Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship

World Constructors' Championship standings

Can't edit it, but on constructors standing two "Ret" must be for Hulkenberg rather than Sainz. Macaldo (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Constructors’ standings aren’t tied to the drivers. They just list the constructors’ results in ascending order. For the drivers' results, please refer to the drivers' table.Tvx1 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Change the layout of the matrices", you said. "It won't be confusing", you said. And even when WP:F1 formed a consensus to revisit those changes, you rejected them and insisted that it wasn't a problem. Yet here we are with another editor who doesn't understand the layout of the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The design of the Constructors' standings table is an absolute fucking omnishambles, to be honest. Why bother to break it down into separate cars and have all that extra information? All that matters is how many points the constructor scored in each race, because all the other information is available in the Drivers' standings table. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The other user has kindly been explained how it works. It's much easier this way once replacement drivers start coming in. Tvx1 15:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Any system that needs "explanation" from other editors is broken. Please consider a new design. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because one editor makes a mistake we don’t have to overhaul said section. Otherwise we’d constanter be overhauling these articles. That’s knee-kerk reacting and is the exact opposite of how we should act.Tvx1 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Macaldo, Prisonermonkeys and I all think the current table needs to be changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessy — common sense says as much. But Tvx1 has been insisting for months that a) this is the best way forward and b) given enough time, people will get used to it (which clearly hasn't happened). He refuses to even allow the possibility of reviewing the changes at WP:F1, much less revert them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This format was properly and thoroughly discussed at the WikiProject. The discussion was closed with a consensus in favor of the change by an uninvolved person. This all went through the correct process. It works perfectly on four of the five articles it is used on. And it does on the articles of other Motorsports season articles which have a similar stance towards the constructors/manufacturers championship. 2018 Formula One World Championship is literally the only article where there is some minor trouble. But it isn't serious at all. There were just three relevant edits last month. That's nothing meriting such a hysterical overreaction again. One user posted a question, received a kind answer and has not made any further complaint since. Stop making such a drama out of this. For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine.Tvx1 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in linking the two rows to the two cars (no matter who drives them), then you get a quick look on how the two cars performed over the season and you can see if the "second" car outperformed the favorite car (like MAG/GRO and RIC/VER) Tuelund (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"This format was properly and thoroughly discussed at the WikiProject."

No, it wasn't. A group of editors wanted to review its effectiveness and you refused to even entertain the idea.

"For every person making a relevant edit, there are 8 000 visitors to the article who understand everything just fine."

Where is your evidence of that? A lack of edits does not mean that it is automatically understood. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many people just view and don't edit. You lose a good view of the performance between the two cars when best result is always first. I use the old format a lot to have a good view of the battle between teammates. That is gone now. It also had the start number in the constructor results in the past. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Formula_One_World_Championship#Results_and_standings for instance. Much better than the current layout (adding numbers to the drivers standings would be prefered) Sjon 25-6-2018

@Tvx1: Consensus can change, and it clearly needs to because a majority of editors here have expressed confusion and/or a dislike of this system. In the Constructors Championship, the driver of the cars is irrelevant. All that matters is the total number of points scored by the team at a given race, and whether or not the constructor won a given race. All the other stuff in the table is confusing crap that largely replicates what it says in the Drivers Championship table. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey — a few weeks ago, a group of editors wanted to review the changes to the matrix in light of a series of edits that suggested readers did not understand the new format. Despite having the numbers to start a review discussion, Tvx1 denied that there was any need for such a discussion and it never happened. He treats a consensus like an annoying inconvenience if he disagrees with it. I fully expect the same thing to happen here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, I didn't understand the matrix either and was convinced that there was a embarrassing mistake in the results, it is not intuative. Tuelund (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please change the table to reflect which drivers scored the points for the team. I don't edit this page but I use it from time to time as reference (for non-Wikipedia related hobby thingies). The table is next to useless in its current state. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So there seems to be a considerable call to change the system of the table. Although I'm utterly confused with Scjessey's stance. They say. "All that matters is the total number of points scored by the team at a given race, and whether or not the constructor won a given race." Well, that's exactly all that the current version includes with the addition of the important fact which position the constructors achieved in the championship. So what are they so frustrated about then? The change implemented at the start of the season exactly fixed what they complained about. The constructors table focussing to much on the drivers. So what's the problem then. Anyway, back when I proposed a change, I did so because I felt that the constructors tables were deviating from their purpose when more and more rows kept being added with for each and every driver make even a single entry resulting in the table being blown up unnecessarily and getting incredibly confusing. Last year's table had five rows for Toro Rosso alone, two of which were for one and the same driver (as can be seen here). So I'm convinced that we can find a compromise whereby we tied the results to the cars (but not the drivers or indeed their numbers without creating a new row for each driver. I proposed something to that effect when I proposed the change but the discussion rather quickly settled on listing the results in ascending order. My initial proposal would be indentical to the one the German wiki uses without complaint.Tvx1 19:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with Tvx1's original proposal from October (i.e. 2 rows per constructor with a number column) - it avoids unnecessary "bloat" but still makes the order of the table immediately obvious. (The main reason I proposed a reversion to "one row per driver/car number" back in May was that it was easier to implement, i.e. a simple reversion to an old revision of the article - I would also have been happy with Tvx1's original proposal from October). DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Last year's table had five rows for Toro Rosso alone, two of which were for one and the same driver"

Which was an unusual situation to say the least. Having five rows to the Toro Rosso results was awkward, but reacting to that and that alone was a mistake. Especially since the system we now have arguably has issues throughout it. In a perfect world, we would have a solution that was easy to read and concise—but we have to accept that that may not be/probably is not possible, so we have to look to alternatives. Having one matrix with an awkward (albeit still clear) entry beats having dozens of confusing matrices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t react to that alone and I never claimed so. It was just the final straw mich made me decide to propose a change. As I pointed out, there are still alternatives which are not what we currently have and which do not have the unnecessary extra rows.Tvx1 00:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you share some examples? I know you linked to the German Wikipedia, but you say there are several alternatives?

Also, could you please post the examples directly into this discussion (or at WT:F1)? That way people don't have to go off-wiki to evaluate them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for more than two rows. A team never has more than two cars in a race. Last year Renault changed PAL for SAI midway, but SAI just overtook that PALs car and you could clearly see that the car suddenly made points. Tuelund (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for more than one row. In the Constructors' Championship, the only things that matter are the net number of points achieved by the two cars in each race, and whether or not one of the cars won. All the other details are only relevant to the Drivers' Championship table. I don't understand the need for all this complexity. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s not quite true. The actual positions can determine the WCC positions in case of tie.Tvx1 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

But that information is already in the drivers' table. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The WCC can be decided on countback independently of the WCC results. You're assuming that because the information is in the driver matrix, it's redundant to have it in the constructor matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Both tables are shite, to be honest. Have you seen them on mobile? You have to horizontally scroll for miles, including (most ridiculously) to see the legend - a thing I've complained about before. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is primarily a desktop site. Perfection is impossible. One cannot simply read the constructors' positions from the WDC table. More often than not constructors use more than two drivers and, like the last couple years, drivers can drive for more than one constructor during a season. It is not clear from the WDC table which positions belong to which constructors whence we need them in the WCC table as well.Tvx1 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A simplified table like this seems to be sufficient for formula1.com. The current level of complexity is confusing everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the 2014-2018 tables are causing confusion. Nobody else has reported being confused by the 1979-2013 tables, which are very similar, apart from the significant difference of having a "car number" column, which instantly indicates how the table is ordered. DH85868993 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I checked with the editor who closed the October discussion and it was his view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal in that discussion, i.e. "two rows per constructor with a number column", not what was implemented, i.e. "two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result". Would people be happy to try the original proposal (which is essentially the same as the 1979-2013 format) and see how it goes? DH85868993 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That has the same problem (albeit not to the same extent) as the current format—it's not immediately obvious how the results are arranged. Readers would have to compare the constructors' matrix to the drivers' matrix in order to understand it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that the table is ordered by the "Pos." column then by the "No." column. For clarity, here are the first few rows of the 2016 table using the format I'm proposing (copied from the October discussion):

