points following their disqualification prior to the Belgian Grand Prix.Tvx1 09:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correction, but it is not the point. The point is that this is bad both visual and factual solution to use. Can you even prove that this amount of points exists in the standings of any sources? I'm okay if we place this amount as an explanation, but it definetely should not be the part of standings table. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know why you ask me. I have no strong feelings either way. As long as we don't list points competitors were never awarded (as was the case for a long time for McLaren in 2007.Tvx1 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the precedent here rather worrying? Wouldn't this also have to apply to Michael Schumacher in 1997, or any "gross" points for 1990 and prior? Strongly keep the points in parenthesis. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. Schumacher was never stripped of his points. Only his position.Tvx1 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Infrequent editor here in the project throwing in an opinion. I don't think it matters whether or not the bracketed points are confusing or distracting. They just don't belong in the table. RP was penalized. Those points are gone. Has anyone found a source that's tracking them? If the sources aren't doing it, we shouldn't either. Yes, what happened is an important part of the season, so keep it in the note, but the bracketed total itself is trivia. --DB1729 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)