Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Tabula rasa

Okay, now that everyone has had a chance to settle down and the page has stablised, it's time to move onto the next phase of resolving the number issue. I have started another discussion here in the hopes that we can all leave the above behind (preferrably by archiving it) and start afresh.

The issue, for the uninitiated, is how best to organise the team and driver table given that the numbering system has changed for 2014. There are four separate proposals out there, and I am going to try and summarise each as best I can.

The four proposals are as follows:

By number order, teams first

This method will arrange the table in numerical order; 1-2-3-4. Where teams do not have consecutive numbers (ie Mercedes 6 and 44, Ferrari 7 and 14), the teams with the lowest number will be listed first.

The main advantage of this is that it follows the path of least resistance - numbers are arranged in what might be described as the most logical order. It is a method used on many season articles for other motorsport categories, such as 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship, 2013 British Touring Car Championship season, 2013 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season, and so on. It is also the method used on (almost - there are a few exceptions) every season article to date.

The main disadvantage is that some editors feel this is confusing, with numbers appearing out of sequence - for example, 6-44-7-14-8 - for no apparent reason.

By number order, drivers first

This method is essentially the same as the above, with one crucial difference: it arranges the drivers before the teams, rather than the teams before the drivers.

The main advantage of this is that it directly addresses the concerns of going by number order and listing teams first. Numbers will now appear sequentially in the table.

The main disadvantage of this is that it requires a whole lot of duplicated information. Every driver will need to have the team he drives for, the chassis and engine he uses listed individually, rather than grouping them together.

By 2013 WCC order/"Order of Merit"

This method is based upon the FIA's old system of assigning numbers based on WCC standings. The reigning World Constructors' Champions will be listed first, then second place, and so on and so forth.

The main advantage of this is that it shows the teams in the order they finished the 2013 WCC, giving readers an ida as to who is competitive and who is not.

The main disadvantage is that those positions are based on the 2013 standings, which has nothing to do with the 2014 season. Similarly, ranking teams in order of competitiveness is speculative - we have no idea who will be where on the grid.

Alphabetically by constructor

This method is the one currently used in the article. It lists the teams alphabetically by their constructor name.

The main advantage of this is that it is perhaps the most neutral solution. It does not place undue weight on numbers, team positions, or any other variable.

The main disadvantage of this is that it marks a major departure from previous ways of arranging the table.

So, those are our options. Feel free to discuss at length, but please, lets try and keep our eye on the ball this time. We don't want to get caught up argunig the minutae of methods and end up chasing our tails because of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My position on this matter is that going alphabetically is the best way forwards. I think it is the most neutral solution, and there is no real scope for confusion. I may be open to going numerically by teams, but I feel that numerically by drivers will make the table too big, duplicate information needlessly, and I think it pushes too much emphasis onto the individual driver when Formula 1 is recognised as a team sport.

I am also vehemently opposed to going by WCC order. Nothing that happened during the 2013 season has any bearing on what will happen in 2014, except for maybe whoever gets to use the #1. That's it. I also think that presenting the teams in "Order of Merit" is speculative, because it implies that certain teams will be better than other teams at a time when the sport is about to undergo major rule changes, and so past performance is no guarantee of future success. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that listing alphabetically is the best way to go. Also, thank you for creating the above summery! JohnMcButts (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is false to suggest that "Order of merit" is the continuation of recent articles. "By number order, teams first" is the system that has been used. That it has co-incided with "order of merit" in most (not all) years is a decision made by the FIA and external to Wikipedia's running of their articles. If not, those years when order of merit has not been followed would not appear in number order. This perpetuated falsehood has been the primary source of my objections from the start and I do wish refering to it as such would cease.

Additionally it was never mentioned in the talk pages of those season articles where the "order of merit" was not followed that the order of the teams should be changed away from numerical order. Suggesting that numerical order has not been the method followed since the beginning is pure invention. --Falcadore (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to explain the proposal in the simplest and most objective way possible. Feel free to change the wording if you feel something else would be more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A) It's not objective if it is not based upon fact.

B) It's not my post to change. --Falcadore (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how the "number order, teams first" method is confusing. If you look purely at the number column, then yes, the order seems random. However, looking at the table as a whole it is clear that the team cars are grouped together and that the order is based on the lowest number at each team. ^Kytabu_Talk 06:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the WCC order proposal a bit here. While it is true that "Order of Merit" is not the system used by the Wikipedia articles up to this season, it's is an incorrect claim that the previous season's WCC results have no effect whatsoever on the current season. Firstly they determine the pit box order at each Grand Prix. Secondly and more importantly, the final WCC standings determine how much prize money each team receives end thus has a major effect on the next season's budget of each team. This is why I translated this proposal as ranking by Order of Merit in the first place, similar to lots of other sports which use an order of merit to rank their competitors. Furthermore, I disagree that ordering by WCC implies that teams will perform at the same level as in the preceding season. That is completely unfounded claim. This is still my favorite proposal. However, I'm willing to settle for "number order, teams first" proposal as well. Tvx1 (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prize money is issued though as part of the 2013 season, so it's money the teams already have when 2014 begins. We might as well start detailing how much each sponsor contributes to each season.

We don't detail pit box order, or financial breakdowns of each team. It is simply not significantly important to the 2014 season. --Falcadore (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And neither is immediately obvious to the reader. We should not need a note explaining how the table is organised - it should be immediately obvious at a glance. And as far as reasons for organising the table go, pit box order and prize money are fairly obscure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes pit box order and financial breakdown are not immediately obvious, but WCC order is. In fact you can view the top half of the table and the picture of the defending champion in the same screen. That does not require much effort at all! Please give the random user the basis respect that he/she can very quickly realize how the table is ordered. That is if the random user is fussed about the table order in the same way as some of you are at all. I'm still not convinced of that at all. I still think we are looking for a solution for a much exaggerated problem. Tvx1 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If the pitbox order (financial breakdown still belongs to the previous season) are not obvious then how is it relevant? Why should something so obscure as pitbox order define the sorting order of the table? --Falcadore (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we really use pitbox order when, at Silverstone, the top three teams are moved into the centre so that the fans can see the pit crews in action? —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That then suggests to me there are actually NO relevant reasons for sorting via 2013 constructors order. None at all. --Falcadore (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am still having trouble understanding how the 2013 WCC standings have anything to do with 2014, and why people seem to think that previous team and driver tables are arranged based on WCC standings with the numbers coincidentally lining up in numerical order.

Like I said, I am vehemently opposed to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am not too fussed about this (especially since, on my wiki, we chose order of merit, and I don't like it). However, I think the first option is the best choice. I understand fully that they have ordered like that for the past 40 seasons. And while I do think alphabetical is best if we can't decide, the numbers are always used for sorting; why stop now —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason why we should "Stop Now" is something I keep needing to re-iterate and everyone seems to ignore it. The reason being that the numbers used in the past 40 years roughly represented where the drivers finished at the end of the previous WDC. Although this wasn't always the case, in most recent times (20 years), this has been the case. Now however the numbers represent a completely different meaning and one that is based purely on trivia. Checo choosing no.11 due to his karting days? Great, but do we need to know that? Not particularly. Sorting by these numbers is an entirely different situation now. If you continue going by the consensus of sorting by "Numbers" then these numbers are really rather irrelevant wouldn't you say?. It's a cheap fix, a poor figured one and one that now does not reflect F1 in any way aside from said trivia. If you still think sorting by numbers is better then I ask you: Why do these numbers even matter anymore inside of the sport? Joetri10 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are still assuming that the tables are being arranged based on WCC order in the past, and that the numbers coincidentally happened to reflect that order. You have it the wrong way around. The FIA could assign numbers based on who has the best-groomed nose hair, and those tables would still be arranged in number order.

You say that we should stop organising the table in number order because those numbers no longer have any meaning. Fair enough. But my question to you is this: if we should not organise the table based on numbers that no longer have meaning, why should we organise it based on a meaning that no longer exists?

Could somebody who is in favour of arranging the table based on WCC order please explain to me what anything that happened in 2013 has to do with 2014? As far as I can see, there is nothing that crosses over. We might as well arrange the table based on each team's finishing position for the year they joined the championship. It's about as relevant (read: not at all). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying the numbers reflected the meaning in which the FIA organized their drivers grid line-up. Why the pages even went with the numbers in the first place has yet to actually be explained as well.

Position in the WCC presents more money to higher finishers. The money is exceedingly important for the future whether it is noted or not. Pit boxes are always arranged in order of the WCC aside from some special circumstances. Sponsors remain present within teams that have enough screentime explaining why big names sponsor big teams (If not driver related). These may seem like rather irrelevant excuses but even the pit box information holds more meaning for this reason in contrast to using the now-random numbers simply because it's "the most logical order", even though! if one applied this "logic" whilst looking back last year and the before, they would be rather confused as to what the heck happened to the teams (Let alone the numbers). Joetri10 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned there are variations to the pit box order - specifically at Silverstone. Also if pit box order was so important it would be mentioned in the 2013 season articles somewhere... no.. no.. can't find it.. No it does not exist.

Prizemoney is awarded in and as a consequence of the previous season, so it has no bearing on the 2014 season, and as a prioritization of items of importance, well prizemoney is NOT ONCE mentioned in the 2013 wikipedia article so there are a very very great many items more important.

Also you are operating on the belief that Wikipedia articles have been ordered in constrcutors order when this is not the case. Wikipedia articles have always sorted Formula One table by drivers race number. It did not matter how the FIA allocated the race numbers, they were still sorted by number order regardless of whatever reason the FIA chose to allocate them. So you have instead invented a reason to suit your case. I say invented, because the Wikipedia articles have always been in number order. There have been variations to constructors order in the past and Wikipedia has NEVER given them importance over number order. --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, prize money is paid out according to a complex formula that takes into account a team's historical presence on the grid. A team that finishes fifth and has been in the sport for twenty years will get more money than a team that has been in the sport for two years should they finish fifth. Both the total amount of money that will be paid out in prize money, and the precise method of calculating how much each team gets are closely-guarded secrets. Even if arranging the table based on how much prize money they get was a sensible idea, there is no way we could even figure out how to arrange them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is mainly aimed at Joetri10. You can also find what I have written here above, but I am going to be more specific. I write this because you seem to ignore that the table has never actually been ordered by WCC position. Until 1973, it is by race first entered and alphabetical within that; from 1974 to 1995 it is by number order (which were semi-permanent, note Ferrari didn't get 27 and 28 for all those years for being the 13th/14th-placed team consistently in the WCC); from 1996 to 2013 it is by number order again (these were based on WCC order, but on occasion, including when the WDC wasn't at the WCC Champ team and if teams requested it (take 2010), the numbers were different). Please note that the main reason they changed in 1996 was because there were not enough teams to put numbers as high as 27 and 28, and since Schumacher was WDC and at Ferrari, were weren't going to keep those numbers anyway. Your argument is based on a falsehood that you believe to be true. (and no, I didn't read what you said fully before writing this)

As a side note, I don't think prize money is a good option, because it would require a note (which won't be put up there), and I don't think the information is public anyway (feel free to prove me wrong with a link). —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the answers guys, don't ask for one. I still think it's funny you bring up certain aspects that haven't previously been written whilst you prison, have created a thread asking if we should add something new (In the case of Management) and the rest of you cling on to the consensus of order of numbers no matter what the numbers even stand for to begin with. The numbers could go by how times they have been to the store and you'd still use them. The meaning of the numbers have changed so much that why should it even be considered as a stable system. You need to stop asking "What does the previous season have to do with the next" because I ask you, what relevance do the numbers have now? As I said before, the numbers are now more leaning to trivia and trivia has no place on Wikipedia. Joetri10 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're not trying to invent something that didn't exist to suit our opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Numbers have since the very beginning of motor racing, been used to identify one car from another. It is the one, the only constant in the history of motor racing when at some point everything else has changed. It is constantly used, in every motor racing event program I own, as a sorting mechanism for the readers to identify one car from another. To dismiss it so glibly suggests at the very least a lack of understanding of the history of the sport. --Falcadore (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's true, and it's great, but if driver numbers are to be used as an ordering mechanism, then they have to be in driver order, not in a jumble because we like to list by team. While car numbers are still used to identify cars as they go around, there's no longer any meaning behind the numbers, apart from a personal meaning for the drivers. Now that teams and numbers have no link to each other, the table has to be restructured in some way to reflect that. In my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does it have to be? The numbers will appear jumbled in any arrangement where team mates are placed together. There was not a meaning to the numbers in the 70s and 80s, are we going retroactive on those as well where team mates are not consecutive? And being jumbled was not perceived to be a problem for Constructors method, for which EVERY column would appear to be jumbled as the basis of sorting exists in a whole other article.

I do not mind all that much as to which numerical method is used, although I prefer to sort by team, as it is the method that has always been used and I believe any perception of jumble to be minor. --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It has to be because having a method of ordering something which isn't actually in order is absurd. I really don't understand those editors who are happy with a table "ordered" in a totally half-assed fashion, by the most trivial data in it. All because it vaguely resembles something we used to do. I'm finding the length of this discussion really wearisome, not to mention the repetition of the arguments, and I'm going to check out of it, given that I rarely bother with modern F1 on Wikipedia now anyway. WPF1 debates are like pulling teeth these days, with too many editors having no interest whatsoever in any form of compromise. Frankly, I have no hope of any consensus arising here. My "vote" is for alphabetical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked back bat the talk pages from 1974 to 1995 and I've found no discussions about the fact the tables are not in the WCC order of the previous season and no discussions about the fact that some numbers (such as the ones from in 1974 to 1980) are not all in sequential order. I also doubt any discussions took place on the WikiProject talk page (please correct me if I'm wrong). So... why is this season any special? Why does this season have to be ordered differently from those seven/twenty-three, especially when those tables have been around for as long as anyone can remember? I say we go with the first option and put strong, noticeable but not distracting, borderlines between the teams so everyone can tell without fail who drives for which team and won't be able to be confused about the ordering of the drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

So, —Gyaro–Maguus—, is this what you propose?

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1	Sebastian Vettel
					3	Daniel Ricciardo
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4	Max Chilton
					17	Jules Bianchi
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6	Nico Rosberg
					44	Lewis Hamilton
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7	Kimi Räikkönen
					14	Fernando Alonso
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8	Romain Grosjean
					13	Pastor Maldonado
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9	Marcus Ericsson
					10	Kamui Kobayashi
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11	Sergio Pérez
					27	Nico Hülkenberg
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19	Felipe Massa
					77	Valtteri Bottas
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20	Kevin Magnussen
					22	Jenson Button
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21	Esteban Gutiérrez
					99	Adrian Sutil
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25	Jean-Éric Vergne
					26	Daniil Kvyat

I think this is not a bad compromise at all! Of course, the aesthetics of it can still be fine-tuned. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically what I propose. I think the borders between the teams would be better as dark grey or black. I understand you used blue so the difference is easily noticed by us editors, but it only needs to be clear and shouldn't be eye-catching (the first thing I saw was the blue). I also looked in putting a line between the header and the Red Bull entry, but I'm not sure if it is better (I would advise playing around with yourself). —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I just changed the last line of the table to a format widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is still an issue that hasn't been addressed. Using the numbers will mean we have to change the entire table if a driver changes teams. In the past (when the number was by team, not driver) it wasn't an issue. Now, if a driver who has a lower number moves into a team, we would have to shift the team order. The advantage with alphabetical is that it is the most stable during a season. JohnMcButts (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a massive problem? --Falcadore (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The colors could easily be changed. For instance like this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1	Sebastian Vettel
					3	Daniel Ricciardo
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4	Max Chilton
					17	Jules Bianchi
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6	Nico Rosberg
					44	Lewis Hamilton
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7	Kimi Räikkönen
					14	Fernando Alonso
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8	Romain Grosjean
					13	Pastor Maldonado
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9	Marcus Ericsson
					10	Kamui Kobayashi
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11	Sergio Pérez
					27	Nico Hülkenberg
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19	Felipe Massa
					77	Valtteri Bottas
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20	Kevin Magnussen
					22	Jenson Button
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21	Esteban Gutiérrez
					99	Adrian Sutil
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25	Jean-Éric Vergne
					26	Daniil Kvyat

Is this better? Any color you wish can be used, if necessary. Tvx1 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Falcadore: That looks fine, and is probably better than some thick lines. (it is spacer at the F1 Wiki's teams and drivers tables as well).
@Tvx1: Looks better. Maybe what Falcadore pointed out might by better though (edit your first table if you want to change it).
@JohnMcButts: It wasn't a problem here or here, and this construction of the table at the 2013 World Rally Championship-2 season must have been a nightmare from your point of view. All tables went without issue (I should note the column order of the WRC-2 table was discussed). —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not put 3-4 designs on a separate sub page and ping all those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter to vote on the associated talk page? Then you would get more input and maybe a clearer idea of a consensus. There are probably only a few interested editors watching this page. FWIW, I like the last version above.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I have changed the lines on the first table from blue to white and reduced the thickness of the lines on the send table a notch. I still think the second one looks better, because the borders are clearer. Regarding the newsletter proposal, I don't think it's a bad proposal but it seems to me that the newsletter is no longer active. No issues have been distributed for over 12 months. Tvx1 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that an infrequent editor who has not been paying attention to the debate just popped in and sorted the table. It was of course quickly undone, but I think it goes some way to dispelling criticism of that particular format not making sense. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Do you know the guy? Bugged his computer? or is there some kind of way of tracking his IP/activity that I don't know about? because how would you even remotely know he didn't just read this discussion; felt like he had some sort of importance and/or just felt like changing the table to stop the argument without exactly realizing we're debating over a consensus to then change the table, And that's if it was his actual intention/opinion on the entire matter. The only thing it actually shows is his own personal approval with the numbering system more-so then alphabetizing system which actually right now are going seeminglessly together against the idea of WCC which is the main apposing idea (Though if I may join in with your statement in agreement that yes, you're certainly correct. The current (alphabetized)table doesn't make sense, Cheers) . It's also worth "noting" that he is just one man, not the voice of planet earth (And you're accusing me of making stuff up to suit myself...) Joetri10 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore only said "to some way", meaning the fact that someone not involved in the discussion changed, understood and accepted the fact that the table should be in the order in which he put it. He is not implying any upper-being-like knowledge of what the planet thinks but is using it as an indicator. And you weren't making stuff up, you just had an argument that wasn't actually valid. (No offense intended in anything I wrote here) I would also like to ask, Joetri, what you think of the proposal(s) above, so we can come to an agreeable conclusion to this. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I want reasons, real reasons! reasons that are informative to the reader. I want a system that is not only consistent on meaning/merit/purpose of existing but one that is consistent in of recent years (If not all years). Seeing as no one will agree to validate a real purpose for the car numbers (aside from saying because they're there anyway) then I feel this and all other pages should have (a) notes explaining the point of the car numbers. If not then these numbers otherwise serve no purpose whatsoever and in-fact might as well just be dropped completely from the table because as I said before, the reason behind these numbers are now trivia. I'm sorry but you're never get me to agree on anything other then WCC. If it were to come down to which of the other two I'd prefer though then I'd want the numbers because thinking about, at least whoever chooses to keep No.1 as their car number will be at the top of the list with some actual meaning behind it. If you're also asking me what I think to the actual layout designs of the chart then I don't have an answer other than why change it? Joetri10 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A consensus is not a vote. It is intended to be a discussion aimed at satisfying everyone as much as possible. However, sometimes we cannot satisfy everyone fully, and so we have to resort to satisfying as many editors as we can, as best we can. That means that some people might have to accept a consensus that they do not agree with.

Joetri, I think you are being quite stubborn here to the point where you are preventing any real resolution from coming about. While your stance on WCC standings might have proven unpopular, the other editors have at least made the effort to consider the merits of that method. However, I am still bemused that you keep asking for an explanation as to why WCC standings is a poor method, considering that it has been thouroughly debunked.

I suggest that, if you cannot accept any other method, then perhaps you should consider the idea that a consensus may be formed despite your stance. In that case, you would still be expected to observe it - disagreeing with a consensus does not grant you the right or the power to ignore it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Tvx1's second table is the way to go. A driver changing teams should not be a problem; cutting and pasting a lump of text is easy. ^Kytabu_Talk 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If a driver changes teams mid-season, I would suggest arranging drivers within that team by the rounds they participated in. If you look at 2014 World Rally Championship season, the team and driver table is arranged by manufacturers first. Then it is arranged by driver number, so in the case of Ford, it is Hirvonen (5), Evans (6), Kubica (10) and Prokop (21). In the event that more than on driver uses the same number, it is arranged by rounds. So if Prokop uses #21 in Monte Carlo and Melicharek uses it in Sweden, then Prokop is listed first. (Yes, I know the WRC-2 article has cells crossing multiple fields, and I am not happy about it, but cannot do much right now.)

The advantage of this system is that it uses a linear way of showing the changes. If, for the sake of argument, we took out the number column for the 2013 season, then we would still probably list Räikkönen before Kovalainen at Lotus, because Räikkönen drove the car first and did more rounds.

This does create a bit of a problem given the numbering system. It might appear odd if Räikkönen, #7, was listed before Kovalainen, if Kovalainen used #2. But in that case, I think it would be more important to show Räikkönen first, given that he drove the car first and participated in more rounds.