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26/33	DNS	7	3	15	1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4

I still think there is value in having separate rows for separate entries within a team. The whole purpose of the matrix is about more than just showing the final result. It's about showing how the teams got that final result. We already acknowledge as much considering that the shows how a countback applies. There are countless examples of how a team's WCC campaign changed when they swapped drivers, but for some reason people insist that each constructor must be limited to two rows for now better reason than to minimise the amount of empty spacd in the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This has all already been explained in the discussion last October. The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story. We have a season report to tell the stories of driver swaps and their performances. It's also not a provable fact that a driver swap alone affected a constructors' campaign. There are many other factors which affect that as well. (Failed) Updates to the cars or power units. Reliability issues. A string of (un)favorable events in consecutive races. Reliability issues of other constructors, etc. Those are the exact reason why we have a season report. That's where we can tell the story and give context. The WCC table's sole intent is to list the physical outcome of said championship with only the vital information. The things that are actually use to determine the outcome. These are the constructors, their points and the positions they achieved. The drivers' individual results belong in the WDC table. There was never any request to split out the Drivers' individual results in the WCC table prior to 2014, so I can't see at all why it would be vital to do so now.Tvx1 11:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, out of respect I'm going to ping everyone who participated in the discussion from last October, which resulted in the current system, who has not yet contributed here. Myself, Prisonermonkeys and DH85868993 are already here, so that leaves Zwerg Nase, Sr88, Corvus tristis, Cherkash and Wikipediaeditperson.Tvx1 12:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"The WCC table is not a catch-all solution intended to tell the season's whole story."

And yet by virtue if its design, that's exactly what it does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So, are we doing something about this or what? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure - see proposal below. DH85868993 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: update the 2014-2018 Constructors' Championship tables as per the resolution of the October discussion

i.e. implement Tvx1's original proposal from the October discussion = "two rows per constructor, with a number column", e.g. the first few rows of the 2016 table would look like this:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26/33	DNS	7	3	15	1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4

noting that the editor who closed the October discussion was of the view that there was consensus for Tvx1's original proposal (pictured above), not the last option discussed ("two rows per constructor, no number column, ordered by result"), which is what was implemented.

Survey

• Support, as proposer. DH85868993 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle; I don't like the current system but have concerns about the implementation as this is what we will wind up with in the 2017 article:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4
		10/26/28/39/55	4

"Messy" doesn't even begin to describe it. Having a separate row for each number might have its issues, but at least it's clear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — I've played around with it and I have a mock-up of an alternative format here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your alternative format would still end up with 4 rows for Toro Rosso in 2017, wouldn't it? Toro Rosso in 2017 (= the worst case) can be represented like this:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
7	Toro Rosso	26/10	9	Ret	12	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	16	15	11	12	12	Ret	14	13	10	13	12	16	53
		55/39/28	8	7	Ret	10	7	6	Ret	8	Ret	Ret	7	10	14	4	Ret	Ret	13	Ret	Ret	15

which I don't think is too bad. DH85868993 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still confusing. Why are the numbers not arranged sequentially? Why does it contradict the driver table, which treats #26 as two separate entries? And I don't see what the issue with four rows is except trying to minimise vertical space. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The numbers could be arranged sequentially. Personally, I don't have an issue with four rows (you may recall that my proposal back in May would have meant a return to five rows for Toro Rosso in 2017), but others seem to find that unpalatable. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — which I supported at the time. Arguably we had a consensus for change back then, but it never happened because certain people opposed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no need to break what works fine. It is just matter of a time till the current format will become a habit. GP3 Series since arrival of the fourth car for some teams in 2016 hasn't any issues with the same format which sorts by best results like we have in F1 now. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — for one, GP3 uses a different scoring system where only the top two cars score points. But more importantly, the matrix here is clearly an issue since so many people are having trouble with it even six months after its introduction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, top three cars, and secondly and the most important that the current format universal for different scoring systems (when one, two, three cars counts towards constructors'/manufacturers'/teams' championship), while the format with numbers doesn't. And it seems that for almost two weeks and two races of the triple header there aren't any troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The problems have been happening intermittently since the matrix was changed. Don't assume that stability means the problem has been resolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may call it the problem, but the proposed solution carries more troubles. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to explain them? Because right now, the current system is causing mass confusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"10/26/28/39/55" (or 26/10 and 28/39/55) are non-encyclopedic mess, which will confuse more than the current format which doesn't confuse me at all. Your proposal slightly better, but it is still more a trivial than a necessary function which expands table which already quite large. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They're not unencyclopaedic at all. They're directly linked to the entry list and when used properly, clearly show which entries scored which results, which directly addresses the issues people are having with the matrix. But for some insane reason we're limited to two rows for each entrant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle It should be a row for each number entered for that constructor. The only reason why this is a mess, is because of the personal driver numbers we didn't have before 2014. That is why nobody complains about the old format and it was clear as day which car scored best, because drivers replacing injured drivers had no seperate number. I don't see the point in limiting the constructor to two lines only. There isn't a puppy killed for every line made. ;-). Moreover you shouldn't rule by exception (80-20 rule). The Toro Rosso <> Renault mess from last year is very rare. Accept that it can happen and move on. Sjon 3-7-2018 Edited 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's much clearer and easier to read. More importantly it separates which drivers scored or didn't score points in races. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Still confusing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: between this discussion and previous ones, I think there is a clear consensus for change. What form that change takes remains to be seen. At this stage, I suggest we implement the proposed changes but continue the discussion with a view to fine-tuning the final matrix. I know there is still some opposition out there, but if I am reading the comments correctly, it's more opposition to the detail rather than opposition to the idea of change. Given the ongoing problems with the format, I think it's imperative that we make the change now. We can worry about the specifics later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are free to interpret any way you want, but we don't have a clear consensus for change. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the only person who is opposed to any change. The only other person who has expressed opposition is @Scjessey and I don't think he's opposed to change in general, just the particular proposal. Consensus does not need to be unanimous to be valid, simply because you'd get one person voicing opposition and using it to thwart the consensus from being reached. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should not assuming for Scjessey? I am pretty sure that he doesn't delegated authority to conduct a discussion on his behalf. The last time the change of the format was performed after the discussion was closed by neutral person. You are involved in the dispute, so you can't just pronounce a consensus when it wasn't actually reached. And only two days passed since start of the survey. So it is clear that not all users who may be interested in the survey have expressed their thoughts. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my views about the tables are more or less in line with those of Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs). I confess I am having trouble articulating exactly what I want to see in a table, except that the matrix needs to be simplified to make it easier to understand. The fact that several have expressed confusion makes it clear we need to work on it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But you expressed your opinion that the WCC table should only list points? That‘s quite far away from what Prisonermonkeys wants.Tvx1 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support change because I think anything is better than the current system. I'm not a fan of the proposal to keep using the number column, but limit each constructor to two rows—I think it's unnecessary, restricting and has the potential to cause confusion of its own kind—but even that is better than what we have now. I think we could reasonably change it to the current proposal, but continue the discussion to fine-tune the format. Fix the big problem first, then worry about the little one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, it works fine and displays all the information relevant to the WCC. The FIA has been using this format for many years as well, without any obvious need or desire to change it, as again, to state the obvious, this reflects everything there is to reflect about the WCC. cherkash (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: we're constantly getting complaints about it; the first part of this discussion is testament to that. That suggests that it does not "work fine". And just because the FIA do it, that doesn't mean we're obligated to do it that way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the FIA should be regarded highly in the 'make things clear' department while their own rulebook is as clear as mud. Sjon 9 July 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.12.33 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: PM here, posting from an IP address. We need to do something about this. 1.144.106.92 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Things have been stable for three weeks. No complaints for roughly two weeks. There is no clear "need" to do something. The discussion has divided opinions. Stop trying to bludgeon through a change.Tvx1 13:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I haven't complained lately because I cannot think of an alternative that will satisfy my concerns, while being palatable to the editors who prefer the status quo, but I still think what we have is incomprehensible to the layman. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm so glad a minority of editors can effectively hold an article hostage by dragging a discussion out. 1.129.110.42 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
        • That's a pretty stupid and inflammatory comment. This discussion is about whether or not to change a thing, and the "minority" you speak of is seeking the change. Since the minority cannot win a consensus for a change (we can't even decide what form that change should take, in fact), the article will remain the same and the majority prevails. Ergo, nobody is holding the article hostage, FFS. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • @Scjessey — far from it. There are some people (and I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, just across Wikipedia) who believe that because consensus is not a vote, the only legitimate way to achieve consensus with a unanimous and unilateral agreement; in other words, every single person in the discussion must agree to it, and if there is any dissent—even one in s hundred or one in a thousand—the consensus is invalid. These people then use that belief to deliberately force a WP:NOCONSENSUS by opposing changes they dislike. Reading over this discussion, there is a clear appetite for change. However, to deny that appetite for change simply enables people who rort the system. 1.144.110.202 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • I am one of the people who thinks consensus is not about voting. I would expect each "voter" to express reasons for their vote, or it would certainly carry far less weight. But I am definitely not a person who thinks consensus should be unanimous. That's a totally unworkable standard. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Which is my point—people abuse the system to prevent changes they don't like. Reading this discussion, there is a clear desire for change; however, failing to act on that desire only enables those who abuse the system. 1.129.106.52 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I said though, there's disagreement about what form that change should come in. Until we can work out a good solution, it makes sense for the current version (which has been relatively stable) to remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey — the problem is that the current version is the worst possible version and despite the obvious appetite for change, nobody seems to be inclined to do anything about it. 1.129.109.150 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is there is no clear consensus at all in favor of any change. A number of people stated an appetite for a change. An equal number stated their appetite not to change anything. That's the clear example of a divided opinion. Meanwhile things have stabilized again. No complaints for a weeks and stability on the template for a month. The only person who has actually been constantly complaining about the change even before it was implemented was you. You just never wanted it, and once it was implemented you have jumped at every opportunity to try and force a reversal through. You have never even considered giving it a fair chance. The reality is that other people think otherwise and at Wikipedia the community decides. And here the community is divided at the moment.Tvx1 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it still works fine. It has been stable again for a month now. While I have no prejudice to implementing the original proposal from last fall, I would currently prose to keep the current system with a moratorium on further discussing it, for the sake of stability, until the end of the season and make a proper evaluation, if required, thereafter.Tvx1 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: To be fair, the "stability" is a function of talk page indecision. Only edit-warring douchebags would dick around with the existing table in the absence of a solid consensus for change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

