Talk:2013 Formula One World Championship

championship order

Pretty sure Pic should be ahead of VDG due to more 16th finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idratherbeincornwall (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Allow graphs of season progress

Graphs of F1 seasons have previously been rejected for inclusion. A new product, Graphs Made Easy (GME) provides multi-colour line graph lines that may over come the limitations of graphs that previously made them unsuitable. Accordingly, it may be worth investigating GME with a view to using it to make graphs that can effectively enhance the 2013 Formula One season wiki. GME website: www.graphsmadeeasy.com 219.90.190.58 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)johntcp

Wikipedia's preference has always been for text when compared the graphical representation, and graphs would also be duplicating information already presented in the matrix table of results. I can't see this as being of use. We have been looking for ways of cutting down the nuber of tables/graphs etc, so increasing that number is likely to be counter-productive. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some graphs convey much more information than a table: for example, a line graph showing the drivers' standings progression with time (races) presents succinctly much more information than the current drivers' standings table. On the other hand it is important to take into account the page size and corresponding loading time. I did not participate in the past discussion on the subject, however, I would be in favour of including one or two graphs, provided that they are carefully designed and there is indeed a reason for inclusion. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At Monza last year, Vettel trailed Alonso by 39 points and came back to win the championship. You cant get the shape of a season by looking at a table of numbers. Use of thumbnails could save space/cut loading times. (This will be my last comment on the subject.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntcp (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that objection in a sentence. You didn't write it as a graph. So what does that suggest to you is a better method of conveying the information? --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on, this is not a valid argument! Graphs exist because sometimes you present information graphically better than textually; the point is whether this reason exists or not in the context of Wikipedia articles. Browsing through Wikipedia, you can find good and bad examples of both types of information presentation. I don't think that this is a major issue anyway -- a good graph would be easily accepted by most. If we need to discuss this here, then it seems that it is not a good graph :)

P.S.: The F1 application that shows live information about the races uses both ways: it shows graphically the progression of the chart in the race, and in a table form the current lap/sector times etc. Now try to imaging displaying this information the other way around: a graph for the lap/sector timings and a table for the progression. I think you would agree that it just doesn't make sense! Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is, graphs - and tables - are addendums to the narrative. If you want to demonstrate, and I quote: "At Monza last year, Vettel trailed Alonso by 39 points and came back to win the championship" then the best, the very best way, to do that is with text. The sentence performs the function perfectly. Pointing out that Johntcp did that very thing himself underlines it. A less-easily understood graphical presentation is just superfluous. --Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is correct to say you can express 'ALO leads VET by 39 at Monza' in a sentence. This would be one sentence in a page of text that would contain many other descriptive sentences to summarize the season. My point is you can express all these points in one graph that can be understood in a fraction of the time it takes to read a whole page. A graph also tells you where Vettel overtook Alonso, how close the championship was, how far behind Massa was... It's a complete overview that's instantly understandable. Get with the times: Windows beat DOS so long ago, you forgot it existed. And, yes, I did say I wouldn't make any more comments - never say never... Johntcp (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Graphs are not an amazing new digital creation, they are as old as mathematics. I drew them as a kid in the 1980s and they weren't new then. 'Get with the times' is a nonsense statement. And despite it's supposed digital friendly format, I've never once seen them used on TV broadcasts. And they are also used rarely on websites or in print magazines.

It may tell you instantly, but you already know which coloured line corresponds to which driver. Depending on your screen size you'll have to click onto the picture and enlarge it to read the key. And then, unless you have a line for each point reading them with precision is not that easy. So no, it is not an "instant understanding".

I would suggest to you that you seriously over-rate their utility.

And looking at this it's a mess. If that is an example, please no. --Falcadore (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a graph or two on F1 television before now. And, while that particular graph is terrible, a graph is fine when a good job is done of it. It does give an instant understanding. Most of the F1 websites I read use graphs (F1 Fanatic and James Allen to name a few) I agree that a graph could be fine. SAS1998―Talk 22:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sas1998: I welcome your support of graphs, though I was hurt at you describing one of my graphs as 'terrible' *sobs*. That particular graph was of Australian football results, and is actually very effective in giving an overview of the season each team had (easy to read if you know the team colours).
For a graph of F1, see the How To ... page of my website (www.graphsmadeeasy.com). This cumulative graph of points gives an easy to read and succinct season overview. It demonstrates driver standings and points gaps across the season. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a graph is a picture of data.
I've suspect some Wikipedians make a particular page their own little fiefdom, when we all know the underlying concept is free to all. For this reason, they can not bear the inclusion of things that make 'their' page better, unless comes from them - their own contribution is diluted. So, they find all the reasons it can't be included. Johntcp (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that some people do that I would ask you to at least consider the possibility that your feeling that the addition of graphs is an improvement is not universally agreed. Britmax (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an improvement? For some they are - Rentzepopoulos and Sas1998 give in-principle support above. How about this: we put them in for people that get a benefit from graphs, and them who do not - they can just scroll past them. Big picture: the wiki gives more. True or not?
You didn't give your view, Britmax: are you for or against graphs in the F1 2013 Wiki? And please say why. Johntcp (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Britmax is asking you to believe it is possible the graphs are not the be and and end all and the some editors do not believe they add anything. He is not voice his opinion, he is asking you to be considerate of others. --Falcadore (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And just scroll past them is also against what wikipedia is about. By that logic we could add pornographic images and say just ignore them if you don't like them. --Falcadore (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotes of wikipedians (this page):
"a graph is fine when a good job is done of it. It does give an instant understanding... " SAS1998
"Some graphs convey much more information than a table" Rentzepopoulos
(No comment so far: Britmax)
Check out this graph of the 2013 Constructors:
There it is: the story of the season. RBR has dominated - the straightness of their line reflects their consistency in scoring points. Ferrari and Merc have traded 2nd place throughout the season. Lotus were in the hunt for 2nd; they plateaued between Hungary and Singapore, and then made up the gap, but are probably just out of reach now. You can see how far ahead RBR have been from the next three, and how far ahead they are from the rest.
This graphs gives you the big picture at a glance. True, there are limitations - doesn't show the season progress of Caterham/Marussia/Williams. Then again, neither does a table. The graph can be shrunk down to a thumbnail to save space.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - I don't believe anybody has read all of Wikipedia. And it's likely that few read the whole of the F1 2013 wiki - the table of contents to navigates you to what you want. Accordingly, people not interested in a graph of F1 results can cruise past, the same way I do past the map of the world on the F1 2013 wiki.
"Some editors don't believe graphs add anything". This graph could add an easy to understand overview of the 2013 Constructors - surely a worthy addition. Yes, you can do that with words - maybe 1000 if that's what the proverbial picture is worth - some would say a graph is better. People who make statements regarding "what Wikipedia is about" and "who Wikipedia is for" need to cite references in the Wiki guidelines - they can not impose their own beliefs about Wikipedia on the rest of us. Johntcp (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand why you are not winning this. I will state now I don't think the graphs are that good an idea. I made my own graphs (for myself) on Excel for a few years. They were never intended to go on Wikipedia. I found a few issues, which in combination which the issues I have with your idea, I will list below.

