Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Formula One drivers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [1].

List of Formula One drivers

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: WikiProject Formula One, User:Piniricc65, User:Schumi555, User:DH85868993 and User:Treki

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current FL criteria. In particular, it lacks an introduction or lead, with random facts mixed with table information where there should be a lead (criterion 2). The tables are not sortable (criterion 4). It has several non-compliances with the MOS, including the use of italics for general text, hyphens instead of endashes (criteria 5). The referencing is substandard—they are merely non-formated external links at the end, without any inline citation, even where particular claims are being made in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove – Many factors cause this list to not meet modern standards:

I agree with all of the above. I'm about to nominate a list myself, and I'm determined to get cracking on my sandbox today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Could we keep this open until about Monday? WFCforLife (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my earlier comments, here is what I plan to do.

  • I'll work on the lead from the information that's in this list, although members of WP:F1 will need to reference it.
  • I'll sort out the other MoS points.
  • I'll add a picture, and obviously sort out the alt text on it etc.

However, I'm not totally sold on the sorting. Criteria 4 does only mandates sorting where it is helpful. I'd question whether removing the alphabetical headings in favour of a huge, consolidated, extremely slow to sort table would "help". WFCforLife (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this list is utterly useless without a sort function, but it provides very little value. At current, it shows a bunch of names and the associated statistics (which should be available on each drivers page anyway). That's fine, but what becomes interesting is if the reader can start using this table to compare drivers. With a sort function, it becomes easy to make a list of drivers by starts, points, first season (chronology) etc. I would even recommend putting the flagicons so the reader can sort by nationality. By sorting twice (for instance, first by starts and then by country), the reader can establish which are the most active drivers from a country. Arsenikk (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In principle I agree with all of that (I certainly will be giving nationality its own colum), but the list is already 167kb long. Once the lead is rewritten, the references brought up to scratch and sort keys added, it would easily be 180kb, probably more. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether we should consider splitting the drivers in a more useful way than the alphabetical division, or even if we should consider splitting this list altogether, in a similar way to Gillingham F.C. here, here and here. I'm not irrevocably opposed to making this into one giant sortable table, but given that we already have a list of List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, I do think it's reasonable to challenge this. Perhaps the way to go is to keep this as one list, but sort the drivers by nationality rather than letter of surname? WFCforLife (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the sorting, I've edited the Z section to demonstrate what I believe would be necessary for a sortable table. A sort function of some sort would help, and for that reason I will continue working on it (although I'm going to keep them divided by surname for now). But I'm yet to be convinced that a giant table is the way to go. If a compelling case is made that the benefit of a giant sortable table outweighs the signficant problems that a 150KB sortable table poses to readers I may change my opinion.

I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to make the point that my alternative proposal (divide by nationality) would actually involve more work. Turning 26 sortable tables into one bigger one isn't difficult, whereas going from alphabetical order to nationality would take ages. But I believe for accessibility reasons its an alternative we should consider. WFCforLife (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see the list merged into one large sortable table, or to remain split by first letter of surname (i.e. as it is now) but I wouldn't be in favour of splitting by any other property, e.g. nationality or number of races, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'm in the process of making the tables sortable (once I've done that, deciding how we sort involves little work). But would you be able to help with the sourcing? If the current sources are no good or not enough I wouldn't know where to look. WFCforLife (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the Formula One website? If nothing else, it should prove helpful for citing the footnotes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment about sorting. Okay, the tables are now all fully sortable, and there is scope to start consolidating all of them into one super table. Indeed User:Afkatk has begun this process, as well as introducing a couple of other improvements. I would encourage those who are advocating a giant table to have a look at the current A-F table, and consider that this is only a quarter of the data. Sort times increase exponentially; to sort four times as much would take far more than four times as long, if indeed some computers could manage it at all. WFCforLife (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really think one big long Table is really an issue, I do think though something along the lines of splitting the massive table (once merging is complete) into 2 seperate Articles might be a good idea, A-M and N-Z. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we don't have one big sortable table, then there's probably no point making the tables sortable at all; I mean what's the point of being able to sort drivers whose surname starts with "G" (or any other individual letter) by number of races started, or number of points scored or whatever? DH85868993 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list has been turned into "one big sortable table", so I'm happy. DH85868993 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, I've addressed the outstanding issues. I've contacted Arsenikk to see if he/she has any outstanding objections. I know Giants normally watchlists FLC and FLRCs, but if needs be I could give a little reminder. WFCforLife (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everybody is aware, Giants struck his resolved comments on 4 January and said he would "will take a closer look later". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: While I am satisfied with the progress of the list, and the table itself is mostly up to standards, I still do not feel that the articles as such meets the FL criteria:
  • The lead is too short
  • All claims in the lead need inline citations
  • Italics should not be used for 'current' (or similar) highlighting. Instead, use a symbol or color the box.
  • I do not understand why list article needs six external links. If the references do not suffice, then these should be added as references, if reliable. If not, they should be removed. In addition, the top link is dead.