He's also perfectly well aware that the stability is a result of the matrices being in a template rather than the article itself, an approach that was introduced years ago to keep the matrices stable. To suggest the article is somehow more stable now is a misrpresentation. And Tvx1 is very good at misrepresenting things. 1.144.111.231 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the article, not the editor. Casting aspersions like that is not acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The template wasn't stable at all. The bouts of edits to it were what resulted to this discussion in the first place. These edits have subsided and there is utter stability right now. Regardless, it's my good right to state my opinion of being opposed to a change.Tvx1 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Little suggestion: May be it will be a good idea to add a note above or below the standings table, that all rows are sorted by best results? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• The problem there is that the matrices already have notes attached to them. We shouldn't be relying on notes to explain the format of the table, especially when we can solve the problem by formatting the matrices properly. 1.144.111.110 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• It wouldn't rely on it. It's just an extra courtesy to the readers. I think it's a reasonable proposal.Tvx1 11:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's not an extra courtesy. It's needing to explain something that should be obvious from looking at the matrix, which makes it a case of poor design. 1.144.106.222 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is a courtesy because it isn't necessary for the table to exist. Even without it is clear where which constructors stands in the championship and how they got there.Tvx1 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Really? 1.144.106.214 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• @C1010 evidently thinks it's a problem. I don't see how you can blindly deny that it's an issue given the wealth of evidence that clearly demonstrates the issue. 1.144.106.214 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, one edit in more that a month. That's a real drama. And there issue wasn't even with which constructor stands where, the table's sole purpose. Others clearly don't think it's a problem. It's time you stop denying them. TTvx1 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• And what about the stesdy stream of IP editors and registered users who have all voiced their concerns since your system was introduced? Are you just going to deny them, too? 1.144.105.135 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who would like to see a change, but until we can come up with a better solution we should just leave it as it is. Perhaps we can create a sub page to explore new ideas? In the meantime, you need to stop hassling Tvx1. It is bordering on harassment at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion. Instead of a results matrix - when results are already well covered in the drivers table - why not transform it into a points matrix? Then the problem is solved completely. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In case of tie on points, a certain position (not amount of points) is achieved determines the outcome, so your suggestion is totally irrelevant. Clear example: Caterham vs Marussia in 2012. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That's something that could reasonably be annotated. I like the idea. 1.144.106.222 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is not irrelevant, don't be so over-dramatic. You just have to consider the basic question what is the more important aspect of the table, points scored or race result achieved? If the table exists to detail the Constructors championship, then points is the obvious method as the race results do not indicate points. A reader has to calculate the points themselves. We should not be using tables as a replacement with narrative. If there is a tie in points you should explain that with text in the body of the article. Using a table does not do that adequeately as you have to know what the tie-breaking mechanism is in order to read that in a list of numbers. We cannot assume a reader knows this. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia editting. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not everyone speaks "table". --Falcadore (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, every constructor has scored points this year. We only need the more complex table if we have a tie breaker situation, otherwise a simple points table will be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The tie-breaker rules don’t only apply when multiple constructors fail to score points. They also apply when two more constructors score the same amount of points. And our readers don’t have to calculate anything. We provide the totals for them. Neither do they need any prior knowledge. The tie-breaking is explained directly above the table.Tvx1 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the table has lots of redundant info that makes it harder to comprehend. We only need to show data related to tie breaks at the end of the season, and only if it is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyway the point was it is an option that fixes the problem. Remembering that tables are addendum to the text, not the other way around. --Falcadore (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And that's exactly how it functions. The season reports gives the detailed story, the table gives the simple outcome of the championship. It just lists where which constructors finished. We're really speculating a problem into existence here.Tvx1 00:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

But the question is whether or not it carries out that function as effectively as it can. Countless editors, both registered an IP alike, have voiced displeasure with the current system. More than enough to justify changing it, but you have either dismissed, ignored or explained them away and insisted that there is nothing wrong with the current system. @Falcadore has a point: the matrix requires the reader to cross-reference the results with the points summary table and manually add everything up to understand how the championship played out—and that doesn't sound terribly intuitive to me. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That's just not true. No one has to cross-reference of manually add up anything. We provide the points total for them in the column labeled "points". The table perfectly shows where which constructors stands as per its purpose. For the story on how the championships panned put we have a season report. Championships tables are only intended to show the outcome of the championship and they currently do so perfectly.Tvx1 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: points-based matrix

Illustrstion of @Falcadore's proposal for a points-based matrix:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	25	25	25	25	0	6	8	25	10	12	18	10	25	25	25	15	25	18	18	18	18	765
		44	18	15	6	18	0	25	25	10	25	25	25	25	15	18	15	0	15	25	25	25	25

Apologies for any errors—I had to do the mock-up quickly. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

And another version, limited to one line:

Pos.	Constructor	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	43	40	31	43	0	31	33	35	35	37	18	43	35	40	43	40	15	43	43	43	43	765