How is this useable, especially as the table will be smaller?

1. The drivers' graphs require too many colours. 23 distinct colours for this season. The teams are not much better, needing 11.
2. Your graphs are mostly unreadable because of the colours involved in the lines. Why not make Red Bull just violet, Ferrari red, Mercedes grey, Lotus gold, McLaren black, Force India orange, Sauber cyan, Toro Rosso purple, Williams blue, Caterham green and Marussia scarlet? Should I also mention how unhelpful having the faintest of gridlines at all is? I had to change the angle from which I looked at my PC screen to actually see them, and I didn't actually notice them initially. Oh, and some of the three-letter abbreviations are wrong. Oh, and it really should start from when everyone is at zero.
3. You need four graphs to show everything accurately.
4. They need to be large to be used effectively. A thumbnail is way too small (see right).
5. If they were large, they will get in the way of the useful information. This goes against WP:IINFO point 3.
6. If you want to see what happens when you go table and graph crazy, see the equivalent article on the F1 Wiki (my wiki). Note the loading time. Note how with bar charts the gaps are shown. Note the lack of any line graphs despite it being an F1-centric and stat-happy wiki.
7. Your look like you are trying to promote your website, Graphs Made Easy, via Wikipedia, which I believe is in violation of WP:PROMOTION.
8. Britmax said "when a good job is done of it". Your design... is not done well. At all.
9. Rentzepolous said "some graphs convey much more information than a table". Some, not all, this one fits into the "not helping" category.
10. Rentzepolous and SAS1998 are, like me, standard users of the F1 WikiProject. They are not the de facto leaders of the project. If you could get Falcadore, Prisonermonkeys, DH85868993 and Bretonbanquet to agree with you, then you have a decent argument. But quite frankly, no-one really cares (I'm writing this to help stop you from going on about it. Read WP:STICK.
11. I can read graphs better than most, and let me tell you, you cannot see the story of the season pan out in that 2013 Constructors' graph.
12. And finally, the articles are an overview. They are not detailed information. Why have graphs when we don't have a table of stats that show how many wins, poles, fastest laps, etc. that a driver or a team managed? You are trying to impose your own beliefs against Wikipedia policy (that is, against stat creep) because you want a graph and just two people endorsed it, and (before me) two that went the other way (I should note that it looks as if Britmax disagrees with you). —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dashes

If you look in previous seasons, the dashes that are used are – rather than -. Personally, I think that – looks much better than -. Pch172 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're hyphens in 2012 Formula One season. And if they're not, they should be, per this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not confuse hyphens and dashes!! The gramatically correct thing to do is

• hyphenated-words (normal hyphen, available on the keyboard)
• using dashes you can either do:
  • this part of the sentence is here – because it is (can also be done using alt 1550 on a windows, known as an en dash)
  • this part of the sentence is here—because it is (can also be done using alt 1551 on a windows, known as an em dash). SAS1998―Talk 16:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kimi Räikkönen

A new section has been added to the article to accomodate the driver change at Lotus because of Kimi withdrawing from the remaining two races. However, the info presented in this section is not entirely accurate. As has been revealed in many of the sources Kimi did not sustain his injury during this year's Singapore Grand Prix but has been suffering from it for a much longer time. Some sources trace the injury as far back as a testing incident in 2001. In Singapore, he did indeed suffer a massive flare up of the pain caused by the injury; but that's not where he sustained it. Tvx1 (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Friday Test Drivers?

Should Heikki Kovalainen have some Friday test driver entries? How about other people (test drivers)?

When did Heikki Kovalainen drive on Fridays? I don't really remember any. Perhaps add Danill Kyvat into the list. His presence is fairly important because he will be having a full season in 2014. StandNThrow (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kovalainen drove Friday practice at Japan, Bahrain, Spain, Belgium and Italy at least

Fairly important to the 2014 season article. Utterly irrelevant to the 2013 season article. Unless you actually take part in a grand prix you don't get mentioned. Should spend more time describing the races than tabling minuatae. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Then what's the point in having that category in the legend? It's one thing not to document that, quite another to imply in the legend that the listing includes it and then not put it there.