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A better example is at the 2013 World Rally Championship season article at the list of manufacturers ineligible to score points. I think it is a good idea, and understandable (once you look around the table). I also believe that the current order will stay (unless a last-minute pre-season driver change takes place) under this system.

I will also say that I think the second table looks better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratz Prisonmonkey. You completely ignored my answer yet again. Next time, read it before sticking your giant head into it. As for the people who agreed with my idea initially, one is compromising for the sake of compromising and the rest left because they just couldn't be bothered with you guys anymore. There was no solid disproval of my idea and you still have yet to give me a reason also to why the numbers now matter. You guys read what you want, type what you want and feel like you know what you're talking about when actually, the only person who even knows anything is Tvx1. Joetri10 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been noted here but it seems worth stating that the FIA in their own published entry list (http://www.fia.com/2014-fia-f1-world-championship-entry-list) have tacitly acknowledged the meaninglessness of the new numbers as any way of ordering teams/drivers by listing the official table by teams' 2013 WCC position and then by (seemingly, though it could be coincidence) by drivers' 2013 WDC position (e.g. Alonso #14 above Raikkonen #7). To say the 2013 championship is meaningless is a null point - it's as meaningless as any other arbitrary way of ranking the teams like chosen numbers or the alphabet, albeit it is one which has some actual meaning and will be recognised by the lay reader. I won't bet on us reaching any clear agreement though so I do agree that alphabetical is probably the clearest compromise, but visually it looks somehow wrong when you compare it to previous years; whether that is the fault of us or the FIA I'll leave up to other editors. BroSwerve (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And the list on the Formula One website (http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/) lists the teams by highest number the teams have a driver with and then (http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers/) lists the drivers in number order. Elsewhere, not everything is consistent. I believe the stance is that the FIA and the F1 website are only good for the allocation of numbers and are generally agreed to be unreliable elsewhere, and in any situation, going against the current proposal is a sheer shift from consistency (adding the bars really isn't a big shift, as it is purely to aid readability).
And Joetri, all the reasons why your idea is not the one we are going with are listed above. Read what I and Falcadore have written up there, your answers lie there. As for numbers, here are five reasons as to why they are valuable: 1. Look at any old entry list and you will find that the entrants are listed in number order. 2. Numbers are used to differentiate the drivers. 3. If you have watched a race on TV before (which I assume you have), when giving out penalties they say something along the lines of "No. 1 (S. Vettel)", hence referring to the car and the entry, rather than the driver; the car/number is given importantance. 4. Numbers are associated strongly with the drivers now (VAL77ERI BO77AS, for example) and are used as an identifying tool for basically everyone, including organisers, teams, fans and the drivers themselves. 5. Numbering cars has been a thing throughout motor racing history. The fact that there are numbers reflects history.
Now I know we can't put that on the article, but do with have to explain every non-ranking-related number in sports? No, there is no need to explain them. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that is any reason why we at Wikipedia should list drivers by number, while separating them by team. What has identifying a car by its number or a strong association between number and driver got to do with how Wikipedia constructs a list? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. All you've done there is justify why we should put the numbers in the list, and provided no good reason at all why they should be in that dopey order. If you want to list by the new random driver numbers, make it a list of drivers in number order, not primarily a list of teams in no obvious order whatsoever with drivers stuffed over to one side. The fact is that, right from the start, this list should have been a driver list and not a team list. As far as I can see, the way you lot insist on presenting this table is about the only cock-eyed way of doing it. Can someone explain the ordering system used in this table between 1950 and 1973? They don't appear to be in any obvious order for those seasons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: if a driver with a low number changes teams for one race, or a new driver with a low number joins a team for one race (a likely occurrence sooner or later), he will be inserted and shown above the two regular drivers with higher numbers despite the fact he'll have driven in one race and the other two in 18 or 19? Seem logical to anyone? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason we are ordering by team is to avoid duplication of data. Before that, it made sense to order by team because: (a) the drivers did not have permanent numbers and hence might as well be grouped together since they were on the same team and (b) because 95% of the time, the two drivers in the team had consecutive numbers and grouping them together made sense. I really don't care enough what the final system actually is, as long as everyone can agree on it, I only came up with my idea, pushed it because many people liked it, and tried to get Joetri to understand the immense flaw in his idea. The ordering for 1950–1973, as I actually explained above, is by race first entered and then alphabetically (by entrant or constructor) within that (and within teams, the same applied to drivers; by race first entered, then alphabetically). The plan for it a low-numbered driver moved about was discussed above as well, though only me and Prisoner mentioned it before Joetri distracted everyone again. For what it is worth, Kytabu's idea which currently stands on the top of this talk page is perfectly fine by me. (I only involved myself here to help reach a consensus because I got fed up with everyone constantly disagreeing) —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not like that proposal from Kytabu because it duplicates all of the data, which I think is unnecessary because it does it for the sake of rearranging the table so that the numbers are in ascending order. Grouping the drivers together by teams works just fine, and I do not really see the issue of it being unreadable because the numbers will be out of order. It is a method that works perfectly fine on other season articles, and so I think the argument that it will only confuse readers is little more than a stalling tactic to delay a consensus from being formed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) People are worried about duplication of data on a page where there's already quite a bit of duplication of data? There's a whole table on these pages full of information already available elsewhere on the same page. Forgive me for not reading everything above, it really is the most tiresome experience imaginable. So alphabetical order was used before? If we used alphabetical order of teams, we'd actually be reverting to the 1950–73 format. Sounds quite logical. What was the solution for problem of the low-numbered driver moving around?

Kytabu's table at the top looks fine. So if you're OK with it, I'm OK with it, Kytabu likes it, Falcadore said he didn't mind it, Joetri said it was OK but a bit big, where's the problem? Seems like the closest thing we have to a consensus. User:Prisonermonkeys, can we address your problems with the table at the top of the page? (edit conflict) OK, so you've relayed your problems with it. I have to say, PM, if grouping the drivers together by teams worked just fine, why have we argued about it for weeks? We're looking for a compromise here, not perfection. As for delaying a consensus, *that is happening because people won't look for compromise*. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The only thing with my driver-focused table is that it isn't mobile-friendly due to the collapsible part, as Prisoner pointed out after I posted it. I have removed the collapsible part here but it does look a bit messy with it removed. ^Kytabu_Talk 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think it looks all right, to be honest. I'd remove the tyre column because they all use the same tyres, but it doesn't look any worse than last year's table, in my opinion. The duplicated information isn't a problem for me, as I say, we duplicate stuff everywhere on this page, not least flags and wikilinks. If I were going to redesign it from scratch, I might have a separate table for the team and car info and then a basic table of drivers just to say which team they drive for. With separate championships, it'd wouldn't be a big stretch. But I imagine it'd be too big a leap for most. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I just think that arranging the table by drivers first duplicates information that does not need to be duplicated, and it duplicates that information for the sake of solving a problem that does not exist. It is not that I am unwilling to compromise, but rather that I see this as an absolute last resort, and I do not think we are there yet. Furthermore, it raises the issue of discontinuity in the event that a driver switches teams mid-season. Say, for the sake of argument, that Adrian Sutil (#99) does fifteen races before he breaks his arm, and so is unable to finish the season. His replacement picks a low number, like #2. We will then have a situation where a Sauber driver is listed at the top of the table for four races, with no real connection to anything around them.

I see no problem with arranging the table by teams first, and inserting a thin line between entries to better-define each one. For me, it is simply a question of whether we go alphabetically by constructor name, or by number order. Both methods work equally well, and both methods satisfy everyone to some extent. If I am unwilling to compromise on anything, it is arranging the table by WCC order, but I think most of us agree that that is not really feasible.

The other alternative would be to do what 2012 World Rally Championship season did, and cut out the numbers entirely (a lot of drivers used several numbers that season, to the point where the table looked comically over-blown). Constructors would be listed alphabetically, with drivers also listed alphabetically within their constructors (ie Caterham before Ferrari, Alonso before Raikkonen). In the event that one driver replaces another, they would be listed by the rounds they took part in, even if that means the alphabetical system is thrown out of order a bit (ie Frijns replaces Kobayashi after six races, so Caterham would have their drivers listed as ERI-KOB-FRI instead of ERI-FRI-KOB). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem does exist, because we are arguing about it. Your example about Sutil also creates a problem with the driver number ordering system. That #2 driver with four races would be listed above #21 Gutierrez with a full season and #99 Sutil with 15 races. That would look stupid. Does anyone have a solution for that yet? Ordering drivers within teams by rounds then alphabetically (a la 1950–73) would remove that problem.

The thin line insertion is neither here nor there, it doesn't make the number order look any more obvious. I agree that WCC order is just too unpopular with too many editors for it to be a feasible option, even though I don't have a problem with it myself.

I'd be fine with your last proposal. The numbers should still be in the table, but maybe after the driver's name instead of before it. I'm actually fine with anything except the number semi-order idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, if you look above that table in my sandbox you'll see two proposals which have the teams and drivers separated. Getting away from the alternative proposals, Tvx1's two tables look fine, though the second version looks a bit neater. Prisoner, I don't think we need to resort to the 2012 WRC situation; I'm reading that as one driver used several numbers, whereas here every driver uses one number and sticks with it. ^Kytabu_Talk 00:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the dual-table proposal looks fine, but I accept it if people don't like the idea. I don't like Tvx's tables as they constitute no compromise at all, and the floating low-numbered driver problem has not been addressed. This table has to function properly throughout the season, not just at the beginning. My favoured table is the one that is currently shown, i.e. the alphabetical one, which can be easily adapted to all suit all eventualities. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried out meddling with the table... and I don't actually think this actually looks that bad at all. The changes are perfectly clear.

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
					3	Daniel Ricciardo	All
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4	Max Chilton	All
					17	Jules Bianchi	All
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6	Nico Rosberg	All
					44	Lewis Hamilton	All
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7	Kimi Räikkönen	All
					14	Fernando Alonso	All
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8	Romain Grosjean	All
					13	Pastor Maldonado	All
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9	Marcus Ericsson	1–6
					91	Robin Frijns	7–19
					10	Kamui Kobayashi	All
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11	Sergio Pérez	All
					27	Nico Hülkenberg	All
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19	Felipe Massa	All
					77	Valtteri Bottas	All
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20	Kevin Magnussen	All
					22	Jenson Button	All
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21	Esteban Gutiérrez	All
					99	Adrian Sutil	1–15
					2	Daniel Juncadella	16–19
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25	Jean-Éric Vergne	All
					26	Daniil Kvyat	All

—Gyaro–Maguus— 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in your reading of that situation. I think Sebastien Ogier used seven different numbers over the course of the season (and he was not the only one), but nothing else changed; the whole thing looked ridiculous. I am simply putting the idea of removing the number column out there as an alternative. Here is what it might look like:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	Drivers	Rounds
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	Marcus Ericsson	All
					Kamui Kobayashi	All

In the event of a mid-season driver change, it becomes this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	Drivers	Rounds
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	Marcus Ericsson	All
					Kamui Kobayashi	1–12
					Robin Frijns	13-19

It may also be possible to tie drivers to the colour of their camera mounting. I am assuming one will stay red and the other yellow this year. It would look like this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	Car	Drivers	Rounds
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	A	Marcus Ericsson	All
					B	Kamui Kobayashi	1-12
						Robin Frijns	13-19

It's not perfect (and I used "A" and "B" to avoid confusion), but it does tie two drivers to the one car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Having said all of that, I like the version GyaroMaguus just posted the best. Although I would consider making the lines a little lighter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem as though people have, with the best of intentions no doubt, speculated into existence a problem which didn't really exist here. The FIA produced an unprecedented situation by creating a totally new numbering system which superseded all previous ways of documenting the entry list. They then published a new formal entry list for the season (the one I linked to above - the only relevant official citation for how we might go about listing the teams/drivers this season, as the other pages on their website are not formalised and thus subject to their website designers' whims). That, for whatever reason, is listed in WCC order with drivers then ranked by WDC order within teams. Even though the FIA themselves have published the entry list for the championship in that format, it seems to have been decided that that is absurd. I'm not quite sure why - it avoids any issues with regards to drivers moving in and out of teams, as they would simply be added via the same format (though I could see the argument for adding them underneath if they are indeed late additions), and looks visually consistent with how the lay reader might expect the entry list to look - i.e. the reigning champion team and likely champion driver at the top, unless they change teams, as was previously the case. That it was never ordered purely by WCC position before is irrelevant - that is how the FIA is doing it now, and it produces a clear, logical template. F1 was a much less centralised, formalised and expensive sport before 1974, so many teams and drivers came and went during the season - consequently whoever created those pages had to design a solution for how to present a messy set of info - it doesn't reflect an absolute precedent for the sport now. The teams we start with this season are clearly going to be the ones we end with. Then from 1974-1995 the FIA had a different numbering in which numbers rarely changed, which provides the clear format for those entry lists. Then we had the WDC/WCC-based system until last year. The point being those were different systems, which are gone, and don't reflect on this year. The FIA has answered the question for us in their entry lists but it seems those designing the page know better than the world governing body of the sport. The alphabetical table looks fine of course, it's understandable, I just don't see why the logical template provided for us was ignored when it's perfectly adequate. BroSwerve (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

For one, it has the potential to be confusing for people with no familiarity with the sport. Articles should always be written so that if someone clicks on "Random page" and winds up on this article, they can read it and understand it without a problem. And while we understand the entry list, that does not mean everyone does. To the point of view of an outsider, there is no apparent reason as to why the information is arranged the way it is. Why is Mercedes listed before McLaren when Ferrari is listed before Force India? One is alphabetical when the other is not. Why does the driver of car #44 get listed before the driver of car #6 when the driver of car #19 is listed before car #77? One is numeric, when the other it not. What we need is one clear and obvious rule for arranging the table, a clear and obvious rule that does not require an unfamiliar reader toa ccess another page or an external site simply to understand the content. Furthermore, we do not include all of the content shown in the source give. Stuff like the company name gets left by the wayside. If we were to recreate the entry list perfectly and write off the inconsistent application of the arrangement as being a case of presenting the information exactly, but at the same time ignore parts of the entry list that we do not think are relevant, we have contradicted ourselves.

Secondly, we are not under any obligation to perfectly replicate the sources given. Provided that we include all relevant content and do so neturally, how we choose to represent that information is up to us. We can take the liberty of making something easier to read if we feel the way it is presented in a source is too awkward for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BroSwerve, you are quite right. But WCC order was too unpopular here, for whatever reason. It made perfect sense to me, but still.

GyaroMaguus, so number "order" is totally abandoned when it suits? We would already have a situation where number order is so important that a team's #1 driver is misleadingly listed below the #2 (McLaren, for example) yet when a third driver arrives, number order is abandoned. It just looks like no order at all.

PM, I like your first two table examples. The one clear and obvious rule that you talk about is surely the alphabetical system. Nobody who can read can fail to understand it, and it is adaptable throughout the season while maintaining its clarity. I see no other system here that enjoys the same advantages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Lets archive the in-progress newsletter, fill it with a series of tables (with mid-season changes) and conduct a straw pole to gauge what the community thinks. We are not going to reach a full consensus at this rate. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Breton, the diea behind GM's table is to arrange drivers by number order, unless there is a mid-season change of driver, in which case the affected drivers are shown by the rounds. In that example, Sutil drove first, but got replaced by Juncadella. Even though Juncadella has the lower number in that example, Sutil drove first, which has led to this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21	Esteban Gutiérrez	All
					99	Adrian Sutil	1–15
					2	Daniel Juncadella	16–19

You can clearly see that Juncadella took over from Sutil, even if his number is lower. To arrange them by number order makes things confusing, because we would have Juncadella (16-19), Gutierrez (All), and Sutil (1-15):

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	2	Daniel Juncadella	16–19
					21	Esteban Gutiérrez	All
					99	Adrian Sutil	1–15

My proposal to go alphabetically has the same problem, albeit being less obvious. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Take that argument to its logical conclusion though and you ought to go back and retrospectively re-edit the entry list for every year of the championship to make it alphabetical, if that is the only clear and universally intelligible way to present information. Previously the entry lists were ordered due to a curious and quite hard to explain mixture of the previous year's WDC and WCC (which nobody did explain on the pages) but simply had the happy coincidence of that providing us with a logical sequence of numbers. Go back further though and lay readers would ask why did Ferrari have 27 and 28 for so many years when they finished much further up in the championship than that - this is a sport with its own idiosyncracies and complexities. It's bad enough that the FIA have chucked 64 years of (mostly) meaningful numbers away on this gimmick - at least they then acknowledged that WCC is a more apt way of ordering teams in their entry list, it's just a shame we're ignoring the reasonable solution they've provided us in that document.

In essence, we accept that previously numbers from 1-23 or whatever helped the table to look readable. However, we also accept that the numbers are arbitrary now and so do the FIA in how they've formatted their list. The question then is how do we move forward maintaining the notion of there being *a* logic to the table other than just abandoning it all and going for the simplest solution. I think the FIA's document solves that - and for the casual reader surely a simple 'This list is presented with teams' ordered by 2013 World Constructors' Championship position and drivers ordered by 2013 World Drivers' Championship' position' above would suffice? BroSwerve (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to go back and retroactively change every team and driver table. The change in numbering system coincides with the change in the arrangement of the table.

And adding notes explaining how and why the table is organised in such a way is bad. It is compeltely avoidable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"even though I don't have a problem with it myself"

Approved of WCC: Tvx1, BroSwerve, EightBall, Burgring, Bretonbanquet, mattbuck And Myself

Apposed : Gyaro–Maguus, Deaþe gecweald, Falcadore, Prisonermonkey, JohnMcButts, and Kytabu have disagreed. But wait! What's this?

"I'm not allowed to change my mind? I liked the idea of WCC standings. Then I changed my mind after I though about it. Then Falcadore convinced me to go with numbers rather than alphabetically" - Prisonermonkey.

If this actually WAS a vote then WCC would have more approval, and I include Prison's support in that because no, You're not allowed to "change your mind"? Either you stick with one decision or nothing at all, not in this case all 3 idea's over the course of the entire discussion. The only reason we're still really having this argument is because Falcadore, Prisonermonkey and myself wont shut up, the rest of everyone else have either left or can't be bothered to argue. They are either too involved in changing the design of a bloody table or if they do show their support in something, it gets immediately shot down like a duck during the hunting season. It's beyond stupid. Joetri10 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that every single time we start moving towards a resolution, you come along and try to drag everyone back into a pattern of arguing over insignificant details? If that is all you have to contribute, than I suggest you go ahead and do what you have been threatening to do for weeks now, and remove yourself from the discussion. We are interested in making progress, not who said what and when. Just because I felt one way a few weeks ago and have been convinced otherwise in the time since, that does not make my point of view and weaker now. I was wrong to support the idea of WCC arranging, and if I had known you would drag it up every time the discussion goes a way you are not happy with, I would never have taken that stance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm passionate in making this page the best it can be. A page where someone can come and think 'this makes sense, it's very informative. I can see the contrasting positions to last year very easily, can't believe Riccardo is in the top team!. Not 'What do these numbers mean now? Why is no.2 missing? This wasn't like this before? Since when did Caterham suddenly jump to this position?, I don't understand?' or even better 'Well done Wikipedia, C certainly does come before F'

I also think its rather humorous that this much better agreement has now caused even more problems including what colors we should have and if we should have duplicated information and positioning of people that may or may not even come into play anyway -.- ... Creating problems out of a problem, very classy. Joetri10 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If people want to see the 2013 standings, they can look at the 2013 page. But we have been over this. Dozens of times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying if people want to see the current driver list, they can go on the FIA official list (Which of course we are ignoring because of such obvious, understandable and validated reasons...) Why should they have to go onto another page when it could be right dab in front of them? Joetri10 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant to the 2014 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. We have given you the general status on what affects the previous season has on the current one and you choose to ignore it by bringing up specific circumstances. In fact the entire reason to why Vettel should be listed as no.1, regardless of WCC or Numeral listing is the same one and it comes from the previous year. Joetri10 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And, as you have been told, but have chosen to ignore, pit order can and does change from race to race. As for prize money, it is calculated based on a formula that takes into account a team's history in the sport, the exact mechanism of which is not made public, thus making it impossible to say which teams were awarded what monetary amount.

Now, if you are done reviving old arguments, can we please get back to making some progress? We were discussing the merits of removing the number column and arranging teams and drivers alphabetically with an emphasis on rounds they competed in in the event of a mid-season driver change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No?, I don't think I'm done with the argument? BroSwerve might be but you seem to have swept him under the rug also. As for your "Progress", That is simply something that doesn't need to be discussed as that table is already in place due to a (new) consensus not being made. If you must alphabetize the driver names also then fine but we will cross the bridge of mid-season driver changes as it happens, right now it's not important. Joetri10 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But what happened in 2013 is important, right? Important enough that it is essential to the 2014 article, even though it has no bearing on the season. So of the 2013 season results are important, why don't we include the 2012 season results as well? After all, it was success in the 2012 season that gave the teams prize money that they spent on 2013, so a lot of their success in 2013 came about because of their 2012 results. And because of the major rule changes planned for 2014, the FIA deliberately avoided introducing major technical changes to the rule book between 2012 and 2013, and so the cars used in 2012 and 2013 were largely the same. So using that logic, why don't we include the 2012 standings into the structure of the 2014 team and driver table? It's relevant, as I just demonstrated, but it is also convenient. Because there is a fair chance that readers will want to know about the 2012 season as well, so why not spare them the effort if navigating away from the 2014 page when we can put the 2012 season standings on the 2014 page?