I prefer the first version myself. 1.129.110.245 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is just a solution looking for a problem. The result's tables have are only intended to show the outcome of the championships and they do so perfectly. The points column shows the points totals thereby explaining the vertical order and the race positions are there because they, and not points, are used as tiebreakers. We have used positions for well over a decade and our readers have not been troubled, let alone complained, over it at all.Tvx1 13:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Because this has to be a results matrix and not a points matrix? Despite points being the primary function of this table. Just so you understand the contradiction. --Falcadore (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally Constructors championship is about results achieved by the team, not by the individuals. By splitting it into the results of the drivers it represents the results of the two drivers, not the constructor. The constructors trophy is not awarded to Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas, it is awarded to Mercedes. --Falcadore (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Facadore — I believe "strong opppose" (or "strong support") is a case of "I want my opinion to have more weight than someone who merely supports/opposes a proposal". 1.144.107.168 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Falcadore, as I explained before these individual positions can decide the outcome of a championship. Not through who achieved them, but through which position was achieved. The is evidenced by Caterham vs Marussia vs HRT in 2012. The system of listing the positions has been used universally for over a decade over all wiki's without any discussion. I don't know this came to be discussed.Tvx1 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Tvx1: Just a thought, but why must every year conform to the unusual situation we had in 2012? Why don't we simplify the matrix as discussed, and then only revert back to its current form in the event a similar situation arises? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
        • It's not only 2014, 2013, 2011, 2010, 2008, 2002 and many many more years had similar situations where the positions decided the outcome. It's not that unusual. We have been using this system since way before 2012 and it's used universally across all wiki's. It's all very applicable to 2018 as well. In only requires Ferrari to outscore Mercedes by ten points (for instance Ferrari finish 1st and 3rd with Mercedes 2nd and 4th) at the next race to leave us with a situation where the positions decide the championship standings. Changing the constructors' table to a points table primarily leaves us with a situation where we risk having to change the table's system after every race. No-one is served by such a situation.Tvx1 17:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
          • You know perfectly well that tables supplement prose. They don't replace it. If championship standings are decided on countback, the article should detail how that was calculated in the prose before the reader gets to the matrix. Your argument is as hollow as your belief that by stating that you strongly oppose something, it somehow carries more weight than if you simply opposed it. 1.129.105.84 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
            • And you know perfectly well that is already the case. The tie-breaking prodecure has been explained above these tables since long before I joined wikipedia. You are complaining about a problem that just doesn’t exist.Tvx1 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Let me get this straight: your argument is that a switch to a points-based matrix is a bad idea because readers won't understand it despite the explanation which apparently doesn't present any problems for a results-based matrix? 1.129.105.199 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Wow, you read strange things it seems. My argument is that no change is needed at all. The present position-based matrix shows the standings/outcome perfectly, is supplementary to the prose and does not need to be changed every time a tie occurs and than again disappears afterwards.Tvx1 12:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • Given that a dozen or so people have pointed out the flaws with the current model, it would seem that your argument is completely invalid. Yet despite two separate consensuses for change, you end up getting your way. Again. 1.129.105.199 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose And so what? What it is wrong with a result matrix? "Constructors championship is about results achieved by the team". It is correct. The current format hasn't any connection of the rows to drivers, it only shows the best two results achieved by each constructor. It is a consensus format which supported by both editors and readers for years (I have seen for the plenty of times that different social network and forum users screen the standings from Wiki). The primary function of the table to present the standings in the most understandable way. The proposed format cuts off any possibility to show tiebreakers. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As there is an explanation of the tie-breaker procedure provided, it does not need to be shown. Constructors' championship is derived from points gained, not from race results achieved. There is a connection definately however it is being being portrayed accuretly. You do not finish a race in 1, you finish in 1st. So the table as presented doesn't even get the terminology correct. --Falcadore (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • And the relevant points are provided in the points column. We don't need to provide the points per individual race. And as explained before. The championship IS decided through both points gained AND positions achieved.Tvx1 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Another nonsense by Falcadore. It is a table, not a line from a dictionary, there is no necessity for ordinals. Hope you will be fine, when you visit FIA, F1, or any other motorsport site with standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

At-a-glance standings

The more I think about it, the more I am persuaded that Tvx1's preferred standing matrices (what we currently have) are necessary to give a complete picture; however, there's little doubt that many visiting readers are confused by the complexity. I would like to propose that we add highly simplified, at-a-glance standings to the existing arrangement. Something along these lines:

World Drivers' Championship standings
Rank	Driver	Points
1	Lewis Hamilton	213
2	Sebastian Vettel	189
3	Kimi Räikkönen	146
4	Valtteri Bottas	132
5	Daniel Ricciardo	118

World Constructors' Championship standings
Rank	Constructor	Points
1	Mercedes	345
2	Ferrari	335
3	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	223
4	Renault	82
5	Haas-Ferrari	66

(I just did the first 5 rows for speed)

Readers will be able to quickly see what the title situations are, and refer to the more complex matrices for the complete picture. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• That just adds two additional, redundant tables to the article. 1.144.107.168 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If readers are coming to the article to view the standings and then getting confused by the complicated nature of the results matrices, these two extra tables will immediately eliminate that confusion. We already have some redundancy in that the drivers' and constructors' tables have duplicate information, so it's not like it is unprecedented. Think of the two extra tables as an abstract to give the reader a quick overview. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The confusion does not stem from an inability to understand the table as a whole. It comes from an inability to understand how the results are arranged within it. Your proposal does nothing to fix that. 1.144.107.15 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps we are talking about two separate areas of confusion, because I'm trying to make it easier for readers to immediately grasp the standings situation in both championships. If you go to the very top of this thread, you will find comments from editors (including me) to that effect. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That can be achieved by looking at the current matrix. Your propossl does not do anything that the current system does not already do. 1.144.107.15 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that already. Nevertheless, I maintain at-a-glance tables will be useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither does your proposal of converting to points standings.Tvx1 14:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)}

My professor once told me, that any statistics that needed special instrutions to read, were useless. If you're adamant on having two fields per team for constructors championship, atleast make them distinguishable in such a way debaters doesn't have to explain in their debate contributions, how the wiki page doesn't show the results right in the constructors table. This is a perfect example of why "serious" sites still state that you can't rely on wikipedia to supply with verifiable data. I've NEVER seen a table in an encyclopedia like this, with a PERFECT opportunity to actually display the correct data, going so much out of it's way to not do that. Who cares if there's 7 or 8 lines per constructor, it will show verifiable data that people can actually rely on. It will show that "This specific driver actually scored ALL the points for the team this year", and not like now when it just says "Oh yeah, this team had some driver who actually scored points", which you'd have to spend time figuring out - right - who actually drove for Force India this year. In place of an accurate table, you force readers into doing two more lookups for data that could have been added AUTOMATICALLY as well, in the correct order under the correct constructor. That's so counter productive it borderlines stupid. Eidodk (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not question of being adamant of having "two fields per constructor". It's just the basic working of this sport that each constructor is credited with two results per race. And that's how we reflect it in the WCC table. No matter how they arranged, it's perfectly correct and verifiable that these constructors achieved the listed results at the indicated Grands Prix. If you want to know the drivers' results, look at the WDC table. And if you want to know which driver drove for which constructor there is a teams and drivers table which includes all the driver line-ups (including for the two incarnations of Force India). That table is actually the first and foremost table of these articles. If provides our readers with all the essential information on how the championship was set up. If you go to a F1 season article and the first spot you go to is the WCC table, ignoring all the rest of the article, and you expect to find every sort of tidbit of information over there, then the problem lies with you and not with the way this article is built up. You're expecting things from this table that are just beyond its scope.Tvx1 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're actively defending that you'll have to do three consecutive lookups, to get the full picture of a drivers season with a certain constructor. Like someone said earlier, it's not like a puppy is killed everytime something is added to a page, and even if that WAS the case, with a properly ordered constructors table, you could almost remove the driver lineup table completely. All by handing a line to a certain driver in the constructors table, under the constructor they drove for this season. All i can see when i peruse F1 forums, is that the constructors table on the wiki page is used wrongly in 9 out of 10 cases, yet people here defend the format as if it's the best since sliced bread. It's not.Eidodk (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Force India column

