Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Entrant table sources[edit]

I'm not sure about grouping all the references (currently 20 of them) into a cell of their own, it means the reader might have to trawl through all 20 of them to verify a piece of data given in the table. Another plan might be to divide them by entrant and have a column for them at the end of each row. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree with you. The current grouping of the sources makes it less clearer. We should try your proposal or restore the previous look. Also it breaks the tables after using of the sorting. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I think that mangling the sources throughout the table would make it less easier to read. Now the content is clear and unobstructed to read. Moreover, the sources in the source row are the different versions of the season entry list and the individual race's entry lists. There is nothing to "divide by entrant" here. The idea of having a source row is that we only use sources that apply to the entire table and not to individual cells of it. Lastly, it doesn't break the table when sorting at all. It stays nicely on the bottom now matter how many times you click a sort button.Tvx1 12:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you proved your point. But for some reason it does break in the 2019 article (in all other articles it works proper), please fix. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ridiculous to expect readers to plough through 20 sources to find, say, verification for the Lando Norris details. Sure, it would be better this way if there were just two or three sources covering everything in the table, but certainly not with 20! -- DeFacto (talk). 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is always a middle way. We can always applies only these sources that do not deal with the entire table directly to the content it deals with out. An extra column is just not practical.Tvx1 18:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - I was thinking the same thing - keep the sources that cover all rows at the bottom and add sources per cell for info not covered in the general refs. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables[edit]

The number of discrepancies between the drivers' table and the constructors' table is a bit of an eye opener, just looking briefly at Williams and Toro Rosso. Haven't got time myself but it needs a bit of work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet:,I've just had a quick look at Williams and everything looks correct. I think where you might be getting confused is that in the constructors table we sort each teams results with the best result first followed by the worse result. It doesn't work on the basis of one row per driver. I still take a more detailed look tomorrow when I.have access to my laptop. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well, we never used to do that. Seems like a bizarre way to do it; most counter-intuitive, with no obvious benefit over one row per driver. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: we changed our approach in post 2014 articles. If your interested in why we changed it than the most recent discussion on the matter can be found here which also links to some previous discussions on the matter. SSSB (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Looking at the "discussions" and particularly the input of the editor whose idea it was to change the format, I am simply reminded of why I left the project. Making everything harder to understand was never my thing. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the actual discussion that installed the current format. And just how is it more difficult now to understand why every constructor finished where they did in their championship? I actually think it's much simpler to understand now. Prior to the change, we had cases like 2017 were we had up to seven rows for one constructor in their table (two of which were even for the same driver). That's was just unnecessarily complicated and the WT:F1 discussion agreed with it.Tvx1 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that comment is another reason why I don't bother discussing anything any more. Total failure to understand my original point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2 of the cells in the entry list?[edit]

If both Racing Point Force India and Sahara Force India run under the same constructor name, should we merge the two cells for their constructor name in the entry list table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieUTV2 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact none of the cells should have been merged. An IP did that without discussing. For accessibility it’s beter to keep them separate.Tvx1 18:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that the two "Force India"s in the constructor column link to different articles. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=1196755166"