And I just had a brilliant idea. If we are going to include the 2012 and 2013 season standings in the 2014 article, then we should include the 2011 standings as well ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, please make a sentence with pot, black and kettle. Why is it that every single time we start moving towards a resolution, you come along and try to drag everyone back into a pattern of arguing over insignificant details? That's exactly what you did in mid-december when we had already reached a peaceful conclusion on how to arrange the table from now on. The result is this debate that's still going on a month an a half later. Furthermore, when you claim that a proposal has the potential to be confusing for people with no familiarity with the sport, that is exactly what BroSwerve means with speculating into existance a problem of which we do not know whether it exists. Joetri10, I can understand you completely when you are starting to have enough of this seemingly endless debate, but I think you are exagerrating a bit when you say that nearly everybody has left. Nearly everybody who contributed to the discussion at the start of it back in mid-december has left reply within the last 24 hours. The only I seem to miss is Eightball. Now having said that, I can't see how some users claim ordening the table alphabetical by constructor will solve the hypothetical replacement drivers issue. The nummers would be in just the same random jumble as in the case of the other proposals. But most importantly this is another case of speculating into existance a problem of which we do not know whether it exists. We don't even know if a replacement driver will get to select his/her own career number. I suggest we wait and see wether they actually do before we make a fuss about it. Next, I have to say that I more or less agree with the opinion of BroSwerve. But while it is not mandatory to accurately follow the sources, we are not forbidden to do so unlike the impression some users seem to give us. Additionally, I would like to note that Joetri10 has correctly pointed out that there's more support for WCC order than some users claim there is. The most important argument against is that reader would have to read another page to understand it. However, as have already tried to point out that is not true. One can easily see the lead of the page together with the picture of the defending champion and the top op the table in one and the same screen. It really doesn't take much to tie the knots. We really ought to have more respect for the cognitive skills of our readers. In this same subject I would like to reiterate what Falcadore mentioned earlier. A random user came by recently and found the alphabetical order so strange and confusing that he/she changed it to the for him/her more logical numerical order. That's an obvious argument. I have already started me willingness to settle for numerical order because that's the system that has been in use for the articles dealing with the last fourty years and no consensus has been achieved to change it. I've even made some proposals to update the system to allow us to keep using the system onwards. Lastly, I would like to say that I'm willing to settle for Kytabu recentmost proposal if that gets the most support. Now, I hope that we can finally get to a conclusion in a constructive manner, because I, for one, would love to have this debate finished before the season ends. Tvx1 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Having more support for one method would be fine if consensus was a vote - but it is not. And looking at Joetri's estimates, the opinions are split six to seven, which is barely even a majority, much less an overwhelming one. Furthermore, we are not limited to two options, which is why we have been trying to explore some alternative proposals, and if you follow the discussion, you will note that they are gaining some support from both sides. Not enough for a consensus, but certainly more than what we had before.

I am also somewhat bemused that people think going off the FIA entry list exactly is a feasible idea, given that we saw an editor hitherto uninvolved in the debate edit the page to be in number order. How can you say the same will not happen if it follows the entry list? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I could come to some agreement with you Tvx1 if the numbers still held the same meaning as they did previous. This is not a discussion about anything other then this particular motorsport and as such these numbers now represent a more trivia side to drivers more than a placeholder for meaning within the sport. These numbers have simply lost all meaning within the chart itself (Acknowledging the points given to me before) it would bug me to no end (I am aware I've mentioned this 100 times). This is why I have such a big problem with all of this though. The numbers don't mean anything, alphabetizing is child's play and WCC may seem irrelevant to some standard, but it's the most informative when looked at for specifics. I am sorry I keep arguing about this but I just hate seeing something finished so effortlessly and tacky. I guess I was exaggerating slightly with how many people have left but they have certainly been less active. A lot of this "Progress" as it were has happened between the 2 most active editors whom just so happened to be in extreme disapproval of the WCC and another who really could care less and just wants an end to everything. It's a bit sneaky. Even now as Prison tries to build a framework for his own table, problems are occurring for no good reason. It's certainly a case of making mountain out of molehills. This doesn't need to be a project. Why are we making it so? Joetri10 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"I am also somewhat bemused that people think going off the FIA entry list exactly is a feasible idea" You mean like this? - "(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)" [1] Joetri10 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And, again, I was convinced otherwise. But what I said on another subject does not matter. Please stop trying to discredit my argument based on an unrelated issue. It will not bring you any closer to a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Joetri; I am bemused as to why you should believe that race numbers are now magically different in purpose in 2014 compared to... any other year.

The reason race numbers exist at all, is to allow for easy identification of one driver from another. How those numbers were assigned is utterly irrelevant to their function as identifiers. The sport provided, in its very earliest days and used consistently since, a simple, easy to use method of identifying one driver from their fellows.

Now let me say this as clearly as possible. Race numbers were created specifically for listing and idenification. We are debating a table whose function is identification.

That you can even suggest that race numbers have no meaning, or even reduced or increased meaning, is not just laughable, but is ignoring a device specifically created for just this sort of activity.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain. --Falcadore (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The reasons before were based on fact whilst now they are based on trivia. I am not saying the numbers are worthless and maybe my comment on just scraping them entirely was a bit over the top. These numbers served a purpose other than the identification of said driver as they were allocated specifically. As of recent years the way the editors categorized by numbers just so happen to list them in WCC (The numbers original purpose again as of recent). Now these numbers serve that only one purpose of identification. I am looking for a table that has meaning, something that is informative other than 'Look! Drivers!' because otherwise, you might as well just leave it all over the place. Again! Why should we list the numbers due to trivia!.

"How those numbers were assigned is utterly irrelevant to their function as identifiers." It helped identify where the teams previously finished, not just the driver. Joetri10 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But the numbers still perform their primary function - identifying the cars. It does not matter how those numbers are assigned, they still identify the driver. And that is all that we need them to do. We do not need to show WCC standings or anything else, because those functions are only secondary to identifying the cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days now, and it is clear that there is no fixed-order format that will meet all needs. So I am now of the opinion that a sortable table, or tables, offers the best solution. Readers will then have the freedom to sort how they wish. The challenge is how to format such a table, or tables. With 2 drivers per team, it seems we need a row per driver, with team info duplicated, or 2 tables - 1 for teams, 1 for drivers. Burgring (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried creating a split table, but it's challenging to get the sortable function to work while at the same time retaining the overall structure of the table that we have. You can see my table on Kytabu's sandbox page. One of the biggest issues I had, was that with the {{flagicon}} template was overriding the name when trying to sort by driver. The only way I could solve it was to add another column specifically for the driver's flags, and that didn't seem appealing to me. Also, converting the current table into a sortable one just turns it into a giant mess. You might be able to implament a sort feature into the semi-collapsible table at the top of the talk page, but you would still run into the flagicon issue. Feel free to try though. JohnMcButts (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnMcButts, I just edited your table in my sandbox; I got rid of the sorting in the constructors table; fixed the sorting issue in the drivers table (just a simple bit of coding as it turns out); and added a heading to each one. What do you reckon? ^Kytabu_Talk 08:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That would either creating two tables, which is never going to be popular, or duplicating information, which I think should be avoided if and where possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

May I ask, what about doing this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1	Sebastian Vettel	All
					3	Daniel Ricciardo	All
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4	Max Chilton	All
					17	Jules Bianchi	All
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6	Nico Rosberg	All
					44	Lewis Hamilton	All
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7	Kimi Räikkönen	All
					14	Fernando Alonso	All
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8	Romain Grosjean	All
					13	Pastor Maldonado	All
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	CT04	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9	Marcus Ericsson	1–6
					91	Robin Frijns	7–19
					10	Kamui Kobayashi	All
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11	Sergio Pérez	All
					27	Nico Hülkenberg	All
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19	Felipe Massa	All
					77	Valtteri Bottas	All
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20	Kevin Magnussen	All
					22	Jenson Button	All
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21	Esteban Gutiérrez	All
					99	Adrian Sutil	1–15
					2	Daniel Juncadella	16–19
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25	Jean-Éric Vergne	All
					26	Daniil Kvyat	All

Each individual driver slot is made perfectly clear. The dark gray lines show the difference between the teams, and the light gray between the drives. If you seriously think our readership will not be able to understand it; then maybe tint the background of the second driver slot (so, for example, Sutil and Juncadella's cells will be coloured differently). If this is still unacceptable, I might as well give up. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is the way to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Call me crazy but isn't this exactly what it looks like already only now the lines are darker? We also again seem to have somehow snuck order by car numbers in again. By my recollection seeing as this consensus hasn't been agreed upon, we revert back to the old consensus stated a while back which we have now which is alphabetizing, the system in which the page was also locked at. The only progress we've made here without being underhanded is making the lines darker..... Have I missed the point or something? Or am I going to get accused of being part of some other malicious gang now? Joetri10 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lines are darker, but this to meant to solve Bretonbanquet's issue, and to hold up the status quo among the tables of the last 40 years. We have not snuck by into car number order, this hasn't been fully agreed upon, it is not (yet) a consensus; rather, a new variation on an idea I think looks fine. Basically everyone here agrees that alphabetical is not the way to go. And yes, you have missed the point. I am trying to solve issues that mean the table can now easily be understood. Let me explain: The drivers are placed together in teams, so no data is duplicated. The teams are clearly separated, so the fact that the table is ordered by lowest original driver number is clear to see. The drivers are separated by borders and hence the strategy we use when a new driver drives for a team is clear, because what the person would see is that the drivers are ordered by lower number first, then their replacements below them. Seriously, it is the almost the clearest thing I can come up with (which itself involves colours), it covers all possibilities in a clear and obvious way. This is above the WCC order, which is no better because the numbers and names are all over the place and in no logical pattern; 6 (or 7 if you put Kobayashi ahead of Ericsson) out of the 11 teams would have the top number larger than the other one, alphabetically the teams are 8-7-2-4-6-3-9-10-11-5-1 and the driver numbers are 1-3-44-6-14-7-8-13-22-20-27-11-99-21-25-26-19-77-17-4-9-10. That makes zero sense, and to implement it would require the editing of just about every teams and drivers table on F1 articles and maybe across Wikipedia. Also, I believe Prisonermonkeys was wrong to accuse you of sockpuppeting, he was evidently frustrated by your refusal to move onwards in this issue, saw similarities with DeFacto and in the heat of the moment brought the case up. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not have a consensus for alphabetical by any means and we never did. If you bother to read the entire archived discussion as well as the incident report with administrators you will understand that. During the aforementioned discussion Eightball erroneously stated that the status quo was alphabetical but the preceding discussion clearly shows otherwise and that should have been made clear at that time. The status quo is numerical (which is how the page was under full lock, search the history if you don't believe me) because that is the system we used until this season and none of the proposal that have been made since mid-december have gained a consensus. That's why some users have started to fine-tune the system so we can keep using it from this season onwards. Tvx1 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How come every now and then someone says "How about this?" and produces exactly the same table as the last time they said "How about this?" It doesn't solve my issue – my issue is that in a supposedly numerical ordering system, the numbers aren't in order. I'm sure I've said that before.

"Basically everyone here agrees that alphabetical is not the way to go." Huh? Did I miss something? Who agreed that? I certainly didn't.

This proposal is not the system we used before because then the numbers were in order. Now they are not. Simple as that. So there is no precedent for using this system. "So we can keep using it"? Who are you trying to fool, Tvx1? Do you seriously think that resembles last year's table? This is starting to look like East Germany or something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We did not produce the exact same table each time. Yes, they use the same ordering system. But every new one has been tweaked by a user to take into account some concerns that were raised. If you'd bothered to analyse the tables properly you would have noticed that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you make such a fuss about the numbers not being in exact order while it is exactly the same in your favored proposal of alphabetical order or in the WCC order which you don't think is bad proposal either. The only proposals that would suit your concerns are the ones made by Kytabu which order numerical with drivers first.

Yes. it is true that there is as much opposition for alphabetical order as there is support for it. So, no, were a not close to achieving a consensus to use that system.

I never claimed we are using the exact same system as previous. In fact I stated clearly that were trying to tweak the incumbent system so that we can keep using some form of it.

Now unless all users involved in this discussion are finally going to bury their egos and are going to give the other users some basic respect by doing them the courtesy of thoroughly reading their replies and taking into into account their opinions, we are never going to get anywhere. Tvx1 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They are effectively the same table. I do not consider some different colour lines much of a change, and there is zero compromise in it from the original proposal. Furthermore, with alphabetical (or indeed WCC) the teams are at least in some kind of order. This proposal shows numbers that aren't in order, so there is in fact no order in the table at all, apart from one driver in each team being numerically ordered. The equivalent would be having an alphabetical order in which only every other letter is in alphabetical order.

What GM said was that everyone agrees that alphabetical isn't the way to go, which is incorrect. There is no less support for that than for anything else.

What you said was, "The status quo is numerical... because that is the system we used until this season." That looks pretty unequivocal to me, and this proposal is not the same system as the one we used before. I didn't claim you said it was the exact same system, so maybe it's you who should be reading people's posts, instead of patronising them by suggesting a burial of egos. If you are further suggesting that I don't take people's opinions into account, then you haven't read any of my posts. I'm one of not very many people here who has accepted that his favoured format will gain no consensus, and has looked for compromise. Maybe try that yourself? This discussion is a classic WPF1 farce in which certain editors drag something out for weeks until everyone else gives up. Sirotkin Mk 2. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, are GyaroMaguus's last two tables not exactly the same? What is the difference between them? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it very low to say the least that you're accusing me of not being willing to compromise. I made it very obvious that my favorite proposal is WCC order, but I a have shown my willingness to compromise by helping to tweak the numerical order as well as supporting multiple of Kytabu's proposals. You on the other hand display an alphabetical or nothing stance. No wait, you've approved WCC order as well, yet you have done nothing to support it in recent times.

The difference in the last table is that GyaroMaguus has added lines in the driver columns to separate the driver seats more clearly, which is very helpful especially when there is a mid-season change. Of course, colors can always be tweaked if it's not clear enough. Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I have approved WCC order, as it's my favoured option. Apologies then, I wasn't aware you favoured it as well, and I haven't seen you supporting it recently either. For my part, I assumed there was no likelihood of achieving a consensus for it, so I stopped banging on about it. Maybe I was wrong about that, I don't know any more. I completely forget what everybody's preferred options actually are. I am not "alphabetical or nothing", far from it – I will in fact support anything at all apart from this bastardised numerical order thing; I can't be more compromising than that.

Ah yes, so there is. I didn't even notice that change, it's that superficial. Cosmetic changes don't alter the fundamental problem. The problem isn't separating the driver seats, it's the lack of order in the numbers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I posted my latest supportive arguments in favor of WCC order within the last 24 hours. At 3:30 AM earlier today to be precise. Tvx1 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I was not around at 3:30am and I don't always read every word of what was posted in my absence. There is always rather a lot of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I give the clearest option I can in my sandbox; if this is not clear enough for you, then I stand defeated by sheer weight of numbers against me. My idea involves the table organised by lowest number by team, you know, the way the table has actually been ordered since 1974 (and see how there are out of place numbers from 1974 to 1980). All I will say is that if WCC order is approved, I'll do my best to ensure all tables from 1959 to 2013 are ordered that way. I was trying to push through my idea, I really don't see how WCC order is better because quite simply it looks utterly chaotic and unorganised, and the numbers will make absolutely no sense at all. Nor do I think changing the layout of table is a wise idea. Let me just say that if a random user reorganizes the table into number order by team, I won't fix it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot support WCC order. I am still yet to hear an explanation of how the events of last season have anything to do with the upcoming system. So far the three arguments put forward are that it affects pit box order, which we have already demonstrated can and does change; prize money, which we cannot account for because we do not know the formula for distribution; and convenience for the inexperienced reader, which is what the previous season's article is for.

All of this is based on the false assumption that numbers have always been used to represent WCC order, which has long since been shot down. Numbers are used to identify cars, and any other function they perform is secondary.

Retroactively changing sixty-odd season articles to reflect WCC standings is a bad idea. It is going to cause chaos, and at the very least, it should be put before the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisoner, we'd need to be consistant. So if we were to take the illogical but popular route that I don't support, we'd need to, and I will happily put it before the WikiProject. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is largely why I haven't been pushing for WCC order lately – because a consensus is so unlikely. GM, ordering by lowest number in a team has been the system since 1974, but that system now looks stupid (to some of us at least) with the new numbering system. Persisting with an old system is only beneficial if it functions adequately. There are out of place numbers, but very few, and the overall result is that the list was always almost perfectly numerically ordered. Ordering the 2014 season that way gives us a much, much less satisfactory result. F1 changes all the time, as we all know, and this particular (stupid) change has caused one of our methods to no longer function very well.

I agree with PM that refactoring all the old season articles isn't a good idea. We don't need to have all the season articles to follow exactly the same rules, and we're not obliged to try. There's no requirement for absolute consistency between similar articles, and in many ways it's impossible. F1 in 1950 is a world away from F1 in 2014, so our articles are going to look pretty different whether we like it or not. I can't see very many editors going for it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you go by WCC, you need: 1. to move columns (driver then number, it'll look even worse than my tables overwise). 2. A note. I won't violate WP:POINT, but I'm a little stressed right now, and I went OTT. I give up, you guys win; Prisoner, sorry, I tried. I will now do as the note in my sandbox says, and leave this argument. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WCC order will happen. In any case, it's not a question of winning and losing. We all have our opinions and we're each pushing hard for what we think is best. I do seriously believe that everyone has the best interests of the article at heart, but we just disagree. It's hard. Your opinion still counts, GM, whether you leave the debate or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Breton, why does that mean we need to go and change previous season articles? The change to the structure of the table coincides with the change in the number system. The text of the article makes it pretty clear that there has been a change, because of the consequences for qualifying procedure. If we were talking about a change to the table without a change in the number system, then I could understand going back and changing those season articles. But all of those season articles reflect the way numbers were allocated, with the numbers 1 to X being used.

The biggest problem I have with the argument for WCC order is that people claim the numbers have no meaning anymore, so the best way to arrange the table is by WCC order. That, to me, is a contradictory statement: if the numbers represented a team's WCC position in the past, but no longer hold that meaning anymore, then why are we arranging the table based on that meaning when it no longer exists? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, I said I don't think we should change the previous articles. Definitely not keen on that idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may, what I find frustrating in all of this is that 24 hours ago, we seemed to be making some headway. It seemed obvious that whatever the strengths of our preferred methods, opinions were too deeply divided to make them workable. We started exploring alternatives, like inserting lines into the table to break it up, or removing the number column and going alphabetically, or basing it on a driver's participation in rounds. And then, just when I felt like we were on the verge of a breakthrough, someone came along and brought up WCC order, and we have all started going back over scorched earth. It is not the first time this has happened, either, and looking back over the discussion, I think it was a deliberate act of sabotage intended to prevent a consensus from being formed because a certain user did not like the way we were moving towards a consensus they did not like.

I think we need to accept that both number order and WCC order are unworkable at this point, and move on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should just leave the table in alphabetical order; it seems to be at least everybody's first or second preference and it has been the least controversial so far with no real strong opposition that I recall. All the arguments over numerical and WCC order are getting very wearisome. ^Kytabu_Talk 23:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (except maybe Joetri) was seriously proposing WCC again as a viable option. I certainly wasn't. As I've said a few times, I like it but I can't see enough people going for it. Whatever we do, it's going to leave someone unhappy, and that's a crappy thing. But we have to fix it somehow. I don't love alphabetical, but I'm OK with it. Like Kytabu, I see it as a workable option, although I know Falcadore doesn't like it. I like PM's idea of basing it on rounds and/or alphabetically, but leaving the number column present. Maybe we can cosmetically adjust it so more people are OK with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All three ideas will make the table look somewhat messy with the numbering order. There is no way around it aside from duplicating information. You just have to ask yourself what serves a bigger point. A somewhat ordered number system on trivia, An alphabetical order that aside from pointing out the obvious, doesn't mean anything or an order shows which teams finished where last year, showcasing differences between pages, relations to information on the page and informative, if only slightly. Joetri10 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A long held principle of Wikipedia is that each article stands on its own, not on the merits of neighbouring articles. What happened in the 2013 is no more than background information and in no way should be allowed to influence how the 2014 article should be progressed. You are trying to create something of significance where none exists and that is directly against what wikipedia is for. You are connecting the performances of race teams not depicted in this article as having some kind of legitimacy. It does not. --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The numbers are not trivia. The reasons for choosing those numbers are trivia, but the numbers themselves still identify the cars. Likewise, the 2013 standings only represent the finishing order of the 2013 season, which do not represent anything in 2014, even before we take into consideration the technical changes. So you can see there are two different ways of representing each method.