I am not 100% certain what's been going on here, I've briefly read all the above and whilst i don't want to reignite the flames of hell. In the Force India column, there are several footnotes, all but one of which do not relate to the team. These footnotes not only do not belong in the column but also stretches the table and deforms it tremendously. I do not know how to edit this, but it needs to be fixed so these footnotes appear at the bottom outside the table. *JoeTri10_ 13:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. OZOO (t) (c) 13:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the template.Tvx1 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reserve Drivers

Should we include reserve drivers next to the Free Practice drivers, since they are somewhat important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotmotF12 (talk • contribs)

We removed reserve drivers from the tables several years ago. The big problem we were having was defining which drivers should be included. Many teams associate with a number of drivers under multiple designations (test driver, reserve driver, third driver, development driver, simulator driver, young driver), the actual role not being standard and differing greatly by team, and often not involving any guarantee they are the reserve driver (even if they are called that) or even a chance of driving the car. Some drivers are also paying to be associated with the team or to be part of a driver development programme, and their official titles are essentially meaningless.

Since deciding who should be included was impossible without asking the teams for the contracts so we could differentiate between the actual reserve and test drivers and the standing at the back of the garage drivers, it was decided to eliminate everything bar the free practice drivers, which could be easily verified. QueenCake (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Team name

Force India has dropped "Sahara" from its name so that should be referenced on the entrant table, past examples being when Renault dropped "ING" from its name in 2009 and when Ferrari dropped "Marlboro" from its name in 2011. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that we need a reference from a reliable source announcing the name change. The home page of the team's site doesn't qualify. The next race is on Sunday and the entry list is due to be published on Thursday. We can easily wait until then.Tvx1 20:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Force India's situation is questionable at present. I suggest more caution than usual, as it's not yet clear if or as what they may be competing as. QueenCake (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Force India's owner ship change might not be as finalized as has been claimed.Tvx1 11:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The team will apparently be a completely new entry as Force India the company wasn't actually purchased. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we have quite an unprecedented situation here. Apparently the team that has been competing until now this season has been excluded from the championship and a new team takes it place. I'm not sure how we should deal with this situation in the constructors' championship table and in the articles on the relevant constructor(s). Maybe it's best to raise this at WT:F1. I would wait until the entry list for the Belgian Grand Prix has finally been released (Surprised that it hasn't been already. Normally they're always published on Thursday afternoon, or Wednesday in Monaco) before doing so though.Tvx1 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a strange situation as the team has a new entry but team's original entry is being excluded from the constructors championship. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I imagine we may find that the new constructor is "Racing Point-Mercedes", in order to differentiate between the former team and new team. Force India will simply be excluded at the bottom of the table and Racing Point will start scoring positions in Belgium. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Update - Entry list is released, team is "Racing Point Force India F1 Team" and constructor is "Force India Mercedes". So we will need to list Force India twice? The³5₉ (Talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the flag tag. Despite the team changing it's name, though keeping 'Force India', would one assume that the Indian licence the team is under still depicts that the nationality of the team is Indian? Is there anyway to source this kind of information? *JoeTri10_ 19:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dieter Rencken has confirmed that Racing Point Force India is now racing under a UK license, and therefore a UK flag and anthem in case of victory. Personally I believe that we should have separate rows for each entry. LucasVon (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Our rows are tied to constructors, not entrants. Since the constructor remains Force India and the result will keep being credited to them, we just keep the information in the same row. For the standings table we should just depict the results of the first twelve races as being pointless.Tvx1 19:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But are they the same constructor? If a constructor has been excluded, can they still continue on gaining points as the same entity? Recall our many discussions regarding Lotus, in which original Lotus, Lotus of 2010-2011, and Lotus 2012-2015 are all different entities and constructors, despite all using the Lotus title. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA makes clear that "Sahara Force India" has been excluded and forfeits its points, and a new entrant has taken its place. I don't see how it can be the same constructor; Racing Point Force India is just using the same name. I'm thinking they should be on two different rows, with "old" Force India given zero points. We may have to wait until Sunday to see how sources treat the situation in their championship tables. QueenCake (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The last excluded team was McLaren in 2007, and I suggest doing the same thing from that table here. QueenCake (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The current tables don't convey the situation. Force India is a completely separate entity to the new entrant, Racing Point. Force India have been excluded from the championship, and simultaneously, a new entity (Racing Point) has joined the championship, having scored 0 points thus far. Both competitors should have separate rows in the "Entries" section, as well as the "World Constructors' Championship standings" section. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I am now confused at the table since my comment. I have to agree with the opinions above. Though true in nature that the team personnel, drivers, car assets and all for the sake of simplicity, the team-name and livery are all the same, it was also suggested that current and future upgrades to the car were halted until the financial take-over. Though this is mere word salad, and the name of the car has also remained the same, it's still a different 'team' moving forward. Excluding the team and citing a new team in it's place makes it much easier for the information to be displayed and explained, as the removal of the (former) teams WCC points have indeed been removed, even if the drivers points remain (to my knowledge anyway). This may also make it more simple to show the possible switch of Ocon for Stroll, 'if' it happens. *JoeTri10_ 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on reading this section, my understanding is that the consensus is "if they are both separate constructors, they should have separate rows in the table." The FIA has excluded Force India from the championship, but as far as I'm aware, they are allowing Racing Point to score points in the upcoming rounds. Therefore, given it is the "World Constructors' Championship standings", it is clear that the FIA are treating them both as separate constructors. Taking this into consideration, I will separate the two entries in the table, to ensure the table is formatted as per consensus. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An issue arises in that this is not the team championship, this is the constructor championship, and the FIA entry lists still lists the constructor as "Force India Mercedes". So yes, they are a new team, but are they a new constructor? The³5₉ (Talk) 23:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A constructor appears to be just a fancy name for 'team' as far as i'm aware?, at least for this purpose. If the FIA deem that the constructor that is Force India-Mercedes forfeit their points in the current WCC but allow 'Racing Point Force India' as a team to collect points under the same constructor tag, then the table (used both on official F1 websites as well as the model we're using) theoretically is listing them as teams that participate in the constructors championship. Do we have any situations of a team changing engine supplier mid-season and what effect that had on the table format? *JoeTri10_ 00:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an unprecedented situation. My understanding is that the FIA voided Force India's results to allow Racing Point to take over their entry and start scoring points in the hopes of claiming prize money at the end of the year. However, the team must compete as Force India because the car was homologated as a Force India; to re-homologate as a Racing Point would make it a customer car and illegal. 1.129.109.181 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a very complicated situation and I'm afraid we might not be able to find the perfect solution. There are three separate issues we need to resolve.

