Talk:2013 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Season summary

I did pretty much all of the race summaries last year, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not keen on doing them again this year. I found them to be pretty time-consuming and I struggled to make things interesting at times. So I'm really hoping someone else takes the reins this year.

For that person, here are a few unwritten rules from 2012:

1) Pre-season testing doesn't need to be covered. It is mentioned on the 2012 page because Lotus found a critical fault in the build of their chassis that forced them to miss the first Barcelona test, and there was the suggestion that the problem could have been so serious that they would have missed the first race. Ultiamtely, that didn't happen, but the problem was notable enough that it deserved to be mentioned. Nothing like that happened this year, and so there is no need to cover testing.

2) Race summaries should be no more than 350 words when and where possible.

3) Qualifying should not have its own paragraph.

4) The summary should be more than a list of who finished where in the race.

Finally, I've removed the entire race summary section from the article, because it was horrible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Points 2, this is a SEASON article, not a RACE article. Summary should be of the season not individual races. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added in a season summary which is hopefully appropriate in covering important season issues, while not appearing horrible to other edittors. --Falcadore (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To be totally honest, it was horrible. It was better than some of the stuff that has been posted before, but it needed a lot of work. It really suffered from some unencycopaedic content. Most notably, these:

proving the Lotus team has returned to a championship threatening position since its rebranding from Renault F1

Felipe Massa is having his strongest season since 2010

Lewis Hamilton who is flourishing at his new team

outperforming his former team McLaren convincingly

Daniel Ricciardo has matched Sutil best performance of a seventh after a strong drive in China

All of this reads like an opinion. There's no place for that in the article.

Also, I don't see why you needed to mention everyone's nationalities. Nations don't score points in Formula 1, so including them seemed unnecessary, and a little clumsy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Standings template

How about we use the standings as a template Matt294069 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(Noting that the drivers standing table has already been replaced with a template): The usual reason for creating a template is so that the same information can be included in multiple articles. Since the 2013 championship tables don't appear in any other articles, they don't need to be templates from that point of view. However, converting the tables to templates will make it more difficult for inexperienced editors to edit them, which may or may not be considered a good thing. DH85868993 (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok then Matt294069 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Formula_One_2012_season_host_countries.svg

OMG someone is silly enough to exclude Hainan from China, would someone able to edit SVG files fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:701:D1FA:1B08:D455:8059 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There are other, more pressing issues that need attention first. Honestly, it's not really that big a deal - sure, it's an error, but it has no impact on the content of the page, and you wouldn't notice it unless you went looking for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, simple lapse in judgement, but like PM says above, you wouldn't noticed unless you were specifically looking for it. I'll get too it when i can but don't expect anything soon. BosleyTree (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, if Hawaii was missing from US or Northern Ireland from UK then the cry would be bigger I think...a little bit of Euro/Americo-centrism here in the downplaying of this issue but of course not a major thing. Could someone tell me how to fix it?Viljo pyörillä (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Protests

In the name of human rights we have to add some activist pow here. Hey all Mohammeds where are you hiding. Come and invite your friends to form "a consensus"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.203.216 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No idea, but he may be wanting some words on the protests on the Bahrain GP in the article, but he hasn't written that. I don't really understand what he is actually saying... —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't pay it any mind - it's just vandalism. An editor with a similar IP hit the Bahrain GP talk page with similar NPOV rubbish. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... (its racist and sexist in nature) --188.67.174.101 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the CSD, as that is not one of the valid criteria. Can you explain your concern?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 monaco grand prix

I think the article should be created now at last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pork-willy (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It will get made when someone has the time to make it. Until then, please be patient - or better yet, why not be bold and create it yourself? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But don't create it until you have some worthwhile content, i.e. more than this. DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyre section

I see someone has added details of the tyre controversy to the season article. I'm concerned about this, because we have multiple conflicting reports from various sources, some of whom - such as the teams - who I think are unreliable because they have an interest in a certain outcome being attained. Since we only know a little bit of what is actually going on, I have removed this section from the article for the time being; once it is resolved, then we can add it back in. I also think it is something that needs to be discussed before it is added in any way, because I feel it will be very easy to slip out of NPOV and start taking sides. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That someone was me. Tyre issues are clearly notable for this season, it is indefensible that this article currently says absolutely nothing about them. Based on the fact that every line was sourced and all conflicting opinions had been covered in the text, I'm reinstating it. It is quite ridiculous for you to claim Wikipedia doesn't mention issues that are unresolved or partially detailed, that's clearly false. If you can actually point to any NPOV issues relating to the actual text that you removed, then detail them here. Because based on the Bahrain debacle, I am not convinced that your word that they just exist because you say so is in any way sufficient to be depriving people of information about a topic. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How about you read AGF first?