Perhaps the best way forward is to keep the table alphabetical and the drivers alphabetical. The numbers will be out of order, but there is a way around that: the camera mountings. The FIA has always used red and yellow camera mountings to identify individual drivers. So we can do something like this:

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	TBA	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9	Marcus Ericsson	All
					10	Kamui Kobayashi	All
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	14	Fernando Alonso	All
					7	Kimi Raikkonen	All

This is designed to address the problems of both numbers and alphabet. The numerical system and the alphabetical system do not line up - as you can see, the Caterham drivers are alphabetical and their numbers are numerical, but the Ferrari drivers are alphabetical whereas their numbers are not numerical. But the colours red and yellow show which driver is in which car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How has this now descended into this within hardly an hour. We were coming to an agreement on how to use the number order system and than Bretonbanquet comes in with a rant and everybody agrees that number order is unworkable. Like Joetri10 said all three proposals have their disadvantages and it is obvious than none of them is going to get 100% support. The only solution is that we go for the one that has the most support. That is numerical order as almost everybody has that as a favorite option or is willing to settle for it. The only one that is vehemently opposed to it is Bretonbanquet. Alternatively, we could drop the stick and admit that neither of them is going to get a consensus and start to really consider one of the other options Kytabu has proposed. Tvx1 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that the options Kytabu proposed have bigger issues than the others. It needlessly duplicates information. I am not trying to be stubborn or obstinate, but I think the format of the table - whatever the order thigns are arranged by - should be consistent with other articles, and that we should avoid duplicating information when and where we can. If I had to rank the three methods in order of personal preference, it would be numbers, alphabet and WCC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, TVX. "We" were not coming to an agreement. You and the coalition of numerical order proponents were coming to an agreement. I am by no means the only person opposed to the numerical order - there's BroSwerve and Joetri for a start, neither of whom have expressed interest in settling for numerical, not to mention others who have since grown weary of this tedious discussion. Don't start describing my posts as rants unless you want this thing to seriously degenerate. Keep it civil. I would actually argue that the option that everyone hates least is alphabetical. I attempted a consensus on that ages ago, and it nearly worked. Whichever system we use, the numbers will not be in order, that much is a fact. So something may as well be in order and the oldest, most recognisable order in the world is alphabetical. Not my favourite option, but it's workable. I am fine with any of PM's above ideas, and I for one appreciate the fact that he keeps making new proposals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I still hold the same opinion on this being something of a needless dispute (i.e. I'm still not sure why everyone dislikes the FIA's WCC-based order so much given that that is what they've provided as a perfectly feasible template), I'm largely in agreement with the above that, for whatever reason, a lot of people are against WCC and a lot of people -myself included- are against number order, so there needs to be some resolution. I still feel like the alphabetical version strips out all meaning from the order of the table when we had good cause and a workable way to keep some. However, I agree with Breton that alphabetical is a reasonable 'neutral' solution. The latest alphabetical version presented by PM above is quite a clear, eloquent solution and I'd agree that the colour system is a good way to differentiate the two entries, so, as I said initially, I'd be content to go with that for the article by way of compromise. BroSwerve (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The needless dispute came about because some editors decided to edit war their opinions into the article ignoring the opinions of other editors. Some of the language used in edit descriptions was openly inflammatory and dismissive. --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had another crack at a sortable table, which can be sorted by alphabetical constructor name or by the lowest number at each team. The only problem is I've had to use line breaks instead of separate rows for the drivers which makes it a little harder to read. ^Kytabu_Talk 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix
Team	Constructor	Chassis	Engine	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Rounds
Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 91 10	Marcus Ericsson Robin Frijns Kamui Kobayashi	1–6 7–19 All
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	F14 T	Ferrari 059/3	P	7 14	Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso	All All
Sahara Force India F1 Team	Force India–Mercedes	VJM07	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	11 27	Sergio Pérez Nico Hülkenberg	All All
Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E22	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	8 13	Romain Grosjean Pastor Maldonado	All All
Marussia F1 Team	Marussia–Ferrari	MR03	Ferrari 059/3	P	4 17	Max Chilton Jules Bianchi	All All
McLaren Mercedes	McLaren–Mercedes	MP4-29	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	20 22	Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button	All All
Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team	Mercedes	F1 W05	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	6 44	Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton	All All
Infiniti Red Bull Racing	Red Bull–Renault	RB10	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	1 3	Sebastian Vettel Daniel Ricciardo	All All
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber–Ferrari	C33	Ferrari 059/3	P	21 99	Esteban Gutiérrez Adrian Sutil	All All
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso–Renault	STR9	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	25 26	Jean-Éric Vergne Daniil Kvyat	All All
Williams F1 Team	Williams–Mercedes	FW36	Mercedes PU106A Hybrid	P	19 77	Felipe Massa Valtteri Bottas	All All

That looks fine to me, it works well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that looks like a complete mess to me. Mobile browsers do not have the sortable function, so all I can see is lists of numbers and names that are all out of alignment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm settling BUT if we must prattle about with the idea of numbers at the end of all of this then I highly prefer the colour coded numbers PM created. It actually serves a secondary purpose I can get behind. Joetri10 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the above table into my sandbox (because I might play around with it a bit more) and added the {{nowrap}} template to the drivers column, and now that column won't look like a mess on mobile view. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still a mess, I'm afraid. Now there are massive blank spaces in the table and the text crosses over the borders of it cells. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried using  s and fixing the column width; but I can't seem to make anything work on mobile. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing other sortable tables are visible on mobile devices, so what's making this one dificult? I confess I'm no good with these things myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not the sortable function that is the problem, but rather, the width of the cells. It is ignoring the non-breaking spaces and squeezing the columns so the text is out of alignment, sort of like this below (this is intended to look wrong):

Caterham F1 Team	Caterham–Renault	CT05	Renault Energy F1-2014	P	9 91 10	Marcus Ericsson Robin Frijns Kamui Kobayashi	1–6 7–19 All

This means the numbers are not alongside the names, which makes the table unusable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me then like the flags are the problem. Try putting them in a seperate column or removing entirely. --Falcadore (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, is you use the {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} templates it gets rid of the problem with the flags, but the numbers still aren't perfectly in line and the drivers' names spill over into the round column. ^Kytabu_Talk 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And even without the flags, the problem persists. It is not as bad with the flags, but that it happens at alo means it is unworkable. And that is before we put in references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try merging the number and driver columns (again, here) tomorrow. No idea how it'll look. But you never know unless you try... —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

But first, I just realised I missed out some non-breaking spaces opportunities. That is quicker. I'll do it now since it is nearly four o'clock in the morning, and check in the morning. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not great. I usually post from a HTC One XL, which has a fairly large screen, but it's still not working. The option to sort is not available, and so things only roughly line up. The table is simply too wide for it. I shudder to think of what it would look like on a smaller phone.

I have to voice my complete opposition to a sortable function of any sort. It just does not work on mobile devices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetical order, as it is now. End of discussion. There are clearly several editors opposed to 2013 WCC order and I for one absolutely refuse to accept numerical order, so alphabetical is the only option. Great, now we're done. Eightball (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's no up to one user to decide when this is over all by him/herself. I for one, just like BroSwerve and Joetri10 oppose to the alphabetical proposal because, like the aforementioned users pointed out, it strips all meaning from the table whatsoever. A secondary reason why I oppose to the alphabetical option is because the users who are compromising for it are not doing so out of conviction that it's the best option, but because they have no motivation left to support their proposals. Like, BroSwerve pointed out, the FIA have come up with this new numbering idea and they themselves have presented us with a template on how to sort the entry list. If we have take into account how the random reader will understand the table on this page, I think we should at least take into account the lay-out of the entry lists they encounter in the general media outlets including those we use as sources for this pages. If we go alphabetical it's completely different to any possible sources; and some users think that will look completely normal to the random reader? I know it is not mandatory to accurately display the sources, but some users act like it's completely forbidden to do so. Moreover we wouldn't follow it entirely because we would be ordering the drivers within the teams by numbers. On the previous season's articles the tables were accurate with the sources as well.

Alternatively, I would like to bring into attention one of ^Kytabu's propositions which seems to have been forgotten a bit. You can find it on the user's sandbox page. The one I'm talking about is the one called ”separate tables”. Originally this proposal didn't look very well at all, but it has been improved a lot since. Now it's actually two subtables within one table. Some columns have a sortable function as well, but for those mobile devices for which this does not work, the default order looks perfect as well. The advantage of this proposal is that it allows to order the drivers in a meaningful order independent from the team order. Some info is indeed duplicated, but it's not that many and is not annoying by any means. Very importantly, this proposal does not excessively increase the total size of the current table (only one column is added with a repeat of the short team names and no rows are added at all).

Lastly, I think that if the above fail it is high time that we seriously consider  Ronhjones  's proposal and use some sort of newsletter or poll and put ^Kytabu, —Gyaro–Maguus— and Prisonermonkeys's proposal together and ask the opinion of all the project's members and take the one that get's the most vote because I doubt we will ever reach the magical word consensus because every time one user will keep getting across. Tvx1 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Can people stop stating that as fact already. We have been over what the Minority VS Majority is regarding the matter. As for compromising as I'm still feeling extremely offended and I can't take much more of this crap, I vote Alphabetical teams with the driver numbers being colour coded as exampled in PM's latest table or whatever else comes up as Tvx1 makes some hard points so I'd really go with whatever he finds better. Don't take this as me flip-flopping though as Tvx1 is certainly spot on. I just know in my mind no matter what, the table will look a complete mess anyway. I've personally just had enough. So yes. I'm too now settling for the sake of this discussion to end. Sorry Joetri10 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Separate tables is an even worse, more confusing and less helpful way to compose the article. It's literally a worse idea than erasing the article and replacing it with a picture of a hat. Just leave what we have now because everything else you crazy people have suggested would make the article objectively worse. I would not believe that this discussion happened if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Eightball (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the proposal I was referring to on the Sandbox page I linked to? It's actually one table with two independent halves and it looks all right. Tvx1 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, I have to disagree with part of your argument. You said "A secondary reason why I oppose to the alphabetical option is because the users who are compromising for it are not doing so out of conviction that it's the best option, but because they have no motivation left to support their proposals." I must object to this, as I do believe that alphabetical is the best way to order this table. Because we have the drivers grouped with their team, it isn't possible to arrange them by driver number without it skipping around. (1-3-4-17-6-44...) If the table was structured in such a way that the numbers could be arranged sequentially, not every other, I would have no problem with it. However, there has been strong opposition to the proposals that involve a major restructure to the table, mainly because it repeats information, and doesn't fit with the style used in past seasons.

I also disagree that arranging the table alphabetically "strips all meaning from the table whatsoever" from the table. The only thing that arranging the table alphabetically does differently from any other ordering system is that, it arranges the table alphabetically. Nothing else is changed. It is still the same content, simply presented in a different order.

Finally, I was the one that originally proposed the sortable-split-table on Kytabu's sandbox, albeit in a much less usable state than it is now. Kytabu was able to get the sort function to work for drivers (Something I was unable to achieve, so many thanks to Kytabu), and with one of Kytabu's latest ideas, (using {{nowrap|}}) I have been able to refine the idea into a sortable table that doesn't all apart when viewed on a mobile device. You can view it on my sandbox. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is those editors who claim the table will be a complete mess if they're prefered order is not followed. It's a table whose look will be exactly the same regardless of the order it is put in. The difference is a different placement of the order. To call a simple variation of order a "complete mess" is frankly a hysterical over-reaction. The table will still be neat and self-contained regardless of the order, and I do wish editors would cease behaving as if the table suddenly becomes a foreign language. --Falcadore (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Facadore, my description of the above table as "a complete mess" has nothing to do with the way the information is presented, and everything to do with the way it is coded because I am using such a small screen - and of all the smartphones on the market, mine has one of the largest screens available. Under one proposal, I have names and numbers that don't line up (for instance, in the case of Red Bull, I have the number 1 next to the German flag and the number 3 next to "Sebastian"; the "Vettel", Australian flag, "Daniel" and "Ricciardo" all appear on separate lines). Under the other, I have names crossing over the lines of the cells they are supposedly contained within. It is a problem that would happen however the information is arranged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not refering to you Prisonermonkeys where there is technical merit, but to those who say it is "messy" as a form of justification for maligning numerical order. Statements like "everything else you crazy people have suggested would make the article objectively worse" is subjective and frankly nonsense. The table will perform its function regardless of the order it is placed in. I find this attitude particularly unhelpful. --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I might just have sorted out that issue on the latest table on my sandbox. Putting the flag in its own column and putting non-breaking spaces between the first names and surnames of the drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Still doesn't like it. Again, the screen is just too narrow. It is not as bad as it was, but remember, I have a large screen on my phone. Anyone who has a smaller screen is going to encounter similar problems. After all, the software automatically tries to fit the width of the table to the screen, and where that is not possible, it tries to make the width of the table as small as possible. If I am having problems like this, I can only imagine the difficulties someone with an iPhone or something smaller might have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you using your phone in portrait or landscape mode? I just looked at both Gyaro's and John's latest versions on my Galaxy S4 Mini and Gyaro's looked fine while there was only a tiny overlap of da Costa's name on John's, which I think could be fixed if the tyre column is removed. Neither of them were hard to read, though. ^Kytabu_Talk 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I just checked them in portrait orientation as well and again they're fine. I was required to scroll across but that's no big issue. Tried another browser and still looks all right. ^Kytabu_Talk 23:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I also checked on my Droid Incredible 4G which has a small-to-medium screen size, and both Kytabu's and my own tables look fine. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think PM's issues were with the driver's column anymore, rather with the column widths of the whole table. I've (hopefully) sorted this one out in this section in my sandbox. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine on my iPhone! Tvx1 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why, but it still is not displaying properly for me. It might be the browser rather than the phone. Now the driver names and flags are completely out of alignment. Kamui Kobayashi appears to be Dutch. It's still not acceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the feeling that it's a technical problem with your device. We have three users who have independently viewed the proposed table on three mobile phones from three different manufacturers and said it looks fine. I want to point out that consensus is not unanimity. We really can't be prevented from moving forward by one user who keeps opposing. Furthermore there is something called rough consensus. Tvx1 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to note that the table looks fine on my HTC Desire C and probably will look fine on my iPod. I believe that the sizes of the flags can be adjusted, so I'll try that anyway, but mainly because I'm a perfectionist over anything else. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to stop a consensus from being formed - I just think it is important to get this absolutely right. I may be having a technical issue, but if I am not, then it is conceiveable that other readers will experience the same problem, and I would rather err on the side of caution. I suspect the issue is the way you have used a white border around some parts of the table, but not around others. And I think you might need to add all of the references from the article into the mock-up before we proceed, just to be certain that the problem has been fixed.

I would also like to caution against complex coding in the tables. Wikipedia should not just be readable, but easy to edit. Someone who wishes to edit the article may be deterred by complex coding, and the more complex the coding, the easier it is to break the table. Having the sortable function may satisfy us, but we are not the only ones reading it.

And finally, we should probably settle on the default state of the table, since readability has been emphasised throughout this debate (and mobile devices do not have a sortable function). Alphabetical and numerical work just fine for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the table(s) on my sandbox? I didn't use the transparent borders, so it might be easier to see where the issue is coming from. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed my flag issues on my sandbox. Does it work for you PM? —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is much better, but I have two or three suggestions. First, can you add in references? I want to make sure the issue is not going to be recurring once we add them in. I suggest you just add the following to each field that needs a reference - ^[00] - without the "nowiki", of course. That will just set up a dummy reference that will be approximately the same size as the references in the article. Alternatively, if we could find a reference - like a full entry list - that contained all drivers, chassis names and engine combinations, we could cut all the references from the body of the table and put them in a bar across the bottom, the way we do with the calendar and results on race report articles.

I also think that in the interests of saving space, we could split some of the longer team names across two lines. Mercedes and Force India have very long names, while the unusual shape if the Swiss flag is throwing the Sauber drivers out of alignment. We have done this before when a team changes its name mid-season - Renault losing ING's title sponsorship in 2009 being the most notable example. And it uses white borders on the text, so it is essentially the same as you have elsewhere in that table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try that tomorrow, and said entry list reference would be the official FIA entry list, with references for those not included (though I'll fill it with the fake references anyway – I'll be a copy and paste job). Right now though its late, I'm tired and not exactly sober; hence tomorrow. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes here. ^Kytabu_Talk 04:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Much better, but can we try to find a way to narrow some of the columns? By my estimate, it is about two and a half times wider than the screen, and I think we can trim that down a bit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter if it's wider than a mobile screen if you can just scroll across anyway? The 2013 table from the Teams to the Rounds column in 736px, this one is 775px; I don't think there's any need for the table to be narrower. The majority of the audience will be viewing the page on a computer or laptop anyway. ^Kytabu_Talk 08:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The minority is still a percentage. PM here is constantly using his mobile phone to give his input towards the discussion and editing the main page and the reason is probably a very valid one. Also with modern day technology and discussion ever more prominent together, mobile phones are being used even more. Wikipedia is often looked at as that which information can be learned without effort, quick and effectively. In Regards to F1, discussion may consist outside of ones home and therefor may need their mobile. Although what a stupid chart actually looks like in terms of aesthetics is rather irrelevant for the most part all things considered, it should still be up to standard when viewing on all systems; mobile or otherwise. Neglect is the first step towards improper conduct Joetri10 (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My main point is that if the table in my sandbox is too wide, all the driver tables in previous seasons are too wide (particularly those with the test driver column - the 2011 one is 900px wide compared to the 775px here). ^Kytabu_Talk 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Should those also not be fixed then? I don't think other pages should be brought up as justification when they also seem dodgy anyway. Besides, are we creating a table for the entirety of F1-related Wikipedia pages or just this one? Joetri10 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We are creating a table for this page, but there's no point making just this table perfectly suited to a mobile device when tables on other pages and even other tables on this page will be too wide for a mobile phone screen. If we start designing tables for phones, then they will start looking odd on computers (for example, line breaks for no apparent reason). And I ask again: how hard is it to scroll across on a mobile device? ^Kytabu_Talk 09:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually ironically enough don't have/use a mobile for the internet though in discussion with others, they have done. My point though was if we are going to spend 100 years on one stupid table, we might as well make it work for devices as well as computers, or else what's the point?