1)How do we properly differentiate the entrants in the Teams and drivers table

2)How do we accurately reflect the situation in the WCC table

3)How do we deal with the situation in the team's article and in the articles dealing with F1 records and achievements

Now, issue 1 seems to be easy enough to resolve. Joetri10 already queried whether there were previous cases of teams changing engine supplier in-season (which has actually happened in the past), which isn't actually relevant here since that's not what happened. That however does indirectly reveal some sort of "precedent". There was an era in the history of F1 during which privateers could acquire and enter cars from another constructor. We would list these as separate entrants on separate rows, though the results counted for one and the same constructor in the WCC. If you look at the 1976 article you will find five separate rows for Tyrell-Ford for entrants who all used the Tyrell 006 to enter races. Maybe we use that as model here. Though I will note that in cases like in 2009 and 2011 we didn't create separate rows for entrants whose names changed in-season. Issues 2 and 3 are much more difficult to resolve. The FIA docked Force India's points so far but appears to consider them a continuous by having them entered as Force India-Mercedes for the Belgian Grand Prix. This begs the question how we continue to tally the results? Is this Force India's 1st or 204th entry? The FIA might end up giving us the answer themselves before long once they publish the results and standings after this weekend's race.Tvx1 03:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say the simplest solution is to wait and see. See what the FIA does after Spa and take it from there. We credit the results the way the FIA does. 1.129.109.167 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The only other solution I can think of is this:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers			Free Practice drivers
				No.	Driver name	Rounds	No.	Driver name
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India-Mercedes	VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	11 31	Sergio Pérez Esteban Ocon	1–12 1–12	34	Nicholas Latifi
Racing Point Force India F1 Team				11 31	Sergio Pérez Esteban Ocon	13 13	—

I don't know what that's going to do to the sortable markup, but if this is the most accurate way of representing it, then that markup can—and should—be sacrificed. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

It seems that there is a confusion between Teams and Constructors. As far as I understand, I have never seen any mention of "Teams" in the F1 regulations. What we define as "teams" are actually "Constructors", hence why they are able to compete in the Constructors championship. Racing Point is a separate constructor to Force India, so require a new entry on the table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not according to the FIA. Teams have three names: the trading name, which they use to do business off the track (which we don't mention); the constructor name, to which the FIA credit results; and the entry name, which the team use to refer to themselves (usually including sponsors). We have to use the name that the FIA use, and right now they're using "Force India" because the car was homologated as a Force India.

It's also worth noting that the Racing Point name is derived from Racing Point UK Ltd., which is the trading name. It appears to be a temporary name until 2019. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Having done some research into this, it appears that most of us, including myself, have misunderstood the terms, "Team", "Constructor", "Entrant". It appears that the FIA race meeting entry lists use a shortened version of the Constructors' names (Force India Mercedes etc.). However, the official FIA Constructors Classifications (https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications), list Force India as "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Taking this into consideration, it is clear that the in the eyes of the FIA, the constructor is in fact "Sahara Force India F1 Team". The problem with this, is that this is an issue that affects all recent F1 articles. In order to ensure the current table is providing accurate information, I shall do the following;

1) Remove the "Constructors" column.

2) Replace the title of the "Entrant" column with "Constructors".

3) Add a new row for the new constructor - Racing Point Force India F1 Team.

Of course, this solution is only temporary, but it provides the information accurately and should suffice until we can come to an agreement on how to format the table moving forward. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You need a consensus, not a "take my word for it, I'm right". This situation is unprecedented and will take time to figure out. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is that each constructor should have a different row. As per the FIA classification, "Sahara Force India F1 Team" is a constructor, hence should have a different row to the "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Unless another consensus is reached, I have simply edited the table, as per this talk page. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that is the consensus. However, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of what the FIA regards the Racing Point entry to be. That's what you need a consensus for. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a reference to my source, and thus far, no-one has questioned this source, or defined it as unreliable. For now, this is the best we have. We need to meet somewhere in the middle, I agree. However, I am simply using the data I have at the moment and trying to use this information to meet the consensus of this talk page. This is not the ideal solution, just the best we have for now until we can discuss it further. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with Wikipediaeditperson's approach but we don't need to rush into it. What we need is a clear consensus, and if we leave it a couple of days, there might be a clearer picture of how other sources such as the FIA are dealing with this. So far as I can see, they are two different, separate teams though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that they are two teams with the same constructor name, but the only thing that has changed is the ownership. I think it's going to cause unnecessary confusion if we have two separate rows in the table that are largely identical save for the entrant and the rounds.

"thus far, no-one has questioned this source, or defined it as unreliable"

You're forgetting that this is an unprecedented situation. Chances are that the FIA don't know exactly how this will work. Best that we wait for something definitive, like how the results are credited.

"I am simply using the data I have at the moment and trying to use this information to meet the consensus of this talk page"

Then why are you sitting on the article reverting changes on sight? You just removed the constructor column, which fundamentally changes the way championship articles are written because the FIA credits results to cinstructors. And for what? A knee-jerk reaction to a temporary situation. Get a consensus here before making changes, please. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think I will be getting involved in this any longer. It's unnecessary and frustrating that people seem to be arguing over something despite being presented with hard facts. As I have mentioned previously, the full name of the constructor that we refer to as "Force India", is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" (as displayed in the official FIA Constructors' Standings). The FIA has also said in a statement, "the Sahara Force India F1 Team has accepted its exclusion from the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship". There is absolutely no room for doubt that the constructor, named "Sahara Force India F1 Team" no longer exists. Some people are trying to argue that it is a change of entrant and not a change of constructor, but if this were the case, then please explain why this has impacted the Constructors' championship. Also, given the constructor ("Sahara Force India F1 Team") has been excluded from the championship, then please explain why the new entrant is able to score points in this championship - the only way this would be possible, is if there was a change of constructor, as there is no such thing as the "World Entrants' Championship". Whether this is unprecedented or not does not mean we should simply ignore the facts and try to merge 2 separate constructors into the same row. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

1.129.109.220 Just to add, the reason why I removed the "Constructors" column, was because in the official championship classification, the points are associated with the names that we defined as "Entrants". Given this is the Constructors' championship, it is clear that we misunderstood the meaning of "Entrants", and in fact an "Entrant" is a "Constructor". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Just ... no. The entrant and the constructor are and always have bern separate. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They may be separate, but it doesn't mean they can't share the same name. If the entrant is "Sahara Force India F1 Team", and the constructor is simply "Force India Mercedes", then please explain why the points in the CONSTRUCTORS championship are accredited to "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and not "Force India Mercedes"? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have hard facts. You have a single source for an unprecedented set of circumstances and an interpretation of that source. That you think the constructor name is "Sahara Force India F1 Team" rather than "Force India" demonstrates that you don't know the subject as well as you think you do. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I say, I can't understand why there is any room for confusion. I will try to explain it as simply as I can, because perhaps I am being misunderstood. In order to be a part of the 2018 FIA Formula One World Constructors' Championship, I'm sure we can all agree that you must be a constructor in the 2018 Formula One Season. Given the FIA accredit the points to "Sahara Force India F1 Team", it is clear that there is a constructor named "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Any attempt to argue against this is baseless and nonsense. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team. They never have. They credit results to Force India. It's a bit hard to argue who they are crediting results to in this case because the team doesn't have any results to be credited. So how about you leave it alone until you get more information? 1.129.109.220 (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"The FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team. They never have. They credit results to Force India. It's a bit hard to argue who they are crediting results to in this case because the team doesn't have any results to be credited"