Arsenikk (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a change to the highlighting within the next few days. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • What do some of the column names mean? Is a podium a top-three finish? What's the difference between a start and a race? There seem to be fewer than 737 that have a positive start number. And don't you have to start to have pole position (Fred Agabashian)?
  • Can we use a color other than red, which has a negative connotation? How are there only 20 current drivers?

Reywas92Talk 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is a podium a top-three finish? Yes. The column title now links to Podium#Usage in motorsport.
    • What's the difference between a start and a race? I've changed "Races" to "Entries" - the distinction between entries and starts is explained in the lead.
    • There seem to be fewer than 737 that have a positive start number. Don't have time to count them at the moment.
      • Rather, more than 100 with a zero there.
    • And don't you have to start to have pole position (Fred Agabashian)? No. Pole position is achieved during qualifying. Even if that driver doesn't subsequently start the race, they are still credited with the pole position.
    • Can we use a color other than red, which has a negative connotation? Why does red have a negative connotation?
    • How are there only 20 current drivers? There were only 20 entries/cars/drivers in the last race. During the off-season, it's deliberately worded like this to avoid endless disputes about what constitutes a "current" driver.
      • I would prefer a broader definition. It seems inappropriate to consider drivers inactive because he didn't qualify or enter this one race.
        • Are suggesting that we knowingly mislead the reader by suggesting Sebastien Bourdais is a current driver, add the new Mercedes driver yet not the second Sauber driver, or add a driver to the list who has never (and still might never) driven in F1 such as Lucas di Grassi, because he is "current" (and therefore just as worthy of being highlighted as Schumacher)? I'm strongly opposed to any such change. WFCforLife (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. I would just think that there are more current racers than those who happened to be in the most recent race. There are still current racers who tried to enter Abu Dhabi but didn't qualify, right?
No. The Formula One entry is highly regulated. Teams enter the championship before the start of the season and each team must enter 2 cars at every race. In 2009 there were 10 teams so there were 20 cars/drivers at every race. Teams are permitted to change drivers as the season progresses, but as soon as a driver is "dropped" by a team they are considered to no longer be a "current" driver.DH85868993 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm sorry I don't understand Formula One. Should that perhaps be clarified in the article then? Anyway, Keep
DH85868993 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Return comments –
  • Missing from the beginning of the lead is an explanation of what Formula One is. This is fairly common in FLs, and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners has a good example to learn from. Some info from this may satisfy those still concerned about the length of the lead.
    • I have transferred some information over, and added a little bit to explain the world championship.
  • Spell out FIA.
    • Done.
  • "since its first event, the 1950 British Grand Prix." Hard to determine what "its" is, though the first comment should result in a fix here anyway.
    • I believe I've linked into this effectively.
  • Table: Philippe Etancelin sorts last, after every other name, because of the diacritics.
    • I believe it's okay now. I'm working on a computer that can't handle the sort, but if my understanding of the sortname template is correct then he should sort correctly. If all else fails I'll consider removing the diacritics, but that must only be done as the last resort.
  • Change Fastest Lap heading to Fastest lap as it isn't a proper noun. Do the same for Total Drivers in the other table.
    • Done.
  • The references of questionable reliability have returned, after being used as external links. The StatsF1 site, and both unformatted references, look shaky to me. If they aren't reliable, and others are concerned about the presence of external links, just remove them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Excellent work on salvaging this one. Looks like an FL-standard list once again. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Formula_One_drivers/archive1&oldid=1089075527"