I can't say much more then that, this is more PM's case. Joetri10 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to read the bulk of this discussion but if we're talking about making wholesale changes in the interest of making the table more readable (or readable at all) on mobile then that's something I'd be absolutely on board with, so long as it doesn't require removing useful information or hindering usability in the full version. Eightball (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For PM's plan to save space, we can quite easily cut out a non-breaking space or two, which I have done my sandbox. The table looks fine on both PC and mobile. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Tabula rasa

Let's leave this here - the issue is resolved and everyone is satisfied with the outcome, which is what we set out to do.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, now that everyone has had a chance to settle down and the page has stablised, it's time to move onto the next phase of resolving the number issue. I have started another discussion here in the hopes that we can all leave the above behind (preferrably by archiving it) and start afresh. The issue, for the uninitiated, is how best to organise the team and driver table given that the numbering system has changed for 2014. There are four separate proposals out there, and I am going to try and summarise each as best I can. The four proposals are as follows: By number order, teams first This method will arrange the table in numerical order; 1-2-3-4. Where teams do not have consecutive numbers (ie Mercedes 6 and 44, Ferrari 7 and 14), the teams with the lowest number will be listed first. The main advantage of this is that it follows the path of least resistance - numbers are arranged in what might be described as the most logical order. It is a method used on many season articles for other motorsport categories, such as 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship, 2013 British Touring Car Championship season, 2013 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season, and so on. It is also the method used on (almost - there are a few exceptions) every season article to date. The main disadvantage is that some editors feel this is confusing, with numbers appearing out of sequence - for example, 6-44-7-14-8 - for no apparent reason. By number order, drivers first This method is essentially the same as the above, with one crucial difference: it arranges the drivers before the teams, rather than the teams before the drivers. The main advantage of this is that it directly addresses the concerns of going by number order and listing teams first. Numbers will now appear sequentially in the table. The main disadvantage of this is that it requires a whole lot of duplicated information. Every driver will need to have the team he drives for, the chassis and engine he uses listed individually, rather than grouping them together. By 2013 WCC order/"Order of Merit" This method is based upon the FIA's old system of assigning numbers based on WCC standings. The reigning World Constructors' Champions will be listed first, then second place, and so on and so forth. The main advantage of this is that it shows the teams in the order they finished the 2013 WCC, giving readers an ida as to who is competitive and who is not. The main disadvantage is that those positions are based on the 2013 standings, which has nothing to do with the 2014 season. Similarly, ranking teams in order of competitiveness is speculative - we have no idea who will be where on the grid. Alphabetically by constructor This method is the one currently used in the article. It lists the teams alphabetically by their constructor name. The main advantage of this is that it is perhaps the most neutral solution. It does not place undue weight on numbers, team positions, or any other variable. The main disadvantage of this is that it marks a major departure from previous ways of arranging the table. So, those are our options. Feel free to discuss at length, but please, lets try and keep our eye on the ball this time. We don't want to get caught up argunig the minutae of methods and end up chasing our tails because of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC) My position on this matter is that going alphabetically is the best way forwards. I think it is the most neutral solution, and there is no real scope for confusion. I may be open to going numerically by teams, but I feel that numerically by drivers will make the table too big, duplicate information needlessly, and I think it pushes too much emphasis onto the individual driver when Formula 1 is recognised as a team sport. I am also vehemently opposed to going by WCC order. Nothing that happened during the 2013 season has any bearing on what will happen in 2014, except for maybe whoever gets to use the #1. That's it. I also think that presenting the teams in "Order of Merit" is speculative, because it implies that certain teams will be better than other teams at a time when the sport is about to undergo major rule changes, and so past performance is no guarantee of future success. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I agree that listing alphabetically is the best way to go. Also, thank you for creating the above summery! JohnMcButts (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) It is false to suggest that "Order of merit" is the continuation of recent articles. "By number order, teams first" is the system that has been used. That it has co-incided with "order of merit" in most (not all) years is a decision made by the FIA and external to Wikipedia's running of their articles. If not, those years when order of merit has not been followed would not appear in number order. This perpetuated falsehood has been the primary source of my objections from the start and I do wish refering to it as such would cease. Additionally it was never mentioned in the talk pages of those season articles where the "order of merit" was not followed that the order of the teams should be changed away from numerical order. Suggesting that numerical order has not been the method followed since the beginning is pure invention. --Falcadore (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I was just trying to explain the proposal in the simplest and most objective way possible. Feel free to change the wording if you feel something else would be more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) A) It's not objective if it is not based upon fact. B) It's not my post to change. --Falcadore (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I still don't see how the "number order, teams first" method is confusing. If you look purely at the number column, then yes, the order seems random. However, looking at the table as a whole it is clear that the team cars are grouped together and that the order is based on the lowest number at each team. KytabuTalk 06:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I would like to clarify the WCC order proposal a bit here. While it is true that "Order of Merit" is not the system used by the Wikipedia articles up to this season, it's is an incorrect claim that the previous season's WCC results have no effect whatsoever on the current season. Firstly they determine the pit box order at each Grand Prix. Secondly and more importantly, the final WCC standings determine how much prize money each team receives end thus has a major effect on the next season's budget of each team. This is why I translated this proposal as ranking by Order of Merit in the first place, similar to lots of other sports which use an order of merit to rank their competitors. Furthermore, I disagree that ordering by WCC implies that teams will perform at the same level as in the preceding season. That is completely unfounded claim. This is still my favorite proposal. However, I'm willing to settle for "number order, teams first" proposal as well. Tvx1 (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Prize money is issued though as part of the 2013 season, so it's money the teams already have when 2014 begins. We might as well start detailing how much each sponsor contributes to each season. We don't detail pit box order, or financial breakdowns of each team. It is simply not significantly important to the 2014 season. --Falcadore (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) And neither is immediately obvious to the reader. We should not need a note explaining how the table is organised - it should be immediately obvious at a glance. And as far as reasons for organising the table go, pit box order and prize money are fairly obscure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Yes pit box order and financial breakdown are not immediately obvious, but WCC order is. In fact you can view the top half of the table and the picture of the defending champion in the same screen. That does not require much effort at all! Please give the random user the basis respect that he/she can very quickly realize how the table is ordered. That is if the random user is fussed about the table order in the same way as some of you are at all. I'm still not convinced of that at all. I still think we are looking for a solution for a much exaggerated problem. Tvx1 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC) If the pitbox order (financial breakdown still belongs to the previous season) are not obvious then how is it relevant? Why should something so obscure as pitbox order define the sorting order of the table? --Falcadore (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Can we really use pitbox order when, at Silverstone, the top three teams are moved into the centre so that the fans can see the pit crews in action? —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC) That then suggests to me there are actually NO relevant reasons for sorting via 2013 constructors order. None at all. --Falcadore (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I, for one, am still having trouble understanding how the 2013 WCC standings have anything to do with 2014, and why people seem to think that previous team and driver tables are arranged based on WCC standings with the numbers coincidentally lining up in numerical order. Like I said, I am vehemently opposed to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Personally, I am not too fussed about this (especially since, on my wiki, we chose order of merit, and I don't like it). However, I think the first option is the best choice. I understand fully that they have ordered like that for the past 40 seasons. And while I do think alphabetical is best if we can't decide, the numbers are always used for sorting; why stop now —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC) The reason why we should "Stop Now" is something I keep needing to re-iterate and everyone seems to ignore it. The reason being that the numbers used in the past 40 years roughly represented where the drivers finished at the end of the previous WDC. Although this wasn't always the case, in most recent times (20 years), this has been the case. Now however the numbers represent a completely different meaning and one that is based purely on trivia. Checo choosing no.11 due to his karting days? Great, but do we need to know that? Not particularly. Sorting by these numbers is an entirely different situation now. If you continue going by the consensus of sorting by "Numbers" then these numbers are really rather irrelevant wouldn't you say?. It's a cheap fix, a poor figured one and one that now does not reflect F1 in any way aside from said trivia. If you still think sorting by numbers is better then I ask you: Why do these numbers even matter anymore inside of the sport? Joetri10 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC) You are still assuming that the tables are being arranged based on WCC order in the past, and that the numbers coincidentally happened to reflect that order. You have it the wrong way around. The FIA could assign numbers based on who has the best-groomed nose hair, and those tables would still be arranged in number order. You say that we should stop organising the table in number order because those numbers no longer have any meaning. Fair enough. But my question to you is this: if we should not organise the table based on numbers that no longer have meaning, why should we organise it based on a meaning that no longer exists? Could somebody who is in favour of arranging the table based on WCC order please explain to me what anything that happened in 2013 has to do with 2014? As far as I can see, there is nothing that crosses over. We might as well arrange the table based on each team's finishing position for the year they joined the championship. It's about as relevant (read: not at all). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I'm just saying the numbers reflected the meaning in which the FIA organized their drivers grid line-up. Why the pages even went with the numbers in the first place has yet to actually be explained as well. Position in the WCC presents more money to higher finishers. The money is exceedingly important for the future whether it is noted or not. Pit boxes are always arranged in order of the WCC aside from some special circumstances. Sponsors remain present within teams that have enough screentime explaining why big names sponsor big teams (If not driver related). These may seem like rather irrelevant excuses but even the pit box information holds more meaning for this reason in contrast to using the now-random numbers simply because it's "the most logical order", even though! if one applied this "logic" whilst looking back last year and the before, they would be rather confused as to what the heck happened to the teams (Let alone the numbers). Joetri10 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC) As has already been mentioned there are variations to the pit box order - specifically at Silverstone. Also if pit box order was so important it would be mentioned in the 2013 season articles somewhere... no.. no.. can't find it.. No it does not exist. Prizemoney is awarded in and as a consequence of the previous season, so it has no bearing on the 2014 season, and as a prioritization of items of importance, well prizemoney is NOT ONCE mentioned in the 2013 wikipedia article so there are a very very great many items more important. Also you are operating on the belief that Wikipedia articles have been ordered in constrcutors order when this is not the case. Wikipedia articles have always sorted Formula One table by drivers race number. It did not matter how the FIA allocated the race numbers, they were still sorted by number order regardless of whatever reason the FIA chose to allocate them. So you have instead invented a reason to suit your case. I say invented, because the Wikipedia articles have always been in number order. There have been variations to constructors order in the past and Wikipedia has NEVER given them importance over number order. --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Also, prize money is paid out according to a complex formula that takes into account a team's historical presence on the grid. A team that finishes fifth and has been in the sport for twenty years will get more money than a team that has been in the sport for two years should they finish fifth. Both the total amount of money that will be paid out in prize money, and the precise method of calculating how much each team gets are closely-guarded secrets. Even if arranging the table based on how much prize money they get was a sensible idea, there is no way we could even figure out how to arrange them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC) This is mainly aimed at Joetri10. You can also find what I have written here above, but I am going to be more specific. I write this because you seem to ignore that the table has never actually been ordered by WCC position. Until 1973, it is by race first entered and alphabetical within that; from 1974 to 1995 it is by number order (which were semi-permanent, note Ferrari didn't get 27 and 28 for all those years for being the 13th/14th-placed team consistently in the WCC); from 1996 to 2013 it is by number order again (these were based on WCC order, but on occasion, including when the WDC wasn't at the WCC Champ team and if teams requested it (take 2010), the numbers were different). Please note that the main reason they changed in 1996 was because there were not enough teams to put numbers as high as 27 and 28, and since Schumacher was WDC and at Ferrari, were weren't going to keep those numbers anyway. Your argument is based on a falsehood that you believe to be true. (and no, I didn't read what you said fully before writing this) As a side note, I don't think prize money is a good option, because it would require a note (which won't be put up there), and I don't think the information is public anyway (feel free to prove me wrong with a link). —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC) If you don't like the answers guys, don't ask for one. I still think it's funny you bring up certain aspects that haven't previously been written whilst you prison, have created a thread asking if we should add something new (In the case of Management) and the rest of you cling on to the consensus of order of numbers no matter what the numbers even stand for to begin with. The numbers could go by how times they have been to the store and you'd still use them. The meaning of the numbers have changed so much that why should it even be considered as a stable system. You need to stop asking "What does the previous season have to do with the next" because I ask you, what relevance do the numbers have now? As I said before, the numbers are now more leaning to trivia and trivia has no place on Wikipedia. Joetri10 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Well, we're not trying to invent something that didn't exist to suit our opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Numbers have since the very beginning of motor racing, been used to identify one car from another. It is the one, the only constant in the history of motor racing when at some point everything else has changed. It is constantly used, in every motor racing event program I own, as a sorting mechanism for the readers to identify one car from another. To dismiss it so glibly suggests at the very least a lack of understanding of the history of the sport. --Falcadore (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC) That's true, and it's great, but if driver numbers are to be used as an ordering mechanism, then they have to be in driver order, not in a jumble because we like to list by team. While car numbers are still used to identify cars as they go around, there's no longer any meaning behind the numbers, apart from a personal meaning for the drivers. Now that teams and numbers have no link to each other, the table has to be restructured in some way to reflect that. In my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Why does it have to be? The numbers will appear jumbled in any arrangement where team mates are placed together. There was not a meaning to the numbers in the 70s and 80s, are we going retroactive on those as well where team mates are not consecutive? And being jumbled was not perceived to be a problem for Constructors method, for which EVERY column would appear to be jumbled as the basis of sorting exists in a whole other article. I do not mind all that much as to which numerical method is used, although I prefer to sort by team, as it is the method that has always been used and I believe any perception of jumble to be minor. --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC) It has to be because having a method of ordering something which isn't actually in order is absurd. I really don't understand those editors who are happy with a table "ordered" in a totally half-assed fashion, by the most trivial data in it. All because it vaguely resembles something we used to do. I'm finding the length of this discussion really wearisome, not to mention the repetition of the arguments, and I'm going to check out of it, given that I rarely bother with modern F1 on Wikipedia now anyway. WPF1 debates are like pulling teeth these days, with too many editors having no interest whatsoever in any form of compromise. Frankly, I have no hope of any consensus arising here. My "vote" is for alphabetical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, I've looked back bat the talk pages from 1974 to 1995 and I've found no discussions about the fact the tables are not in the WCC order of the previous season and no discussions about the fact that some numbers (such as the ones from in 1974 to 1980) are not all in sequential order. I also doubt any discussions took place on the WikiProject talk page (please correct me if I'm wrong). So... why is this season any special? Why does this season have to be ordered differently from those seven/twenty-three, especially when those tables have been around for as long as anyone can remember? I say we go with the first option and put strong, noticeable but not distracting, borderlines between the teams so everyone can tell without fail who drives for which team and won't be able to be confused about the ordering of the drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) So, —Gyaro–Maguus—, is this what you propose? Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Infiniti Red Bull Racing Red Bull–Renault RB10 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 1 Sebastian Vettel 3 Daniel Ricciardo Marussia F1 Team Marussia–Ferrari MR03 Ferrari 059/3 P 4 Max Chilton 17 Jules Bianchi Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team Mercedes F1 W05 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 6 Nico Rosberg 44 Lewis Hamilton Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 7 Kimi Räikkönen 14 Fernando Alonso Lotus F1 Team Lotus-Renault E22 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 8 Romain Grosjean 13 Pastor Maldonado Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 Marcus Ericsson 10 Kamui Kobayashi Sahara Force India F1 Team Force India–Mercedes VJM07 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 11 Sergio Pérez 27 Nico Hülkenberg Williams F1 Team Williams–Mercedes FW36 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 19 Felipe Massa 77 Valtteri Bottas McLaren Mercedes McLaren–Mercedes MP4-29 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 20 Kevin Magnussen 22 Jenson Button Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 Esteban Gutiérrez 99 Adrian Sutil Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso–Renault STR9 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 25 Jean-Éric Vergne 26 Daniil Kvyat I think this is not a bad compromise at all! Of course, the aesthetics of it can still be fine-tuned. Tvx1 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, that is basically what I propose. I think the borders between the teams would be better as dark grey or black. I understand you used blue so the difference is easily noticed by us editors, but it only needs to be clear and shouldn't be eye-catching (the first thing I saw was the blue). I also looked in putting a line between the header and the Red Bull entry, but I'm not sure if it is better (I would advise playing around with yourself). —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I just changed the last line of the table to a format widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC) There is still an issue that hasn't been addressed. Using the numbers will mean we have to change the entire table if a driver changes teams. In the past (when the number was by team, not driver) it wasn't an issue. Now, if a driver who has a lower number moves into a team, we would have to shift the team order. The advantage with alphabetical is that it is the most stable during a season. JohnMcButts (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Is that a massive problem? --Falcadore (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC) The colors could easily be changed. For instance like this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Infiniti Red Bull Racing Red Bull–Renault RB10 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 1 Sebastian Vettel 3 Daniel Ricciardo Marussia F1 Team Marussia–Ferrari MR03 Ferrari 059/3 P 4 Max Chilton 17 Jules Bianchi Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team Mercedes F1 W05 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 6 Nico Rosberg 44 Lewis Hamilton Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 7 Kimi Räikkönen 14 Fernando Alonso Lotus F1 Team Lotus-Renault E22 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 8 Romain Grosjean 13 Pastor Maldonado Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 Marcus Ericsson 10 Kamui Kobayashi Sahara Force India F1 Team Force India–Mercedes VJM07 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 11 Sergio Pérez 27 Nico Hülkenberg Williams F1 Team Williams–Mercedes FW36 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 19 Felipe Massa 77 Valtteri Bottas McLaren Mercedes McLaren–Mercedes MP4-29 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 20 Kevin Magnussen 22 Jenson Button Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 Esteban Gutiérrez 99 Adrian Sutil Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso–Renault STR9 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 25 Jean-Éric Vergne 26 Daniil Kvyat Is this better? Any color you wish can be used, if necessary. Tvx1 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) @Falcadore: That looks fine, and is probably better than some thick lines. (it is spacer at the F1 Wiki's teams and drivers tables as well). @Tvx1: Looks better. Maybe what Falcadore pointed out might by better though (edit your first table if you want to change it). @JohnMcButts: It wasn't a problem here or here, and this construction of the table at the 2013 World Rally Championship-2 season must have been a nightmare from your point of view. All tables went without issue (I should note the column order of the WRC-2 table was discussed). —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Why not put 3-4 designs on a separate sub page and ping all those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter to vote on the associated talk page? Then you would get more input and maybe a clearer idea of a consensus. There are probably only a few interested editors watching this page. FWIW, I like the last version above.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Ok. I have changed the lines on the first table from blue to white and reduced the thickness of the lines on the send table a notch. I still think the second one looks better, because the borders are clearer. Regarding the newsletter proposal, I don't think it's a bad proposal but it seems to me that the newsletter is no longer active. No issues have been distributed for over 12 months. Tvx1 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) It is perhaps worth noting that an infrequent editor who has not been paying attention to the debate just popped in and sorted the table. It was of course quickly undone, but I think it goes some way to dispelling criticism of that particular format not making sense. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, what? Do you know the guy? Bugged his computer? or is there some kind of way of tracking his IP/activity that I don't know about? because how would you even remotely know he didn't just read this discussion; felt like he had some sort of importance and/or just felt like changing the table to stop the argument without exactly realizing we're debating over a consensus to then change the table, And that's if it was his actual intention/opinion on the entire matter. The only thing it actually shows is his own personal approval with the numbering system more-so then alphabetizing system which actually right now are going seeminglessly together against the idea of WCC which is the main apposing idea (Though if I may join in with your statement in agreement that yes, you're certainly correct. The current (alphabetized)table doesn't make sense, Cheers) . It's also worth "noting" that he is just one man, not the voice of planet earth (And you're accusing me of making stuff up to suit myself...) Joetri10 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Falcadore only said "to some way", meaning the fact that someone not involved in the discussion changed, understood and accepted the fact that the table should be in the order in which he put it. He is not implying any upper-being-like knowledge of what the planet thinks but is using it as an indicator. And you weren't making stuff up, you just had an argument that wasn't actually valid. (No offense intended in anything I wrote here) I would also like to ask, Joetri, what you think of the proposal(s) above, so we can come to an agreeable conclusion to this. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I want reasons, real reasons! reasons that are informative to the reader. I want a system that is not only consistent on meaning/merit/purpose of existing but one that is consistent in of recent years (If not all years). Seeing as no one will agree to validate a real purpose for the car numbers (aside from saying because they're there anyway) then I feel this and all other pages should have (a) notes explaining the point of the car numbers. If not then these numbers otherwise serve no purpose whatsoever and in-fact might as well just be dropped completely from the table because as I said before, the reason behind these numbers are now trivia. I'm sorry but you're never get me to agree on anything other then WCC. If it were to come down to which of the other two I'd prefer though then I'd want the numbers because thinking about, at least whoever chooses to keep No.1 as their car number will be at the top of the list with some actual meaning behind it. If you're also asking me what I think to the actual layout designs of the chart then I don't have an answer other than why change it? Joetri10 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) A consensus is not a vote. It is intended to be a discussion aimed at satisfying everyone as much as possible. However, sometimes we cannot satisfy everyone fully, and so we have to resort to satisfying as many editors as we can, as best we can. That means that some people might have to accept a consensus that they do not agree with. Joetri, I think you are being quite stubborn here to the point where you are preventing any real resolution from coming about. While your stance on WCC standings might have proven unpopular, the other editors have at least made the effort to consider the merits of that method. However, I am still bemused that you keep asking for an explanation as to why WCC standings is a poor method, considering that it has been thouroughly debunked. I suggest that, if you cannot accept any other method, then perhaps you should consider the idea that a consensus may be formed despite your stance. In that case, you would still be expected to observe it - disagreeing with a consensus does not grant you the right or the power to ignore it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I think Tvx1's second table is the way to go. A driver changing teams should not be a problem; cutting and pasting a lump of text is easy. KytabuTalk 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC) If a driver changes teams mid-season, I would suggest arranging drivers within that team by the rounds they participated in. If you look at 2014 World Rally Championship season, the team and driver table is arranged by manufacturers first. Then it is arranged by driver number, so in the case of Ford, it is Hirvonen (5), Evans (6), Kubica (10) and Prokop (21). In the event that more than on driver uses the same number, it is arranged by rounds. So if Prokop uses #21 in Monte Carlo and Melicharek uses it in Sweden, then Prokop is listed first. (Yes, I know the WRC-2 article has cells crossing multiple fields, and I am not happy about it, but cannot do much right now.) The advantage of this system is that it uses a linear way of showing the changes. If, for the sake of argument, we took out the number column for the 2013 season, then we would still probably list Räikkönen before Kovalainen at Lotus, because Räikkönen drove the car first and did more rounds. This does create a bit of a problem given the numbering system. It might appear odd if Räikkönen, #7, was listed before Kovalainen, if Kovalainen used #2. But in that case, I think it would be more important to show Räikkönen first, given that he drove the car first and participated in more rounds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC) A better example is at the 2013 World Rally Championship season article at the list of manufacturers ineligible to score points. I think it is a good idea, and understandable (once you look around the table). I also believe that the current order will stay (unless a last-minute pre-season driver change takes place) under this system. I will also say that I think the second table looks better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Congratz Prisonmonkey. You completely ignored my answer yet again. Next time, read it before sticking your giant head into it. As for the people who agreed with my idea initially, one is compromising for the sake of compromising and the rest left because they just couldn't be bothered with you guys anymore. There was no solid disproval of my idea and you still have yet to give me a reason also to why the numbers now matter. You guys read what you want, type what you want and feel like you know what you're talking about when actually, the only person who even knows anything is Tvx1. Joetri10 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's been noted here but it seems worth stating that the FIA in their own published entry list (http://www.fia.com/2014-fia-f1-world-championship-entry-list) have tacitly acknowledged the meaninglessness of the new numbers as any way of ordering teams/drivers by listing the official table by teams' 2013 WCC position and then by (seemingly, though it could be coincidence) by drivers' 2013 WDC position (e.g. Alonso #14 above Raikkonen #7). To say the 2013 championship is meaningless is a null point - it's as meaningless as any other arbitrary way of ranking the teams like chosen numbers or the alphabet, albeit it is one which has some actual meaning and will be recognised by the lay reader. I won't bet on us reaching any clear agreement though so I do agree that alphabetical is probably the clearest compromise, but visually it looks somehow wrong when you compare it to previous years; whether that is the fault of us or the FIA I'll leave up to other editors. BroSwerve (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC) And the list on the Formula One website (http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/) lists the teams by highest number the teams have a driver with and then (http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers/) lists the drivers in number order. Elsewhere, not everything is consistent. I believe the stance is that the FIA and the F1 website are only good for the allocation of numbers and are generally agreed to be unreliable elsewhere, and in any situation, going against the current proposal is a sheer shift from consistency (adding the bars really isn't a big shift, as it is purely to aid readability). And Joetri, all the reasons why your idea is not the one we are going with are listed above. Read what I and Falcadore have written up there, your answers lie there. As for numbers, here are five reasons as to why they are valuable: 1. Look at any old entry list and you will find that the entrants are listed in number order. 2. Numbers are used to differentiate the drivers. 3. If you have watched a race on TV before (which I assume you have), when giving out penalties they say something along the lines of "No. 1 (S. Vettel)", hence referring to the car and the entry, rather than the driver; the car/number is given importantance. 4. Numbers are associated strongly with the drivers now (VAL77ERI BO77AS, for example) and are used as an identifying tool for basically everyone, including organisers, teams, fans and the drivers themselves. 5. Numbering cars has been a thing throughout motor racing history. The fact that there are numbers reflects history. Now I know we can't put that on the article, but do with have to explain every non-ranking-related number in sports? No, there is no need to explain them. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC) None of that is any reason why we at Wikipedia should list drivers by number, while separating them by team. What has identifying a car by its number or a strong association between number and driver got to do with how Wikipedia constructs a list? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. All you've done there is justify why we should put the numbers in the list, and provided no good reason at all why they should be in that dopey order. If you want to list by the new random driver numbers, make it a list of drivers in number order, not primarily a list of teams in no obvious order whatsoever with drivers stuffed over to one side. The fact is that, right from the start, this list should have been a driver list and not a team list. As far as I can see, the way you lot insist on presenting this table is about the only cock-eyed way of doing it. Can someone explain the ordering system used in this table between 1950 and 1973? They don't appear to be in any obvious order for those seasons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Another thing: if a driver with a low number changes teams for one race, or a new driver with a low number joins a team for one race (a likely occurrence sooner or later), he will be inserted and shown above the two regular drivers with higher numbers despite the fact he'll have driven in one race and the other two in 18 or 19? Seem logical to anyone? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC) The only reason we are ordering by team is to avoid duplication of data. Before that, it made sense to order by team because: (a) the drivers did not have permanent numbers and hence might as well be grouped together since they were on the same team and (b) because 95% of the time, the two drivers in the team had consecutive numbers and grouping them together made sense. I really don't care enough what the final system actually is, as long as everyone can agree on it, I only came up with my idea, pushed it because many people liked it, and tried to get Joetri to understand the immense flaw in his idea. The ordering for 1950–1973, as I actually explained above, is by race first entered and then alphabetically (by entrant or constructor) within that (and within teams, the same applied to drivers; by race first entered, then alphabetically). The plan for it a low-numbered driver moved about was discussed above as well, though only me and Prisoner mentioned it before Joetri distracted everyone again. For what it is worth, Kytabu's idea which currently stands on the top of this talk page is perfectly fine by me. (I only involved myself here to help reach a consensus because I got fed up with everyone constantly disagreeing) —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I do not like that proposal from Kytabu because it duplicates all of the data, which I think is unnecessary because it does it for the sake of rearranging the table so that the numbers are in ascending order. Grouping the drivers together by teams works just fine, and I do not really see the issue of it being unreadable because the numbers will be out of order. It is a method that works perfectly fine on other season articles, and so I think the argument that it will only confuse readers is little more than a stalling tactic to delay a consensus from being formed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) (e/c) People are worried about duplication of data on a page where there's already quite a bit of duplication of data? There's a whole table on these pages full of information already available elsewhere on the same page. Forgive me for not reading everything above, it really is the most tiresome experience imaginable. So alphabetical order was used before? If we used alphabetical order of teams, we'd actually be reverting to the 1950–73 format. Sounds quite logical. What was the solution for problem of the low-numbered driver moving around? Kytabu's table at the top looks fine. So if you're OK with it, I'm OK with it, Kytabu likes it, Falcadore said he didn't mind it, Joetri said it was OK but a bit big, where's the problem? Seems like the closest thing we have to a consensus. User:Prisonermonkeys, can we address your problems with the table at the top of the page? (edit conflict) OK, so you've relayed your problems with it. I have to say, PM, if grouping the drivers together by teams worked just fine, why have we argued about it for weeks? We're looking for a compromise here, not perfection. As for delaying a consensus, *that is happening because people won't look for compromise*. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC) The only thing with my driver-focused table is that it isn't mobile-friendly due to the collapsible part, as Prisoner pointed out after I posted it. I have removed the collapsible part here but it does look a bit messy with it removed. KytabuTalk 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I still think it looks all right, to be honest. I'd remove the tyre column because they all use the same tyres, but it doesn't look any worse than last year's table, in my opinion. The duplicated information isn't a problem for me, as I say, we duplicate stuff everywhere on this page, not least flags and wikilinks. If I were going to redesign it from scratch, I might have a separate table for the team and car info and then a basic table of drivers just to say which team they drive for. With separate championships, it'd wouldn't be a big stretch. But I imagine it'd be too big a leap for most. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I just think that arranging the table by drivers first duplicates information that does not need to be duplicated, and it duplicates that information for the sake of solving a problem that does not exist. It is not that I am unwilling to compromise, but rather that I see this as an absolute last resort, and I do not think we are there yet. Furthermore, it raises the issue of discontinuity in the event that a driver switches teams mid-season. Say, for the sake of argument, that Adrian Sutil (#99) does fifteen races before he breaks his arm, and so is unable to finish the season. His replacement picks a low number, like #2. We will then have a situation where a Sauber driver is listed at the top of the table for four races, with no real connection to anything around them. I see no problem with arranging the table by teams first, and inserting a thin line between entries to better-define each one. For me, it is simply a question of whether we go alphabetically by constructor name, or by number order. Both methods work equally well, and both methods satisfy everyone to some extent. If I am unwilling to compromise on anything, it is arranging the table by WCC order, but I think most of us agree that that is not really feasible. The other alternative would be to do what 2012 World Rally Championship season did, and cut out the numbers entirely (a lot of drivers used several numbers that season, to the point where the table looked comically over-blown). Constructors would be listed alphabetically, with drivers also listed alphabetically within their constructors (ie Caterham before Ferrari, Alonso before Raikkonen). In the event that one driver replaces another, they would be listed by the rounds they took part in, even if that means the alphabetical system is thrown out of order a bit (ie Frijns replaces Kobayashi after six races, so Caterham would have their drivers listed as ERI-KOB-FRI instead of ERI-FRI-KOB). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC) The problem does exist, because we are arguing about it. Your example about Sutil also creates a problem with the driver number ordering system. That #2 driver with four races would be listed above #21 Gutierrez with a full season and #99 Sutil with 15 races. That would look stupid. Does anyone have a solution for that yet? Ordering drivers within teams by rounds then alphabetically (a la 1950–73) would remove that problem. The thin line insertion is neither here nor there, it doesn't make the number order look any more obvious. I agree that WCC order is just too unpopular with too many editors for it to be a feasible option, even though I don't have a problem with it myself. I'd be fine with your last proposal. The numbers should still be in the table, but maybe after the driver's name instead of before it. I'm actually fine with anything except the number semi-order idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Bretonbanquet, if you look above that table in my sandbox you'll see two proposals which have the teams and drivers separated. Getting away from the alternative proposals, Tvx1's two tables look fine, though the second version looks a bit neater. Prisoner, I don't think we need to resort to the 2012 WRC situation; I'm reading that as one driver used several numbers, whereas here every driver uses one number and sticks with it. KytabuTalk 00:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I think the dual-table proposal looks fine, but I accept it if people don't like the idea. I don't like Tvx's tables as they constitute no compromise at all, and the floating low-numbered driver problem has not been addressed. This table has to function properly throughout the season, not just at the beginning. My favoured table is the one that is currently shown, i.e. the alphabetical one, which can be easily adapted to all suit all eventualities. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, so I tried out meddling with the table... and I don't actually think this actually looks that bad at all. The changes are perfectly clear. Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Infiniti Red Bull Racing Red Bull–Renault RB10 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 1 Sebastian Vettel All 3 Daniel Ricciardo All Marussia F1 Team Marussia–Ferrari MR03 Ferrari 059/3 P 4 Max Chilton All 17 Jules Bianchi All Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team Mercedes F1 W05 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 6 Nico Rosberg All 44 Lewis Hamilton All Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 7 Kimi Räikkönen All 14 Fernando Alonso All Lotus F1 Team Lotus-Renault E22 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 8 Romain Grosjean All 13 Pastor Maldonado All Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 Marcus Ericsson 1–6 91 Robin Frijns 7–19 10 Kamui Kobayashi All Sahara Force India F1 Team Force India–Mercedes VJM07 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 11 Sergio Pérez All 27 Nico Hülkenberg All Williams F1 Team Williams–Mercedes FW36 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 19 Felipe Massa All 77 Valtteri Bottas All McLaren Mercedes McLaren–Mercedes MP4-29 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 20 Kevin Magnussen All 22 Jenson Button All Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 Esteban Gutiérrez All 99 Adrian Sutil 1–15 2 Daniel Juncadella 16–19 Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso–Renault STR9 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 25 Jean-Éric Vergne All 26 Daniil Kvyat All —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC) You are correct in your reading of that situation. I think Sebastien Ogier used seven different numbers over the course of the season (and he was not the only one), but nothing else changed; the whole thing looked ridiculous. I am simply putting the idea of removing the number column out there as an alternative. Here is what it might look like: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre Drivers Rounds Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P Marcus Ericsson All Kamui Kobayashi All In the event of a mid-season driver change, it becomes this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre Drivers Rounds Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P Marcus Ericsson All Kamui Kobayashi 1–12 Robin Frijns 13-19 It may also be possible to tie drivers to the colour of their camera mounting. I am assuming one will stay red and the other yellow this year. It would look like this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre Car Drivers Rounds Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P A Marcus Ericsson All B Kamui Kobayashi 1-12 Robin Frijns 13-19 It's not perfect (and I used "A" and "B" to avoid confusion), but it does tie two drivers to the one car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Having said all of that, I like the version GyaroMaguus just posted the best. Although I would consider making the lines a little lighter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) It does seem as though people have, with the best of intentions no doubt, speculated into existence a problem which didn't really exist here. The FIA produced an unprecedented situation by creating a totally new numbering system which superseded all previous ways of documenting the entry list. They then published a new formal entry list for the season (the one I linked to above - the only relevant official citation for how we might go about listing the teams/drivers this season, as the other pages on their website are not formalised and thus subject to their website designers' whims). That, for whatever reason, is listed in WCC order with drivers then ranked by WDC order within teams. Even though the FIA themselves have published the entry list for the championship in that format, it seems to have been decided that that is absurd. I'm not quite sure why - it avoids any issues with regards to drivers moving in and out of teams, as they would simply be added via the same format (though I could see the argument for adding them underneath if they are indeed late additions), and looks visually consistent with how the lay reader might expect the entry list to look - i.e. the reigning champion team and likely champion driver at the top, unless they change teams, as was previously the case. That it was never ordered purely by WCC position before is irrelevant - that is how the FIA is doing it now, and it produces a clear, logical template. F1 was a much less centralised, formalised and expensive sport before 1974, so many teams and drivers came and went during the season - consequently whoever created those pages had to design a solution for how to present a messy set of info - it doesn't reflect an absolute precedent for the sport now. The teams we start with this season are clearly going to be the ones we end with. Then from 1974-1995 the FIA had a different numbering in which numbers rarely changed, which provides the clear format for those entry lists. Then we had the WDC/WCC-based system until last year. The point being those were different systems, which are gone, and don't reflect on this year. The FIA has answered the question for us in their entry lists but it seems those designing the page know better than the world governing body of the sport. The alphabetical table looks fine of course, it's understandable, I just don't see why the logical template provided for us was ignored when it's perfectly adequate. BroSwerve (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC) For one, it has the potential to be confusing for people with no familiarity with the sport. Articles should always be written so that if someone clicks on "Random page" and winds up on this article, they can read it and understand it without a problem. And while we understand the entry list, that does not mean everyone does. To the point of view of an outsider, there is no apparent reason as to why the information is arranged the way it is. Why is Mercedes listed before McLaren when Ferrari is listed before Force India? One is alphabetical when the other is not. Why does the driver of car #44 get listed before the driver of car #6 when the driver of car #19 is listed before car #77? One is numeric, when the other it not. What we need is one clear and obvious rule for arranging the table, a clear and obvious rule that does not require an unfamiliar reader toa ccess another page or an external site simply to understand the content. Furthermore, we do not include all of the content shown in the source give. Stuff like the company name gets left by the wayside. If we were to recreate the entry list perfectly and write off the inconsistent application of the arrangement as being a case of presenting the information exactly, but at the same time ignore parts of the entry list that we do not think are relevant, we have contradicted ourselves. Secondly, we are not under any obligation to perfectly replicate the sources given. Provided that we include all relevant content and do so neturally, how we choose to represent that information is up to us. We can take the liberty of making something easier to read if we feel the way it is presented in a source is too awkward for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) BroSwerve, you are quite right. But WCC order was too unpopular here, for whatever reason. It made perfect sense to me, but still. GyaroMaguus, so number "order" is totally abandoned when it suits? We would already have a situation where number order is so important that a team's #1 driver is misleadingly listed below the #2 (McLaren, for example) yet when a third driver arrives, number order is abandoned. It just looks like no order at all. PM, I like your first two table examples. The one clear and obvious rule that you talk about is surely the alphabetical system. Nobody who can read can fail to understand it, and it is adaptable throughout the season while maintaining its clarity. I see no other system here that enjoys the same advantages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay. Lets archive the in-progress newsletter, fill it with a series of tables (with mid-season changes) and conduct a straw pole to gauge what the community thinks. We are not going to reach a full consensus at this rate. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Breton, the diea behind GM's table is to arrange drivers by number order, unless there is a mid-season change of driver, in which case the affected drivers are shown by the rounds. In that example, Sutil drove first, but got replaced by Juncadella. Even though Juncadella has the lower number in that example, Sutil drove first, which has led to this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 Esteban Gutiérrez All 99 Adrian Sutil 1–15 2 Daniel Juncadella 16–19 You can clearly see that Juncadella took over from Sutil, even if his number is lower. To arrange them by number order makes things confusing, because we would have Juncadella (16-19), Gutierrez (All), and Sutil (1-15): Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 2 Daniel Juncadella 16–19 21 Esteban Gutiérrez All 99 Adrian Sutil 1–15 My proposal to go alphabetically has the same problem, albeit being less obvious. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Take that argument to its logical conclusion though and you ought to go back and retrospectively re-edit the entry list for every year of the championship to make it alphabetical, if that is the only clear and universally intelligible way to present information. Previously the entry lists were ordered due to a curious and quite hard to explain mixture of the previous year's WDC and WCC (which nobody did explain on the pages) but simply had the happy coincidence of that providing us with a logical sequence of numbers. Go back further though and lay readers would ask why did Ferrari have 27 and 28 for so many years when they finished much further up in the championship than that - this is a sport with its own idiosyncracies and complexities. It's bad enough that the FIA have chucked 64 years of (mostly) meaningful numbers away on this gimmick - at least they then acknowledged that WCC is a more apt way of ordering teams in their entry list, it's just a shame we're ignoring the reasonable solution they've provided us in that document. In essence, we accept that previously numbers from 1-23 or whatever helped the table to look readable. However, we also accept that the numbers are arbitrary now and so do the FIA in how they've formatted their list. The question then is how do we move forward maintaining the notion of there being *a* logic to the table other than just abandoning it all and going for the simplest solution. I think the FIA's document solves that - and for the casual reader surely a simple 'This list is presented with teams' ordered by 2013 World Constructors' Championship position and drivers ordered by 2013 World Drivers' Championship' position' above would suffice? BroSwerve (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC) We do not need to go back and retroactively change every team and driver table. The change in numbering system coincides with the change in the arrangement of the table. And adding notes explaining how and why the table is organised in such a way is bad. It is compeltely avoidable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "even though I don't have a problem with it myself" Approved of WCC: Tvx1, BroSwerve, EightBall, Burgring, Bretonbanquet, mattbuck And Myself Apposed : Gyaro–Maguus, Deaþe gecweald, Falcadore, Prisonermonkey, JohnMcButts, and Kytabu have disagreed. But wait! What's this? "I'm not allowed to change my mind? I liked the idea of WCC standings. Then I changed my mind after I though about it. Then Falcadore convinced me to go with numbers rather than alphabetically" - Prisonermonkey. If this actually WAS a vote then WCC would have more approval, and I include Prison's support in that because no, You're not allowed to "change your mind"? Either you stick with one decision or nothing at all, not in this case all 3 idea's over the course of the entire discussion. The only reason we're still really having this argument is because Falcadore, Prisonermonkey and myself wont shut up, the rest of everyone else have either left or can't be bothered to argue. They are either too involved in changing the design of a bloody table or if they do show their support in something, it gets immediately shot down like a duck during the hunting season. It's beyond stupid. Joetri10 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Why is it that every single time we start moving towards a resolution, you come along and try to drag everyone back into a pattern of arguing over insignificant details? If that is all you have to contribute, than I suggest you go ahead and do what you have been threatening to do for weeks now, and remove yourself from the discussion. We are interested in making progress, not who said what and when. Just because I felt one way a few weeks ago and have been convinced otherwise in the time since, that does not make my point of view and weaker now. I was wrong to support the idea of WCC arranging, and if I had known you would drag it up every time the discussion goes a way you are not happy with, I would never have taken that stance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I'm passionate in making this page the best it can be. A page where someone can come and think 'this makes sense, it's very informative. I can see the contrasting positions to last year very easily, can't believe Riccardo is in the top team!. Not 'What do these numbers mean now? Why is no.2 missing? This wasn't like this before? Since when did Caterham suddenly jump to this position?, I don't understand?' or even better 'Well done Wikipedia, C certainly does come before F' I also think its rather humorous that this much better agreement has now caused even more problems including what colors we should have and if we should have duplicated information and positioning of people that may or may not even come into play anyway -.