Please actually look at the FIA World Constructors Championship classification before you make baseless comments like that. To make it easier, I will provide the link to these results: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-classifications. How anyone can debate that the "FIA does not credit results to Sahara Force India F1 Team" makes no sense to me, when there is evidence directly from the FIA's own website, whereby they credit points to them. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Read source #3, the source that lists entries for the season. 1.129.109.220 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please could you explain what you intend to show using source 3. This makes no mention of "Constructors", so is meaningless with regards to this discussion. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Just look at sources 9-16.Tvx1 13:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit respectless to claim that people aren't arguing with your source when you make your edits just three minutes after you stated your opinion. You should at least give other users the basic courtesy of time to come here and read the new arguments and respond. Don't forget that half of the world is asleep while your typing. What you're doing is synthesizing one cherry-picked source. You claimed you did "some research", yet you consulted one source and rushed to a conclusion. There are dozen of entry lists from the FIA supporting that table which clearly distinguish the entrant and the constructor. Moreover, if you look the results which are actually published after a race, you will actually see those names identified as "entrants" in the WCC table. So clearly these are the entrant names, not constructor names. Why the FIA uses the entrant names in that table is a big question mark, but the other FIA sources clearly demonstrate who the constructors are. The on-screen graphics always use the constructor names as well.Tvx1 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, my research led me to the understanding that the FIA no longer differentiates between "Entrants" and "Constructors" (gone are the days when a constructor could have their cars entered by multiple teams). Hence, I made my edits in respect to the consensus on this page that different constructors should have different rows. Also, it seems a bit pointless trying to argue that the "World Constructors' Championship" has no constructors in it. We have to remember that a race entry list is only there to provide basic information to the competitors and officials, and it changes race by race. Whereas, the constructors' names in the world championship standings are consistent throughout the season, and these standings have to provide the correct information, given they are used to determine the prize money given to each team at the end of the season. Also, the post-race championship standings are copyrighted by "2018 Formula One World Championship Limited", proving their source is very reliable and further proving their accuracy. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding constructors, it's clear that "Sahara Force India F1 Team" isn't one. In fact, the FIA list both "constructor" and "entrant" when giving entry lists, which would made no sense if they were the same thing. Besides, the entrant name changes almost every year for some teams. According to FIA regulations, they don't give points to entrants, but constructors (make of chassis+make of engine). The problem I think comes from the fact that de facto the constructor is the chassis make nowdays, and it can only have an entrant assocciated with it and collecting constructors' points. So it seems the FIA list entrants as a convenience, because they are the entities collecting constructors' points (and if a entrant is excluded, the constructor loses all the points, like the Force India case), but they aren't constructors. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc Exactly, the FIA give points to constructors, not entrants. Therefore, why would the points be accredited to "Sahara Force India F1 Team" in the official FIA Constructors' standings, unless they are in fact the constructor? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered your question. I quote myself: "the constructor is the chassis make nowdays, and it can only have an entrant assocciated with it and collecting constructors' points. So it seems the FIA list entrants as a convenience (emphasis mine), because they are the entities collecting constructors' points (and if a entrant is excluded, the constructor loses all the points, like the Force India case)". My basic point is that, in my opinion, you are reading too much into that points table, when there are many others FIA sources supporting a different approach. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said to others above, it is ridiculous trying to argue the point that the constructors' championship has no constructors in it.

Anyway, the F1 sporting regulations defines the world champion constructor as being a competitor (or "entrant"); The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.. This shows that the FIA doesn't oficially distinguish between entrants and constructors. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that customer chassis are currently illegal, meaning that in the current regulations the constructor and entrant have to be the same entity. In the past, when customer chassis were common, the constructor was completely separate from the entrant. The FIA listing the entrant name in the championship standings is one of convenience, but one simply has to look at the Spa entry list to see that "Force India Mercedes" is the recognized constructor. The Sporting Regulations immediately after the ones you quote specify how a constructor is recognized and named. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I say, the argument that the World Constructors' Championship has no constructors in it is ridiculous. However, even if this were the case, as I have pointed out, the Sporting Regulations still prove that Racing Point is a new constructor;

1) Firstly, Racing Point's application was carried out as outlined in Section 8 of the sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"). Therefore, there is no doubt that Racing Point is a new competitor?

2) Now, by looking at section 6.2, we find: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.". As you can see, the FIA deems the world champion constructor to be a competitor, so clearly each competitor is in fact also a constructor in the eyes of the FIA. As Racing Point is a new competitor, it is also a new constructor. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the FIA's official entry list (now updated to include the Racing Point entry). You have a Team Name, a Chassis Name, and an Engine Name Manufacturer. The FIA's regulations (article 8.2b) state that "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)", which explains why Force India is in the team name still - because you cannot change the name of your chassis once the season is in progress. "Chassis name" is pretty much analogous to constructor now. I feel that you should change the "Constructor" column in the entries table to "Chassis", and combine it with the existing "Chassis" column with the model numbers. Also, the FIA have clearly stated that the Original Sahara Force India entry has been excluded from the championship, and has been replaced by a new entry, that of Racing Point Force India F1 Team, which is using a Force India chassis for 2018. It's fundamentally wrong to see them grouped together as if they were part of the same entry. They're not. They may use the same Chassis, but they are not the same entry. --Bergqvistjl (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another over interpretation of one source. Look at the various Grand Prix entry lists that support the table. 20-21 of these are published every season and they have a column very clearly labeled "constructor".Tvx1 16:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1, the Sporting Regulations also prove that Racing Point is a new constructor;

1) Firstly, Racing Point's application was carried out as outlined in Section 8 of the sporting regulations (named "COMPETITORS APPLICATIONS"). Therefore, there is no doubt that Racing Point is a new competitor?

2) Now, by looking at section 6.2, we find: "The title of Formula One World Champion Constructor will be awarded to the competitor which has scored the highest number of points, results from both cars (see Article 8.6) being taken into account.". As you can see, the FIA deems the world champion constructor to be a competitor, so clearly each competitor is in fact also a constructor in the eyes of the FIA. As Racing Point is a new competitor, it is also a new constructor.

@Tvx1 You mean like this one? It has a column labelled team first, then constructor (referring to the Chassis & Engine Manufacturer's names). The FIA's own results standings clearly show that points in the Constructors' Championship are awarded to entrant, it is headed with "Entrants", and the Team name is listed, and not that of the constructor or engine manufacturer. Thirdly, the standings page on the FIA's website also heads the column as "Teams", again showing the entrants name and not that of the constructor. Yes the Formula One website does list the constructor's name under the team column (rather than the name of the entry), but the championships are regulated and awarded by the FIA, not FOM, so sources authored by the championship regulator are of a higher authority than those of the championship promoter. --Bergqvistjl (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIA has now updated the constructors' classification, and both constructors have separate, distinct rows in the standings. I have updated the table to reflect this. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As expected, FIA provided the answer themselves. I have also updatet the WCC table accordingly. This also means we need to create a new article for the new constructor.Tvx1 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I still feel that it was fairly clear that this would be the situation even prior to this, but nevertheless, it is good to be able to put an end to this debate now. It does open itself to another discussion though - how do we deal with the "constructors" column now? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's to say that afterwards. I would leave the design of the table as is. All its contents is supported by the myriad of reliable sources in the source row. RP Force India is an exception. And we made the exception fit the table. We should make the table fit to the exception.Tvx1 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I don't think we need to create a new article just for "Racing Point Force India" considering the team is literally the same and they will most likely change their name for next season anyway, its similar to when Spyker Cars had taken over Midland F1 during the 2006 season to become Spyker MF1 Racing except this time a lot of word salad with things like "new entrant" and "new entity" are included. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We have to create a new article. The FIA considers them different constructors. They even separate them in their WCC table. We can't go on on continue tallying up RP Force India to Force India's stats. Belgium is their first entry, not their 204th. The situation is quite different to MF1's takeoff by Spyker. Spyker only added their names as a sponsor during the season. The situation is more similar to Lotus and Caterham. They were both operated by the same people from the same location but were separate constructors and hence have separate articles.Tvx1 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to create a new article then what will the new article be called, "Racing Point Force India" or just something like "RP Force India" so to make it distinguishable from the old Force India? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that creating a new article is justified at this point.

If we are going to have two separate Force India entries in the team and driver table (and I am not convinced that this is the best way forward), then we need two separate Force Indias in the WCC matrix. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check you would have seen they are already there. What is the alternative to creating a new article? We can’t keep talliying up results and actievements to the defunct Force India that has no right to them. The way the Force India article currently stands is completely wrong.Tvx1 03:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I would wait and see. Even if there are technically two Force Indias, there is a shared history. I don't really see how it's any different to Spyker buying Midland; the owner changes, but everything else remains the same. What makes this unusual is the way the FIA disqualified them and re-entered them, which they seem to have done to allow the team the chance to win prize money (which seems to be moot, since the teams have agreed to let them keep what they would be entitled to).