Colors look lighter on laptop than on an iPhone

When I looked at the article on my iPhone, the color things in the standings were much darker and easier to see (they're not too hard to see on here), but when I look at the standings on my laptop, the colors are a lot lighter and don't look as good as they do on an iPhone. Why the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTubeaholic2009 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Wikipedia. That's down to the hardware itself. Nothing we can do about it. --Falcadore (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks better NOW. LOL. YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

championship order

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

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

Kimi Räikkönen

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

Dashes

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

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

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

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

Alonso is 2nd

Alonso has now claimed 2nd in the drivers championship. Which means his picture can now be added on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.186.2 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Allow graphs of season progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the story of the 2013 constructors: RBR dominating, with a neck-and-neck race for second between Ferrari and Merc, with Lotus close behind. Lotus plateaued between Hungary and Singapore, and then had a resurgence that could see them steal 2nd at the last round. And this story can not be found anywhere in the F1 2013 wiki! True or not: you cannot glean this from studying the wiki as it now. Surely this is the actual point (along with the drivers championship) of having the bl**dy races!
Gyaro–Maguus: "I can read graphs better than most, and let me tell you, you cannot see the story of the season pan out in that 2013 Constructors' graph." That's what he says, but I find it hard to believe. I think Gyaro–Maguus got the story immediately. I challenged G–M's wiki-brother, Falcadore three times to deny that my graph of Australian football results gave him an instant understanding (see his talk page). He still hasn't.
Why would these people refuse to acknowledge that the graphs give them an excellent overview of the respective championships? I've made comments above about wikipedians who make a wiki page their own fiefdom - this is more proof.
I invite other wikipedians to give their opinion: do they agree the story of the constructor's championship is not in the wiki when it should be, and would they agree my graph gives it succinctly and elegantly. Johntcp (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely deny it. Your obsession with using candystripped club colours means it's next to impossible to tell the difference between North Melbourne and Geelong. Richmond and Hawthorn are so close to identical that unless you know what the clubs are coloured you have to constantly switch back and forth. It is a graph that the colour blind you find completely unreadable. For someone who claims graphs are fantastic you have a very poor understanding of colour and readability. If you abandoned using club colours and use just one colour per club without striping and without making it look like jersey colours it looks less "cool" but becomes at least 100% more readable.

The AFL graph also doesn't tell you just how embarassingly bad Melbourne were. It doesn't tell you a thing about Brisbane's after the siren win over Geelong. It doesn't tell you anything about how the doping investigation bit into Essendon's season. It tells you literally nothing about the AFL season except ladder position and it does it in an extroadinarily untidy manner. You put the emphasis on all the wrong things making it harder to read all to chase a look that is pretty which has ultimately failed.

If I could say one thing about the presentation, it lacks maturity. It looks like the work I'd expect from a 14-year-old. --Falcadore (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I (GyaroMaguus) wrote the majority of this reply below before Falcadore wrote his bit, and I totally agree with him. The following is a reply to Johntcp

I know the story, but I spoke what I felt to be the truth, it really doesn't tell you anything over than gaps. But it is just some lines. They need context. You would need to write your story of the F1 season to explain the graph to those who do not have any knowledge of F1. I would happily stay your graph takes a 1000 words to explain, rather than saving 1000 words. You know what though – this could go in the season summary. We don't need the graphs.

Also, read what Retzepolous and SAS1998 actually wrote. Neither showed support for your graphs. They showed support for graphs in general. SAS1998 said about your AFL graph: "And, while that particular graph is terrible" while Retzepolous didn't even mention your graph at all! NO-ONE has actually supported your graphs over here.

I will also say it. Your graphs are absolutely atrocious. Near-invisible gridlines, horrible colour choices, incorrect labeling of the x-axis, y-axis crossing the x-axis at the wrong point. They are not elegant nor succinct, nor beautiful, nor actually any good or any useful in their current form. More, a pile of junk which had potential.

You appear to want this page (or at least a section of it) to be within your own kingdom. No-one here wants the graphs, including me. We like writing words. Words are much preferred over graphs. If you can find anyone who actually likes your graphs and is someone who I would consider a respectable, important editor (let us say someone who participates often in WikiProject discussion pages), I will listen to what they say and act accordingly.

Please read WP:STICK.