- ... Creating problems out of a problem, very classy. Joetri10 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) If people want to see the 2013 standings, they can look at the 2013 page. But we have been over this. Dozens of times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC) That's like saying if people want to see the current driver list, they can go on the FIA official list (Which of course we are ignoring because of such obvious, understandable and validated reasons...) Why should they have to go onto another page when it could be right dab in front of them? Joetri10 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Because it's not relevant to the 2014 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) That's your opinion. We have given you the general status on what affects the previous season has on the current one and you choose to ignore it by bringing up specific circumstances. In fact the entire reason to why Vettel should be listed as no.1, regardless of WCC or Numeral listing is the same one and it comes from the previous year. Joetri10 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) And, as you have been told, but have chosen to ignore, pit order can and does change from race to race. As for prize money, it is calculated based on a formula that takes into account a team's history in the sport, the exact mechanism of which is not made public, thus making it impossible to say which teams were awarded what monetary amount. Now, if you are done reviving old arguments, can we please get back to making some progress? We were discussing the merits of removing the number column and arranging teams and drivers alphabetically with an emphasis on rounds they competed in in the event of a mid-season driver change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) No?, I don't think I'm done with the argument? BroSwerve might be but you seem to have swept him under the rug also. As for your "Progress", That is simply something that doesn't need to be discussed as that table is already in place due to a (new) consensus not being made. If you must alphabetize the driver names also then fine but we will cross the bridge of mid-season driver changes as it happens, right now it's not important. Joetri10 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) But what happened in 2013 is important, right? Important enough that it is essential to the 2014 article, even though it has no bearing on the season. So of the 2013 season results are important, why don't we include the 2012 season results as well? After all, it was success in the 2012 season that gave the teams prize money that they spent on 2013, so a lot of their success in 2013 came about because of their 2012 results. And because of the major rule changes planned for 2014, the FIA deliberately avoided introducing major technical changes to the rule book between 2012 and 2013, and so the cars used in 2012 and 2013 were largely the same. So using that logic, why don't we include the 2012 standings into the structure of the 2014 team and driver table? It's relevant, as I just demonstrated, but it is also convenient. Because there is a fair chance that readers will want to know about the 2012 season as well, so why not spare them the effort if navigating away from the 2014 page when we can put the 2012 season standings on the 2014 page? And I just had a brilliant idea. If we are going to include the 2012 and 2013 season standings in the 2014 article, then we should include the 2011 standings as well ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys, please make a sentence with pot, black and kettle. Why is it that every single time we start moving towards a resolution, you come along and try to drag everyone back into a pattern of arguing over insignificant details? That's exactly what you did in mid-december when we had already reached a peaceful conclusion on how to arrange the table from now on. The result is this debate that's still going on a month an a half later. Furthermore, when you claim that a proposal has the potential to be confusing for people with no familiarity with the sport, that is exactly what BroSwerve means with speculating into existance a problem of which we do not know whether it exists. Joetri10, I can understand you completely when you are starting to have enough of this seemingly endless debate, but I think you are exagerrating a bit when you say that nearly everybody has left. Nearly everybody who contributed to the discussion at the start of it back in mid-december has left reply within the last 24 hours. The only I seem to miss is Eightball. Now having said that, I can't see how some users claim ordening the table alphabetical by constructor will solve the hypothetical replacement drivers issue. The nummers would be in just the same random jumble as in the case of the other proposals. But most importantly this is another case of speculating into existance a problem of which we do not know whether it exists. We don't even know if a replacement driver will get to select his/her own career number. I suggest we wait and see wether they actually do before we make a fuss about it. Next, I have to say that I more or less agree with the opinion of BroSwerve. But while it is not mandatory to accurately follow the sources, we are not forbidden to do so unlike the impression some users seem to give us. Additionally, I would like to note that Joetri10 has correctly pointed out that there's more support for WCC order than some users claim there is. The most important argument against is that reader would have to read another page to understand it. However, as have already tried to point out that is not true. One can easily see the lead of the page together with the picture of the defending champion and the top op the table in one and the same screen. It really doesn't take much to tie the knots. We really ought to have more respect for the cognitive skills of our readers. In this same subject I would like to reiterate what Falcadore mentioned earlier. A random user came by recently and found the alphabetical order so strange and confusing that he/she changed it to the for him/her more logical numerical order. That's an obvious argument. I have already started me willingness to settle for numerical order because that's the system that has been in use for the articles dealing with the last fourty years and no consensus has been achieved to change it. I've even made some proposals to update the system to allow us to keep using the system onwards. Lastly, I would like to say that I'm willing to settle for Kytabu recentmost proposal if that gets the most support. Now, I hope that we can finally get to a conclusion in a constructive manner, because I, for one, would love to have this debate finished before the season ends. Tvx1 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Having more support for one method would be fine if consensus was a vote - but it is not. And looking at Joetri's estimates, the opinions are split six to seven, which is barely even a majority, much less an overwhelming one. Furthermore, we are not limited to two options, which is why we have been trying to explore some alternative proposals, and if you follow the discussion, you will note that they are gaining some support from both sides. Not enough for a consensus, but certainly more than what we had before. I am also somewhat bemused that people think going off the FIA entry list exactly is a feasible idea, given that we saw an editor hitherto uninvolved in the debate edit the page to be in number order. How can you say the same will not happen if it follows the entry list? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I could come to some agreement with you Tvx1 if the numbers still held the same meaning as they did previous. This is not a discussion about anything other then this particular motorsport and as such these numbers now represent a more trivia side to drivers more than a placeholder for meaning within the sport. These numbers have simply lost all meaning within the chart itself (Acknowledging the points given to me before) it would bug me to no end (I am aware I've mentioned this 100 times). This is why I have such a big problem with all of this though. The numbers don't mean anything, alphabetizing is child's play and WCC may seem irrelevant to some standard, but it's the most informative when looked at for specifics. I am sorry I keep arguing about this but I just hate seeing something finished so effortlessly and tacky. I guess I was exaggerating slightly with how many people have left but they have certainly been less active. A lot of this "Progress" as it were has happened between the 2 most active editors whom just so happened to be in extreme disapproval of the WCC and another who really could care less and just wants an end to everything. It's a bit sneaky. Even now as Prison tries to build a framework for his own table, problems are occurring for no good reason. It's certainly a case of making mountain out of molehills. This doesn't need to be a project. Why are we making it so? Joetri10 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "I am also somewhat bemused that people think going off the FIA entry list exactly is a feasible idea" You mean like this? - "(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)" [2] Joetri10 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC) And, again, I was convinced otherwise. But what I said on another subject does not matter. Please stop trying to discredit my argument based on an unrelated issue. It will not bring you any closer to a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Joetri; I am bemused as to why you should believe that race numbers are now magically different in purpose in 2014 compared to... any other year. The reason race numbers exist at all, is to allow for easy identification of one driver from another. How those numbers were assigned is utterly irrelevant to their function as identifiers. The sport provided, in its very earliest days and used consistently since, a simple, easy to use method of identifying one driver from their fellows. Now let me say this as clearly as possible. Race numbers were created specifically for listing and idenification. We are debating a table whose function is identification. That you can even suggest that race numbers have no meaning, or even reduced or increased meaning, is not just laughable, but is ignoring a device specifically created for just this sort of activity. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain. --Falcadore (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC) The reasons before were based on fact whilst now they are based on trivia. I am not saying the numbers are worthless and maybe my comment on just scraping them entirely was a bit over the top. These numbers served a purpose other than the identification of said driver as they were allocated specifically. As of recent years the way the editors categorized by numbers just so happen to list them in WCC (The numbers original purpose again as of recent). Now these numbers serve that only one purpose of identification. I am looking for a table that has meaning, something that is informative other than 'Look! Drivers!' because otherwise, you might as well just leave it all over the place. Again! Why should we list the numbers due to trivia!. "How those numbers were assigned is utterly irrelevant to their function as identifiers." It helped identify where the teams previously finished, not just the driver. Joetri10 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) But the numbers still perform their primary function - identifying the cars. It does not matter how those numbers are assigned, they still identify the driver. And that is all that we need them to do. We do not need to show WCC standings or anything else, because those functions are only secondary to identifying the cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I've been watching this for a few days now, and it is clear that there is no fixed-order format that will meet all needs. So I am now of the opinion that a sortable table, or tables, offers the best solution. Readers will then have the freedom to sort how they wish. The challenge is how to format such a table, or tables. With 2 drivers per team, it seems we need a row per driver, with team info duplicated, or 2 tables - 1 for teams, 1 for drivers. Burgring (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I tried creating a split table, but it's challenging to get the sortable function to work while at the same time retaining the overall structure of the table that we have. You can see my table on Kytabu's sandbox page. One of the biggest issues I had, was that with the {{flagicon}} template was overriding the name when trying to sort by driver. The only way I could solve it was to add another column specifically for the driver's flags, and that didn't seem appealing to me. Also, converting the current table into a sortable one just turns it into a giant mess. You might be able to implament a sort feature into the semi-collapsible table at the top of the talk page, but you would still run into the flagicon issue. Feel free to try though. JohnMcButts (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC) JohnMcButts, I just edited your table in my sandbox; I got rid of the sorting in the constructors table; fixed the sorting issue in the drivers table (just a simple bit of coding as it turns out); and added a heading to each one. What do you reckon? KytabuTalk 08:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) That would either creating two tables, which is never going to be popular, or duplicating information, which I think should be avoided if and where possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC) May I ask, what about doing this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Infiniti Red Bull Racing Red Bull–Renault RB10 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 1 Sebastian Vettel All 3 Daniel Ricciardo All Marussia F1 Team Marussia–Ferrari MR03 Ferrari 059/3 P 4 Max Chilton All 17 Jules Bianchi All Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team Mercedes F1 W05 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 6 Nico Rosberg All 44 Lewis Hamilton All Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 7 Kimi Räikkönen All 14 Fernando Alonso All Lotus F1 Team Lotus-Renault E22 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 8 Romain Grosjean All 13 Pastor Maldonado All Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault CT04 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 Marcus Ericsson 1–6 91 Robin Frijns 7–19 10 Kamui Kobayashi All Sahara Force India F1 Team Force India–Mercedes VJM07 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 11 Sergio Pérez All 27 Nico Hülkenberg All Williams F1 Team Williams–Mercedes FW36 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 19 Felipe Massa All 77 Valtteri Bottas All McLaren Mercedes McLaren–Mercedes MP4-29 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 20 Kevin Magnussen All 22 Jenson Button All Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 Esteban Gutiérrez All 99 Adrian Sutil 1–15 2 Daniel Juncadella 16–19 Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso–Renault STR9 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 25 Jean-Éric Vergne All 26 Daniil Kvyat All Each individual driver slot is made perfectly clear. The dark gray lines show the difference between the teams, and the light gray between the drives. If you seriously think our readership will not be able to understand it; then maybe tint the background of the second driver slot (so, for example, Sutil and Juncadella's cells will be coloured differently). If this is still unacceptable, I might as well give up. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I think that is the way to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Call me crazy but isn't this exactly what it looks like already only now the lines are darker? We also again seem to have somehow snuck order by car numbers in again. By my recollection seeing as this consensus hasn't been agreed upon, we revert back to the old consensus stated a while back which we have now which is alphabetizing, the system in which the page was also locked at. The only progress we've made here without being underhanded is making the lines darker..... Have I missed the point or something? Or am I going to get accused of being part of some other malicious gang now? Joetri10 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, the lines are darker, but this to meant to solve Bretonbanquet's issue, and to hold up the status quo among the tables of the last 40 years. We have not snuck by into car number order, this hasn't been fully agreed upon, it is not (yet) a consensus; rather, a new variation on an idea I think looks fine. Basically everyone here agrees that alphabetical is not the way to go. And yes, you have missed the point. I am trying to solve issues that mean the table can now easily be understood. Let me explain: The drivers are placed together in teams, so no data is duplicated. The teams are clearly separated, so the fact that the table is ordered by lowest original driver number is clear to see. The drivers are separated by borders and hence the strategy we use when a new driver drives for a team is clear, because what the person would see is that the drivers are ordered by lower number first, then their replacements below them. Seriously, it is the almost the clearest thing I can come up with (which itself involves colours), it covers all possibilities in a clear and obvious way. This is above the WCC order, which is no better because the numbers and names are all over the place and in no logical pattern; 6 (or 7 if you put Kobayashi ahead of Ericsson) out of the 11 teams would have the top number larger than the other one, alphabetically the teams are 8-7-2-4-6-3-9-10-11-5-1 and the driver numbers are 1-3-44-6-14-7-8-13-22-20-27-11-99-21-25-26-19-77-17-4-9-10. That makes zero sense, and to implement it would require the editing of just about every teams and drivers table on F1 articles and maybe across Wikipedia. Also, I believe Prisonermonkeys was wrong to accuse you of sockpuppeting, he was evidently frustrated by your refusal to move onwards in this issue, saw similarities with DeFacto and in the heat of the moment brought the case up. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) No, we do not have a consensus for alphabetical by any means and we never did. If you bother to read the entire archived discussion as well as the incident report with administrators you will understand that. During the aforementioned discussion Eightball erroneously stated that the status quo was alphabetical but the preceding discussion clearly shows otherwise and that should have been made clear at that time. The status quo is numerical (which is how the page was under full lock, search the history if you don't believe me) because that is the system we used until this season and none of the proposal that have been made since mid-december have gained a consensus. That's why some users have started to fine-tune the system so we can keep using it from this season onwards. Tvx1 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) How come every now and then someone says "How about this?" and produces exactly the same table as the last time they said "How about this?" It doesn't solve my issue – my issue is that in a supposedly numerical ordering system, the numbers aren't in order. I'm sure I've said that before. "Basically everyone here agrees that alphabetical is not the way to go." Huh? Did I miss something? Who agreed that? I certainly didn't. This proposal is not the system we used before because then the numbers were in order. Now they are not. Simple as that. So there is no precedent for using this system. "So we can keep using it"? Who are you trying to fool, Tvx1? Do you seriously think that resembles last year's table? This is starting to look like East Germany or something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) We did not produce the exact same table each time. Yes, they use the same ordering system. But every new one has been tweaked by a user to take into account some concerns that were raised. If you'd bothered to analyse the tables properly you would have noticed that. Furthermore, I don't understand why you make such a fuss about the numbers not being in exact order while it is exactly the same in your favored proposal of alphabetical order or in the WCC order which you don't think is bad proposal either. The only proposals that would suit your concerns are the ones made by Kytabu which order numerical with drivers first. Yes. it is true that there is as much opposition for alphabetical order as there is support for it. So, no, were a not close to achieving a consensus to use that system. I never claimed we are using the exact same system as previous. In fact I stated clearly that were trying to tweak the incumbent system so that we can keep using some form of it. Now unless all users involved in this discussion are finally going to bury their egos and are going to give the other users some basic respect by doing them the courtesy of thoroughly reading their replies and taking into into account their opinions, we are never going to get anywhere. Tvx1 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC) They are effectively the same table. I do not consider some different colour lines much of a change, and there is zero compromise in it from the original proposal. Furthermore, with alphabetical (or indeed WCC) the teams are at least in some kind of order. This proposal shows numbers that aren't in order, so there is in fact no order in the table at all, apart from one driver in each team being numerically ordered. The equivalent would be having an alphabetical order in which only every other letter is in alphabetical order. What GM said was that everyone agrees that alphabetical isn't the way to go, which is incorrect. There is no less support for that than for anything else. What you said was, "The status quo is numerical... because that is the system we used until this season." That looks pretty unequivocal to me, and this proposal is not the same system as the one we used before. I didn't claim you said it was the exact same system, so maybe it's you who should be reading people's posts, instead of patronising them by suggesting a burial of egos. If you are further suggesting that I don't take people's opinions into account, then you haven't read any of my posts. I'm one of not very many people here who has accepted that his favoured format will gain no consensus, and has looked for compromise. Maybe try that yourself? This discussion is a classic WPF1 farce in which certain editors drag something out for weeks until everyone else gives up. Sirotkin Mk 2. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, are GyaroMaguus's last two tables not exactly the same? What is the difference between them? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I find it very low to say the least that you're accusing me of not being willing to compromise. I made it very obvious that my favorite proposal is WCC order, but I a have shown my willingness to compromise by helping to tweak the numerical order as well as supporting multiple of Kytabu's proposals. You on the other hand display an alphabetical or nothing stance. No wait, you've approved WCC order as well, yet you have done nothing to support it in recent times. The difference in the last table is that GyaroMaguus has added lines in the driver columns to separate the driver seats more clearly, which is very helpful especially when there is a mid-season change. Of course, colors can always be tweaked if it's not clear enough. Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Indeed I have approved WCC order, as it's my favoured option. Apologies then, I wasn't aware you favoured it as well, and I haven't seen you supporting it recently either. For my part, I assumed there was no likelihood of achieving a consensus for it, so I stopped banging on about it. Maybe I was wrong about that, I don't know any more. I completely forget what everybody's preferred options actually are. I am not "alphabetical or nothing", far from it – I will in fact support anything at all apart from this bastardised numerical order thing; I can't be more compromising than that. Ah yes, so there is. I didn't even notice that change, it's that superficial. Cosmetic changes don't alter the fundamental problem. The problem isn't separating the driver seats, it's the lack of order in the numbers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, I posted my latest supportive arguments in favor of WCC order within the last 24 hours. At 3:30 AM earlier today to be precise. Tvx1 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Apologies, I was not around at 3:30am and I don't always read every word of what was posted in my absence. There is always rather a lot of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, I give the clearest option I can in my sandbox; if this is not clear enough for you, then I stand defeated by sheer weight of numbers against me. My idea involves the table organised by lowest number by team, you know, the way the table has actually been ordered since 1974 (and see how there are out of place numbers from 1974 to 1980). All I will say is that if WCC order is approved, I'll do my best to ensure all tables from 1959 to 2013 are ordered that way. I was trying to push through my idea, I really don't see how WCC order is better because quite simply it looks utterly chaotic and unorganised, and the numbers will make absolutely no sense at all. Nor do I think changing the layout of table is a wise idea. Let me just say that if a random user reorganizes the table into number order by team, I won't fix it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I cannot support WCC order. I am still yet to hear an explanation of how the events of last season have anything to do with the upcoming system. So far the three arguments put forward are that it affects pit box order, which we have already demonstrated can and does change; prize money, which we cannot account for because we do not know the formula for distribution; and convenience for the inexperienced reader, which is what the previous season's article is for. All of this is based on the false assumption that numbers have always been used to represent WCC order, which has long since been shot down. Numbers are used to identify cars, and any other function they perform is secondary. Retroactively changing sixty-odd season articles to reflect WCC standings is a bad idea. It is going to cause chaos, and at the very least, it should be put before the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Prisoner, we'd need to be consistant. So if we were to take the illogical but popular route that I don't support, we'd need to, and I will happily put it before the WikiProject. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC) This is largely why I haven't been pushing for WCC order lately – because a consensus is so unlikely. GM, ordering by lowest number in a team has been the system since 1974, but that system now looks stupid (to some of us at least) with the new numbering system. Persisting with an old system is only beneficial if it functions adequately. There are out of place numbers, but very few, and the overall result is that the list was always almost perfectly numerically ordered. Ordering the 2014 season that way gives us a much, much less satisfactory result. F1 changes all the time, as we all know, and this particular (stupid) change has caused one of our methods to no longer function very well. I agree with PM that refactoring all the old season articles isn't a good idea. We don't need to have all the season articles to follow exactly the same rules, and we're not obliged to try. There's no requirement for absolute consistency between similar articles, and in many ways it's impossible. F1 in 1950 is a world away from F1 in 2014, so our articles are going to look pretty different whether we like it or not. I can't see very many editors going for it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC) If you go by WCC, you need: 1. to move columns (driver then number, it'll look even worse than my tables overwise). 2. A note. I won't violate WP:POINT, but I'm a little stressed right now, and I went OTT. I give up, you guys win; Prisoner, sorry, I tried. I will now do as the note in my sandbox says, and leave this argument. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I don't think WCC order will happen. In any case, it's not a question of winning and losing. We all have our opinions and we're each pushing hard for what we think is best. I do seriously believe that everyone has the best interests of the article at heart, but we just disagree. It's hard. Your opinion still counts, GM, whether you leave the debate or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Breton, why does that mean we need to go and change previous season articles? The change to the structure of the table coincides with the change in the number system. The text of the article makes it pretty clear that there has been a change, because of the consequences for qualifying procedure. If we were talking about a change to the table without a change in the number system, then I could understand going back and changing those season articles. But all of those season articles reflect the way numbers were allocated, with the numbers 1 to X being used. The biggest problem I have with the argument for WCC order is that people claim the numbers have no meaning anymore, so the best way to arrange the table is by WCC order. That, to me, is a contradictory statement: if the numbers represented a team's WCC position in the past, but no longer hold that meaning anymore, then why are we arranging the table based on that meaning when it no longer exists? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I think you misunderstand me, I said I don't think we should change the previous articles. Definitely not keen on that idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC) If I may, what I find frustrating in all of this is that 24 hours ago, we seemed to be making some headway. It seemed obvious that whatever the strengths of our preferred methods, opinions were too deeply divided to make them workable. We started exploring alternatives, like inserting lines into the table to break it up, or removing the number column and going alphabetically, or basing it on a driver's participation in rounds. And then, just when I felt like we were on the verge of a breakthrough, someone came along and brought up WCC order, and we have all started going back over scorched earth. It is not the first time this has happened, either, and looking back over the discussion, I think it was a deliberate act of sabotage intended to prevent a consensus from being formed because a certain user did not like the way we were moving towards a consensus they did not like. I think we need to accept that both number order and WCC order are unworkable at this point, and move on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC) To be honest I think we should just leave the table in alphabetical order; it seems to be at least everybody's first or second preference and it has been the least controversial so far with no real strong opposition that I recall. All the arguments over numerical and WCC order are getting very wearisome. KytabuTalk 23:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I don't think anyone (except maybe Joetri) was seriously proposing WCC again as a viable option. I certainly wasn't. As I've said a few times, I like it but I can't see enough people going for it. Whatever we do, it's going to leave someone unhappy, and that's a crappy thing. But we have to fix it somehow. I don't love alphabetical, but I'm OK with it. Like Kytabu, I see it as a workable option, although I know Falcadore doesn't like it. I like PM's idea of basing it on rounds and/or alphabetically, but leaving the number column present. Maybe we can cosmetically adjust it so more people are OK with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC) All three ideas will make the table look somewhat messy with the numbering order. There is no way around it aside from duplicating information. You just have to ask yourself what serves a bigger point. A somewhat ordered number system on trivia, An alphabetical order that aside from pointing out the obvious, doesn't mean anything or an order shows which teams finished where last year, showcasing differences between pages, relations to information on the page and informative, if only slightly. Joetri10 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) A long held principle of Wikipedia is that each article stands on its own, not on the merits of neighbouring articles. What happened in the 2013 is no more than background information and in no way should be allowed to influence how the 2014 article should be progressed. You are trying to create something of significance where none exists and that is directly against what wikipedia is for. You are connecting the performances of race teams not depicted in this article as having some kind of legitimacy. It does not. --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The numbers are not trivia. The reasons for choosing those numbers are trivia, but the numbers themselves still identify the cars. Likewise, the 2013 standings only represent the finishing order of the 2013 season, which do not represent anything in 2014, even before we take into consideration the technical changes. So you can see there are two different ways of representing each method. Perhaps the best way forward is to keep the table alphabetical and the drivers alphabetical. The numbers will be out of order, but there is a way around that: the camera mountings. The FIA has always used red and yellow camera mountings to identify individual drivers. So we can do something like this: Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault TBA Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 Marcus Ericsson All 10 Kamui Kobayashi All Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 14 Fernando Alonso All 7 Kimi Raikkonen All This is designed to address the problems of both numbers and alphabet. The numerical system and the alphabetical system do not line up - as you can see, the Caterham drivers are alphabetical and their numbers are numerical, but the Ferrari drivers are alphabetical whereas their numbers are not numerical. But the colours red and yellow show which driver is in which car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC) How has this now descended into this within hardly an hour. We were coming to an agreement on how to use the number order system and than Bretonbanquet comes in with a rant and everybody agrees that number order is unworkable. Like Joetri10 said all three proposals have their disadvantages and it is obvious than none of them is going to get 100% support. The only solution is that we go for the one that has the most support. That is numerical order as almost everybody has that as a favorite option or is willing to settle for it. The only one that is vehemently opposed to it is Bretonbanquet. Alternatively, we could drop the stick and admit that neither of them is going to get a consensus and start to really consider one of the other options Kytabu has proposed. Tvx1 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I still feel that the options Kytabu proposed have bigger issues than the others. It needlessly duplicates information. I am not trying to be stubborn or obstinate, but I think the format of the table - whatever the order thigns are arranged by - should be consistent with other articles, and that we should avoid duplicating information when and where we can. If I had to rank the three methods in order of personal preference, it would be numbers, alphabet and WCC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Hold on, TVX. "We" were not coming to an agreement. You and the coalition of numerical order proponents were coming to an agreement. I am by no means the only person opposed to the numerical order - there's BroSwerve and Joetri for a start, neither of whom have expressed interest in settling for numerical, not to mention others who have since grown weary of this tedious discussion. Don't start describing my posts as rants unless you want this thing to seriously degenerate. Keep it civil. I would actually argue that the option that everyone hates least is alphabetical. I attempted a consensus on that ages ago, and it nearly worked. Whichever system we use, the numbers will not be in order, that much is a fact. So something may as well be in order and the oldest, most recognisable order in the world is alphabetical. Not my favourite option, but it's workable. I am fine with any of PM's above ideas, and I for one appreciate the fact that he keeps making new proposals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) For what it's worth, while I still hold the same opinion on this being something of a needless dispute (i.e. I'm still not sure why everyone dislikes the FIA's WCC-based order so much given that that is what they've provided as a perfectly feasible template), I'm largely in agreement with the above that, for whatever reason, a lot of people are against WCC and a lot of people -myself included- are against number order, so there needs to be some resolution. I still feel like the alphabetical version strips out all meaning from the order of the table when we had good cause and a workable way to keep some. However, I agree with Breton that alphabetical is a reasonable 'neutral' solution. The latest alphabetical version presented by PM above is quite a clear, eloquent solution and I'd agree that the colour system is a good way to differentiate the two entries, so, as I said initially, I'd be content to go with that for the article by way of compromise. BroSwerve (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The needless dispute came about because some editors decided to edit war their opinions into the article ignoring the opinions of other editors. Some of the language used in edit descriptions was openly inflammatory and dismissive. --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I've had another crack at a sortable table, which can be sorted by alphabetical constructor name or by the lowest number at each team. The only problem is I've had to use line breaks instead of separate rows for the drivers which makes it a little harder to read. KytabuTalk 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Teams and drivers who will compete in Grands Prix Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No. Drivers Rounds Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault CT05 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 91 10 Marcus Ericsson Robin Frijns Kamui Kobayashi 1–6 7–19 All Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari F14 T Ferrari 059/3 P 7 14 Kimi Räikkönen Fernando Alonso All All Sahara Force India F1 Team Force India–Mercedes VJM07 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 11 27 Sergio Pérez Nico Hülkenberg All All Lotus F1 Team Lotus-Renault E22 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 8 13 Romain Grosjean Pastor Maldonado All All Marussia F1 Team Marussia–Ferrari MR03 Ferrari 059/3 P 4 17 Max Chilton Jules Bianchi All All McLaren Mercedes McLaren–Mercedes MP4-29 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 20 22 Kevin Magnussen Jenson Button All All Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team Mercedes F1 W05 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 6 44 Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton All All Infiniti Red Bull Racing Red Bull–Renault RB10 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 1 3 Sebastian Vettel Daniel Ricciardo All All Sauber F1 Team Sauber–Ferrari C33 Ferrari 059/3 P 21 99 Esteban Gutiérrez Adrian Sutil All All Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso–Renault STR9 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 25 26 Jean-Éric Vergne Daniil Kvyat All All Williams F1 Team Williams–Mercedes FW36 Mercedes PU106A Hybrid P 19 77 Felipe Massa Valtteri Bottas All All That looks fine to me, it works well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I am afraid that looks like a complete mess to me. Mobile browsers do not have the sortable function, so all I can see is lists of numbers and names that are all out of alignment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I'm not saying I'm settling BUT if we must prattle about with the idea of numbers at the end of all of this then I highly prefer the colour coded numbers PM created. It actually serves a secondary purpose I can get behind. Joetri10 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I've taken the above table into my sandbox (because I might play around with it a bit more) and added the {{nowrap}} template to the drivers column, and now that column won't look like a mess on mobile view. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) It's still a mess, I'm afraid. Now there are massive blank spaces in the table and the text crosses over the borders of it cells. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I've tried using  s and fixing the column width; but I can't seem to make anything work on mobile. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I'm guessing other sortable tables are visible on mobile devices, so what's making this one dificult? I confess I'm no good with these things myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) It is not the sortable function that is the problem, but rather, the width of the cells. It is ignoring the non-breaking spaces and squeezing the columns so the text is out of alignment, sort of like this below (this is intended to look wrong): Caterham F1 Team Caterham–Renault CT05 Renault Energy F1-2014 P 9 91 10 Marcus Ericsson Robin Frijns Kamui Kobayashi 1–6 7–19 All This means the numbers are not alongside the names, which makes the table unusable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Looks to me then like the flags are the problem. Try putting them in a seperate column or removing entirely. --Falcadore (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Falcadore, is you use the {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} templates it gets rid of the problem with the flags, but the numbers still aren't perfectly in line and the drivers' names spill over into the round column. KytabuTalk 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC) And even without the flags, the problem persists. It is not as bad with the flags, but that it happens at alo means it is unworkable. And that is before we put in references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I'm going to try merging the number and driver columns (again, here) tomorrow. No idea how it'll look. But you never know unless you try... —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC) But first, I just realised I missed out some non-breaking spaces opportunities. That is quicker. I'll do it now since it is nearly four o'clock in the morning, and check in the morning. —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) It's still not great. I usually post from a HTC One XL, which has a fairly large screen, but it's still not working. The option to sort is not available, and so things only roughly line up. The table is simply too wide for it. I shudder to think of what it would look like on a smaller phone. I have to voice my complete opposition to a sortable function of any sort. It just does not work on mobile devices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Alphabetical order, as it is now. End of discussion. There are clearly several editors opposed to 2013 WCC order and I for one absolutely refuse to accept numerical order, so alphabetical is the only option. Great, now we're done. Eightball (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) It's no up to one user to decide when this is over all by him/herself. I for one, just like BroSwerve and Joetri10 oppose to the alphabetical proposal because, like the aforementioned users pointed out, it strips all meaning from the table whatsoever. A secondary reason why I oppose to the alphabetical option is because the users who are compromising for it are not doing so out of conviction that it's the best option, but because they have no motivation left to support their proposals. Like, BroSwerve pointed out, the FIA have come up with this new numbering idea and they themselves have presented us with a template on how to sort the entry list. If we have take into account how the random reader will understand the table on this page, I think we should at least take into account the lay-out of the entry lists they encounter in the general media outlets including those we use as sources for this pages. If we go alphabetical it's completely different to any possible sources; and some users think that will look completely normal to the random reader? I know it is not mandatory to accurately display the sources, but some users act like it's completely forbidden to do so. Moreover we wouldn't follow it entirely because we would be ordering the drivers within the teams by numbers. On the previous season's articles the tables were accurate with the sources as well. Alternatively, I would like to bring into attention one of Kytabu's propositions which seems to have been forgotten a bit. You can find it on the user's sandbox page. The one I'm talking about is the one called ”separate tables”. Originally this proposal didn't look very well at all, but it has been improved a lot since. Now it's actually two subtables within one table. Some columns have a sortable function as well, but for those mobile devices for which this does not work, the default order looks perfect as well. The advantage of this proposal is that it allows to order the drivers in a meaningful order independent from the team order. Some info is indeed duplicated, but it's not that many and is not annoying by any means. Very importantly, this proposal does not excessively increase the total size of the current table (only one column is added with a repeat of the short team names and no rows are added at all). Lastly, I think that if the above fail it is high time that we seriously consider  Ronhjones  's proposal and use some sort of newsletter or poll and put Kytabu, —Gyaro–Maguus— and Prisonermonkeys's proposal together and ask the opinion of all the project's members and take the one that get's the most vote because I doubt we will ever reach the magical word consensus because every time one user will keep getting across. Tvx1 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Can people stop stating that as fact already. We have been over what the Minority VS Majority is regarding the matter. As for compromising as I'm still feeling extremely offended and I can't take much more of this crap, I vote Alphabetical teams with the driver numbers being colour coded as exampled in PM's latest table or whatever else comes up as Tvx1 makes some hard points so I'd really go with whatever he finds better. Don't take this as me flip-flopping though as Tvx1 is certainly spot on. I just know in my mind no matter what, the table will look a complete mess anyway. I've personally just had enough. So yes. I'm too now settling for the sake of this discussion to end. Sorry Joetri10 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Separate tables is an even worse, more confusing and less helpful way to compose the article. It's literally a worse idea than erasing the article and replacing it with a picture of a hat. Just leave what we have now because everything else you crazy people have suggested would make the article objectively worse. I would not believe that this discussion happened if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Eightball (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Did you even bother to look at the proposal I was referring to on the Sandbox page I linked to? It's actually one table with two independent halves and it looks all right. Tvx1 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Tvx1, I have to disagree with part of your argument. You said "A secondary reason why I oppose to the alphabetical option is because the users who are compromising for it are not doing so out of conviction that it's the best option, but because they have no motivation left to support their proposals." I must object to this, as I do believe that alphabetical is the best way to order this table. Because we have the drivers grouped with their team, it isn't possible to arrange them by driver number without it skipping around. (1-3-4-17-6-44...) If the table was structured in such a way that the numbers could be arranged sequentially, not every other, I would have no problem with it. However, there has been strong opposition to the proposals that involve a major restructure to the table, mainly because it repeats information, and doesn't fit with the style used in past seasons. I also disagree that arranging the table alphabetically "strips all meaning from the table whatsoever" from the table. The only thing that arranging the table alphabetically does differently from any other ordering system is that, it arranges the table alphabetically. Nothing else is changed. It is still the same content, simply presented in a different order. Finally, I was the one that originally proposed the sortable-split-table on Kytabu's sandbox, albeit in a much less usable state than it is now. Kytabu was able to get the sort function to work for drivers (Something I was unable to achieve, so many thanks to Kytabu), and with one of Kytabu's latest ideas, (using {{nowrap|}}) I have been able to refine the idea into a sortable table that doesn't all apart when viewed on a mobile device. You can view it on my sandbox. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) What I don't get is those editors who claim the table will be a complete mess if they're prefered order is not followed. It's a table whose look will be exactly the same regardless of the order it is put in. The difference is a different placement of the order. To call a simple variation of order a "complete mess" is frankly a hysterical over-reaction. The table will still be neat and self-contained regardless of the order, and I do wish editors would cease behaving as if the table suddenly becomes a foreign language. --Falcadore (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Facadore, my description of the above table as "a complete mess" has nothing to do with the way the information is presented, and everything to do with the way it is coded because I am using such a small screen - and of all the smartphones on the market, mine has one of the largest screens available. Under one proposal, I have names and numbers that don't line up (for instance, in the case of Red Bull, I have the number 1 next to the German flag and the number 3 next to "Sebastian"; the "Vettel", Australian flag, "Daniel" and "Ricciardo" all appear on separate lines). Under the other, I have names crossing over the lines of the cells they are supposedly contained within. It is a problem that would happen however the information is arranged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I was not refering to you Prisonermonkeys where there is technical merit, but to those who say it is "messy" as a form of justification for maligning numerical order. Statements like "everything else you crazy people have suggested would make the article objectively worse" is subjective and frankly nonsense. The table will perform its function regardless of the order it is placed in. I find this attitude particularly unhelpful. --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I might just have sorted out that issue on the latest table on my sandbox. Putting the flag in its own column and putting non-breaking spaces between the first names and surnames of the drivers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Nope. Still doesn't like it. Again, the screen is just too narrow. It is not as bad as it was, but remember, I have a large screen on my phone. Anyone who has a smaller screen is going to encounter similar problems. After all, the software automatically tries to fit the width of the table to the screen, and where that is not possible, it tries to make the width of the table as small as possible. If I am having problems like this, I can only imagine the difficulties someone with an iPhone or something smaller might have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Are you using your phone in portrait or landscape mode? I just looked at both Gyaro's and John's latest versions on my Galaxy S4 Mini and Gyaro's looked fine while there was only a tiny overlap of da Costa's name on John's, which I think could be fixed if the tyre column is removed. Neither of them were hard to read, though. KytabuTalk 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I just checked them in portrait orientation as well and again they're fine. I was required to scroll across but that's no big issue. Tried another browser and still looks all right. KytabuTalk 23:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I also checked on my Droid Incredible 4G which has a small-to-medium screen size, and both Kytabu's and my own tables look fine. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I don't think PM's issues were with the driver's column anymore, rather with the column widths of the whole table. I've (hopefully) sorted this one out in this section in my sandbox. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Looks fine on my iPhone! Tvx1 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I have no idea why, but it still is not displaying properly for me. It might be the browser rather than the phone. Now the driver names and flags are completely out of alignment. Kamui Kobayashi appears to be Dutch. It's still not acceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I have the feeling that it's a technical problem with your device. We have three users who have independently viewed the proposed table on three mobile phones from three different manufacturers and said it looks fine. I want to point out that consensus is not unanimity. We really can't be prevented from moving forward by one user who keeps opposing. Furthermore there is something called rough consensus. Tvx1 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I would like to note that the table looks fine on my HTC Desire C and probably will look fine on my iPod. I believe that the sizes of the flags can be adjusted, so I'll try that anyway, but mainly because I'm a perfectionist over anything else. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I am not trying to stop a consensus from being formed - I just think it is important to get this absolutely right. I may be having a technical issue, but if I am not, then it is conceiveable that other readers will experience the same problem, and I would rather err on the side of caution. I suspect the issue is the way you have used a white border around some parts of the table, but not around others. And I think you might need to add all of the references from the article into the mock-up before we proceed, just to be certain that the problem has been fixed. I would also like to caution against complex coding in the tables. Wikipedia should not just be readable, but easy to edit. Someone who wishes to edit the article may be deterred by complex coding, and the more complex the coding, the easier it is to break the table. Having the sortable function may satisfy us, but we are not the only ones reading it. And finally, we should probably settle on the default state of the table, since readability has been emphasised throughout this debate (and mobile devices do not have a sortable function). Alphabetical and numerical work just fine for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Did you take a look at the table(s) on my sandbox? I didn't use the transparent borders, so it might be easier to see where the issue is coming from. JohnMcButts (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Well, I've fixed my flag issues on my sandbox. Does it work for you PM? —Gyaro–Maguus— 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC) It is much better, but I have two or three suggestions. First, can you add in references? I want to make sure the issue is not going to be recurring once we add them in. I suggest you just add the following to each field that needs a reference - <sup>[00]</sup> - without the "nowiki", of course. That will just set up a dummy reference that will be approximately the same size as the references in the article. Alternatively, if we could find a reference - like a full entry list - that contained all drivers, chassis names and engine combinations, we could cut all the references from the body of the table and put them in a bar across the bottom, the way we do with the calendar and results on race report articles. I also think that in the interests of saving space, we could split some of the longer team names across two lines. Mercedes and Force India have very long names, while the unusual shape if the Swiss flag is throwing the Sauber drivers out of alignment. We have done this before when a team changes its name mid-season - Renault losing ING's title sponsorship in 2009 being the most notable example. And it uses white borders on the text, so it is essentially the same as you have elsewhere in that table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I'll try that tomorrow, and said entry list reference would be the official FIA entry list, with references for those not included (though I'll fill it with the fake references anyway – I'll be a copy and paste job). Right now though its late, I'm tired and not exactly sober; hence tomorrow. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I've gone ahead and made the changes here. KytabuTalk 04:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Much better, but can we try to find a way to narrow some of the columns? By my estimate, it is about two and a half times wider than the screen, and I think we can trim that down a bit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Does it really matter if it's wider than a mobile screen if you can just scroll across anyway? The 2013 table from the Teams to the Rounds column in 736px, this one is 775px; I don't think there's any need for the table to be narrower. The majority of the audience will be viewing the page on a computer or laptop anyway. KytabuTalk 08:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC) The minority is still a percentage. PM here is constantly using his mobile phone to give his input towards the discussion and editing the main page and the reason is probably a very valid one. Also with modern day technology and discussion ever more prominent together, mobile phones are being used even more. Wikipedia is often looked at as that which information can be learned without effort, quick and effectively. In Regards to F1, discussion may consist outside of ones home and therefor may need their mobile. Although what a stupid chart actually looks like in terms of aesthetics is rather irrelevant for the most part all things considered, it should still be up to standard when viewing on all systems; mobile or otherwise. Neglect is the first step towards improper conduct Joetri10 (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC) My main point is that if the table in my sandbox is too wide, all the driver tables in previous seasons are too wide (particularly those with the test driver column - the 2011 one is 900px wide compared to the 775px here). KytabuTalk 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Should those also not be fixed then? I don't think other pages should be brought up as justification when they also seem dodgy anyway. Besides, are we creating a table for the entirety of F1-related Wikipedia pages or just this one? Joetri10 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) We are creating a table for this page, but there's no point making just this table perfectly suited to a mobile device when tables on other pages and even other tables on this page will be too wide for a mobile phone screen. If we start designing tables for phones, then they will start looking odd on computers (for example, line breaks for no apparent reason). And I ask again: how hard is it to scroll across on a mobile device? KytabuTalk 09:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I actually ironically enough don't have/use a mobile for the internet though in discussion with others, they have done. My point though was if we are going to spend 100 years on one stupid table, we might as well make it work for devices as well as computers, or else what's the point? I can't say much more then that, this is more PM's case. Joetri10 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I can't be bothered to read the bulk of this discussion but if we're talking about making wholesale changes in the interest of making the table more readable (or readable at all) on mobile then that's something I'd be absolutely on board with, so long as it doesn't require removing useful information or hindering usability in the full version. Eightball (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC) For PM's plan to save space, we can quite easily cut out a non-breaking space or two, which I have done my sandbox. The table looks fine on both PC and mobile. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Yeah, that should be fine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Are we all basically waiting on me to add the actual references to my table? I can't do it yet, I'm too busy. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Here's Gyaro's last table with all the proper references added in. Are we going ahead with this? KytabuTalk 03:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) I see no opposition. I was against it until it could be smoothed out, and now I am satisfied that it is okay. Although the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that a sortable function should be added to the engine column as well. The ability to arrange based on engine supplier seems like something that would be useful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC) It's in Okay, I added Gyaro's sortable table to the article. By the looks of things, I haven't completely broken Wikipedia, so I'm going to tenuously say it's good for now. I was going to try and add a sortable function to the engine column (like I said, it seems like something that would be useful), but the coding is a little too complex for me to manage at all, much less manage confidently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yep, it's gone in okay. I've added the sort function to the engine column. KytabuTalk 00:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Can I have something clarified quick? The columns for nationality were necessary for the sorting options on the other columns, weren't they? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.14.26 (talk) I think it was done that way so the wrapping on mobile devices wasn't as messy (the flagicons were affecting the nowrap template when they were in the driver/team column). KytabuTalk 20:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I like it. Well done to all concerned :) Hope everyone's happy with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) As far as the discussion goes, I'm just happy it's over. After PM's little trick on me I just stopped trying/caring. So sure, good work everyone (I guess) Joetri10 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Is there a reason it takes so long to make decisions on F1 pages? I shouldn't be pleased that I didn't get involved, but it always seems to be a miserable experience. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC) GeoJoe, For each opinion there is a counter, and with each counter comes a justification and with each justification gets justified by something else entirely separate from anything related. There is no place for opinion nor for a sense of freedom within expression and change. A script MUST and WILL always be followed by and if one person tries to argue their point for too long, they get bullied out of it with more justification. Many apposing comments got twisted and mis-collected while others changed their opinion to suit a consensus for the sake of it. I for one got referred to several different sectors of Wikipedia upto/and including getting investigated by some in suspicion of being a Sock of a guy named DeFacto, all tracing back to Prisonermonkey (and in-fact, every problem I've had here). I ended up giving in as I've never been so insulted. I find BRRR has been used several times here, an accusation that is actually the leading factor of why we have the graph we have now because in actuality, nothing has been neutrally fixed with the chart aside from now it gives a pre-school lesson in numbers and alphabets. It's worthless and a waste of time. Joetri10 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Since the issue has been resolved, the sortable table is now in the article and everyone is satisfied, perhaps it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie. This has gone on long enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Whatever makes you sleep at night bro. You got what you wanted anyway, that's all you ever cared for. Goodluck with the rest of the page because I doubt anyone else is going to come back often after this. *thumbs up* Joetri10 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)