I would keep the content in the Force India article until we get a clearer picture of what will happen in 2019. My understanding is that "Racing Point Force India" is a placeholder name made up of the owners' trading name and the Force India name. It remains to be seen what they'll be called in 2019. Once we know, we can create a new article and move some of the detail across. 1.129.104.248 (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If yet another constructor debuts in 2019, we create yet another article in 2019. Otherwise this has no relevance on the current situation. The current constructor is clearly a seperate one to the one that competed up to and including the Hungarian Grand Prix, and that's the difference with Spyker MF1. It has its own seperate records and statistics and continuing to add the achievements of Racing Point to the defunct Force India is outright wrong original research. Look here. There current Racing Point Force India is not credited with any starts, let alone finishes.Tvx1 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So what is happening then because everything here has paused? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We're waiting for information. There has been uncertainty over their points, prize money and engine allocation, all of which could potentially affect how we handle it. There's no rush to make changes. I think that how the FIA handles Force India's results in Belgium will give us the clearest indication of what to do. 1.129.104.193 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The official standings published at the Belgian Grand Prix list them as seperate constructors. Defunct Force India is listed with its pre-Belgium positions which aren't worth any points any more. We should thus create a new article now.Tvx1 18:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added links to the entrant column. I know we don't ususlly do this, but there were two links to "Force India-Mercedes" that went to different places. We also need to visit race reports and update the classification tables; I would suggest using a footnote "Competing as Sahara/Racing Point Force India". 1.129.109.35 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that the new Racing Point entry has registered as a UK team? Sorry if this was discussed above, I tried to skim it but...you guys talked about a lot. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka, The official Formula One website now displays Force India as a British team. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Constructor Standings: Ferrari mix-up

Hi, Please refer to the table in the section “Results-Constructor Standings”. The results for the German GP for the Ferrari boys have been erroneously switched: First line is Vettel: He is the only one to win for Ferrari this season and DNF’d in Germany. Second line is Kimi: He didn’t win for Ferrari this year :( but managed to get third place. As you can see, the results for this race where swapped between the two. I only know because I was there in the stadium section when it happened :’( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:4BEB:B43A:D509:3067:CC4:6C07 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You’re wrong. There are no lines for drivers in the constructors’ table. It only lists the constructors results. I don’t why you think otherwise since the drivers aren’t mentioned in any way or form in that table.Tvx1 02:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that each row would correlate with each entry, but we've had that discussion before, haven't we? 1.129.109.167 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In the WDC table yes, in the WCC table no. Constructors can enter more than two different drivers over the course of a season. Moreover prior to 2014 our tables didn't have one row per driver either.Tvx1 03:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Background colour for Force India's pre-Belgium "points" finishes

I recently updated Force India Grand Prix results to change the background colour for Force India's pre-Belgium "points" finishes to blue, on the basis of the same having been done in {{F1 Constructors Standings}}. But then I noticed that this is inconsistent with what we did for McLaren in 2007 - McLaren's results in 2007 Formula One World Championship, McLaren Grand Prix results and McLaren MP4-22 kept their original background colours. So should we do the same for Force India this year, or are the two situations different? DH85868993 (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think we got that Mclaren situation wrong. The situation was rather identical. They were docked all their points prior to the Belgian Grand Prix as well and they surely didn't receive any points for their results in the remaining races.Tvx1 13:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see the rationale to the McLaren table. McLaren had their championship points as a whole removed, but the FIA did not change the results in individual races - apart from Hungary where they directly had their constructor points removed. QueenCake (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They didn't change the positions they achieved as such, but they surely converted them to non-points scoring finishes. And certainly, all the results achieved starting with Belgium were non-points scoring finished for the WCC. They never received any points at all from these races.Tvx1 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously wrong to say that they 'never' received any points - they did receive points for their points finishes, although as a result of exclusion those points did not count towards the WCC tally. From a more pragmatic perspective, many Wikipedia users use the colors as a way to get a high-level overview of the performance of a team in a given year. Take the McLaren page as an example - just scrolling down the page it's easy to see how the fortunes of the team have changed over time. Now, with Force India, we loose this facility. 86.179.118.92 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed they didn't ever get points. With that I was referring to McLaren's 2007 post Italy results. Force India did originally receive points, but they have now de facto been converted to non-points finishes by the FIA. When a constructor is excluded and doesn't get any points as a result evolution of performance is really of no importance. The WCC table is only intended to show the outcome of the championship. For the evolution of the season we have a season report.Tvx1 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with the "Constructor" column on the "Entries" section?

Discussion has been moved to WT:F1
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
The latest update to the FIA official constructors' classification has shown that Force India and Racing Point are actually seperate constructors, namely "Sahara Force India F1 Team" and "Racing Point Force India F1 Team". Therefore, the current constructors column on the entries table is actually showing the incorrect information, as "Force India-Mercedes" is simply a merge of the name of the chassis and the name of the engine, and is not actually the name of the constructor. My proposal is the following; 1) The "Entrant" column should be retitled as "Entrant/Constructor". 2) The "Constructor" column should be removed. 3) The name of the chassis (for example "Force India") should be merged into the "Chassis" column, for example something along the lines of "Force India (VJM11)". 4) The name of the power unit (for example "Mercedes") should be merged into the "Power Unit" column, for example "Mercedes (Mercedes M09 EQ Power+)". Also, on this topic, I feel a similar thing needs to be done with the WCC standings - replacing "Force India-Mercedes" with "Sahara Force India F1 Team". Please could you all let me know what you think and provide your own proposals. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC) For the purposes of clarification, here is an example of my proposal; Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Entrant/Constructor Chassis Power unit Race drivers Free Practice drivers No. Driver name Rounds No. Driver name Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari (SF71H) Ferrari (Ferrari 062 EVO) 5 7 Sebastian Vettel Kimi Räikkönen 1–13 1–13 — Also, here is an example of what I'm saying with the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table; Pos. Constructor AUS BHR CHN AZE ESP MON CAN FRA AUT GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN RUS JPN USA MEX BRA ABU Points 1 Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 Ret 2 1 1 345 8 3 4 14† 2 5 5 7 Ret 4 2 5 Pos. Constructor AUS BHR CHN AZE ESP MON CAN FRA AUT GBR GER HUN BEL ITA SIN RUS JPN USA MEX BRA ABU Points I wouldn't overhaul anything. All the table's contents is supported by the myriad of reliable sources in the source row. And I wouldn't change the WCC table either. Using the full entrant names only makes the table wider without any benefit.Tvx1 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Surely aesthetics etc. should all come last - primarily we must make sure we are providing accurate information. As we discovered today, with the Force India situation, the constructor name is in fact the name of the entrant. Taking this into consideration, the "Constructor" column is now presenting the wrong information in both the entries table and the WCC table. The WCC table can easily be fixed in the way I described, and personally I can't think of another option for this, can you? Of course, the same could be done with the entries table, but then you would have the first two columns ("Entrant" and "Constructor") displaying identical information, which seems a bit pointless, hence why I felt it made sense to merge these two columns. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC) This is a conversation that should be taking place at WT:F1 because it potentially affects dozens (if not more) of articles. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC) @1.129.104.172, I have added a discussion at WT:F1. Obviously this discussion is most relevant to this season, because most other seasons could use the current table without causing any real confusion, but with the Force India/Racing Point situation, we should really be making all of this information clear for this season's article at the very least. However, I totally agree that if we can come up with an option at WT:F1 that will mean we can make older articles more accurate, as well as set a precedent to make future articles more accurate (especially if this situation were to occur again), then that would be ideal. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC) You cannot have the same discussion in multiple places. It looks like you're shopping around for a consensus. What do you do if you get one agreement in one discussion and a different agreement in the other? Given the potential to affect dozens of articles, WT:F1 is the most appropriate place for this discussion. 1.129.104.172 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)