Apologies for using such strong language but your arrogance is just too damn high. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've avoided wading in here because others have already voiced my opinions, particularly Falcadore and G-M's 12 points. But I don't accept that a graph showing the evolution of the championship is necessary; each race article shows a short WDC and WCC table anyway for those whose stats hunger is greater than normal. Beyond that, users should go to dedicated F1 websites where this stuff is more professionally displayed. Graphs in general can be helpful in some articles, but the WCC graph linked to in this discussion is not a good graph, to be polite about it, for a multitude of reasons explained above. "Succinct and elegant"? No, the graphs here are essentially the epitome of "unsophisticated and tawdry". Sorry if that's a little impolite. I don't even think graphs are a good medium for explaining the evolution of a championship anyway. Also, I really don't dig the concept of someone coming on here pushing his own website. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you guys are being truthful about this.
Do I really have to ask Falcadore a fourth time? All right, here we go... Falcadore: Did you read the B Lions line on my Australian football graph, without needing the key, and instantly get an overview of the season they had in 2012? Wonder if I'll finally get a yes or no this time ... SILENCE
Gyaro–Maguus: 1. Does the story of the constructor's championship appear in the wiki? 2. Should it? 3. Does my graph give that story? (I get that you knew the story already, that's not what I'm asking.)
The guidelines say, "Encourage the newcomers". Can I just thank people for some of their encouraging words: absolutely atrocious, a pile of junk (in bold), lacking maturity, work of a 14 year old, unsophisticated and tawdry... Cheers, guys.
I believe you guys have decided you don't want graphs for your own reasons, and then justify rejecting them by finding faults. You can find faults in anything - the wiki "as is" is not perfect or complete.
Why do you really not want graphs? I think it's cos you're jealous. You know that my graphs would make the wiki better and you just can't stand it. You want it to be you who is the one that makes the brilliant contributions ...and it's not! The Green Eyed Monster strikes again.
Got that wrong have I? I thought you might say that. Have it your way. 182.239.196.42 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You are so far up your own arse that your face is dissolving in your stomach's acid. But it appears you have accepted your defeat, but not very well, I might add.

"I don't believe you guys are being truthful about this."? Seriously? Sorry, but your graph is sh*t. Here is what you can do: leave the graph idea alone. Edit somewhere else. I would happily accept you as a new editor if and only if you stopped stopped trying to enforce the graphs.

On behalf of Falcadore: What part of "I absolutely deny it." in reference to your graphs does not imply disapproval of your AFL ladder.

To Falcadore: please, tell him you don't like the AFL ladder in clear English that actually states you don't like it directly.

Responses to me.

1. Currently, no. 2. Very briefly. 3. No. Does your graph refer to aerodynamic developments? No. What does your graph show about Red Bull's post-mid-season break form? The line angled upward slightly but barely. But does it explain it? No, it is just some awfully coloured lines.

I actually apologised for my strong language.

By highlighting faults, we are reasoning why your graphs specifically should not appear here.

Your graphs will not make the article better. They will get in the way of useful stuff or won't be readable. Do they make them better. No. Never. Your graphs in particular, won't. Stop it with the candy stripes. Make the gridlines visible. And leave Wikipedia (please note: not "Wiki") without your graphs. I class myself as a Wikignome. Look at my contributions. What do you see? Small fixes, updating my userpage, the lap leader chart template and talking on talk pages. There are no bragging rights to making brilliant edits.

Again, apologies for the very strong language. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Gyaro: as an aside just to you, sadly, very sadly, Johntcp wants my approval of one and only one line in his graph because he seems to believe as a Brisbane Lions fan that if I approve ONLY the line representing the club I'm a member of then it justifies the charts existence and any other problems can be ignored... maybe just because I'm not a fan of any of the other clubs and could not possibly have a view on how they are repesented. I don't understand the insistance on approving only one line in the chart. It's like begging for approval of the spelling of only one sentence in several paragraphs worth of prose. --Falcadore (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

To Johntcp: Encourage the newcomers does not give you a leave pass to include poor quality material without comment. We tried encouragement with you and it would not take. All we got back from you was deny, deny, deny.

Wikipedia's preference has ALWAYS been for text over images and I would be more than happy to help with your writing efforts. I implore you to contribute some text. --Falcadore (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have nothing against the use of graphs as long as they're useful and add something. I have to agree with my colleagues that the AFL graph isn't really helpful. It's not easy to read in a glance. It'd be possible to learn something from if I studied it for quite some while but that should not be the purpose of graph here. The constructors graph is much better, though. It's still not good enough, however. The color coding is just far too complicated. For instance why do you use red and yellow for ferrari? There's more white than yellow on their car and red alone is more than enough. Ferrari's racing team has always been identified with red. Some of the colors are even wrong as well! Why do you associate sauber with dark blue/white/red? If anything I would associate Williams with those colors. Sauber should simply be dark grey. In short to directly answer your questions: 1. No. 2. Yes 3. More or less. Now, aside from that. There are situations where a graph could be useful in the scope of our project. Some info is not immediately clear from the text and the tables. For instance, the evolution of the championship lead. Currently, It's nearly impossible to tell who was the leader on a specific spot in time. However this is notable information which has been even been used to make official records. When Vettel won the 2010 world title it was claimed that he was the first to have done so without leading at any point during the season. It was correctly pointed afterwards that James Hunt had actually preceded him in doing that. Proposition have been made to make it easier to learn this informations e.g. by highlighting the leaders in the tables, but none have been accepted. Maybe a good graph could be a solution? So far I haven't seen a good enough proposition for useable graphs here so I have to say no to accepting them at the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the discussion, but apologies for calling the graph terrible. The graph itself is good and aesthetically pleasing. What I meant to say it is not great for the purpose we'd need a graph for :) SAS1998―Talk 22:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)