Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Move points column from the end of standings table closer to the driver name

Standings tables look awful after wikipedia redesign. One should scroll table horizontally to see points column:

[1]https://i.postimg.cc/mryhrjMH/Screenshot-2023-03-07-202456.png

[2]https://i.postimg.cc/Y9X96Sd2/Screenshot-2023-03-07-202514.png

Maybe column order like |Num|Driver|Points|race 1|race 2|... would be better?

[3]https://i.postimg.cc/NfxgmFF3/Screenshot-2023-03-07-203220.png Shioritan (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, scrolling back and forth is unnecessary fiddly and inconvenient. This has actually always been a problem for mobile users (made worse by the insistence to use {{nowrap}}s), with the result that I often use alternate websites when looking at the championship standings, because it is so inconvenient to scroll across all the time. Of course, this will simply mean that we are pushing this problem to individual rounds, but I see that as less of an issue. It does make me wonder though, is it possible to freeze the first two columns when scrolling these tables? SSSB (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps with CSS Positioning Inavolbe (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is counterintuitive. The points are the sum of the race results and you should be able to read right to left to understand what's happening in the table. This also priveleges the points total as the most important piece of information. Obviously, the position is the most important, points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over. The race results should always be prioritised. If this inconveniences some individuals who for some reason desire to know the points total of an ongoing season on their mobile devices then so be it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is not counterintuitive at all. Maybe just by your opinion. This is not the fact.
• The race result should never be prioritized. Because why opposite should be?
• In case of prioritizing race result current table doesn't show all race results, so this priority just not works.
• Your opinion about desires of some individuals doesn't matter. We are discussing here about improving of bad table design that just can not show all important data properly.

Shioritan (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

These are my opinions and reasons, and those are your opinions and reasons. I have no reason to be more convinced of yours, but to be completely honest I can't really understand what you mean in your response. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The points are the sum of the race results - no, they aren't. The points are the sum of the points scored in individual rounds, which are based on the results, these two are not the same thing. you should be able to read right to left to understand what's happening in the table. - you still can. We are just changing the order. Rather than saying "First is Verstappen, his results of [x firsts, y seconds, ...] gives him z points" we will instead be saying "First is Verstappen with z points, with results of [x firsts, y seconds, ...]". I don't see why one is more intuitive than the other. points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over. The race results should always be prioritised. - Given that this table documents the championship standings, individual results are only stictly relevant in the event of a tie-break. So it would make more sense to have points first (as it is this column which indicates if a tie-break is required). I also disagree that points totals have less relevance than results. If you want to check the results of a specific entrant, use their article. The results of a specific round should be found at that article. And I think someone is more likely to want to check how close the standings were than to (lets say) check who had the most podiums, or retrements (the kind of thing where you would need to use this table). So I would be interested to hear your justifaction behind the "relevance" argument. (lets also not forget that the season isn't over so, the "once the season is over" argument is moot at this time. SSSB (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we would be better off not displaying the race results at all and simply having a table of points, since all that can be found at individual articles. The point of these tables is to provide an overall summary of the season, hence why we have annotations to make it include poles, fastest laps, retirements, non-finishing classifications and sprint results. When looking for a summary of the season, the first and most obvious piece of information is why driver or constructor finished where. The second is an overview of their campaign. Finally, the least useful bit of information in the equation, is what points they scored. Whether the title was won by 88 or 36 points doesn't really matter compared to seeing a season summary (e.g. seeing that Ferrari fell off after the first few races last year gives a lot more context and understanding to the course of the season than seeing that there was a final points difference of 205 in the WCC). It is far more intuitive to read a summary table as "this plus this equals this" than as "this, being the sum of this and this", and far more intuitive to say "this happened and this happened and this was the result" rather than "this was the result and it happened because this happened and this happened. Sure, having things in a logical order is a personal preference, but so is having the points first. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If standings table is summary of the season races, than why races result go from left to right, but not from top to bottom? Shioritan (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Because we read left to right. Is this some sort of trick question? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And why calendar races go from top to bottom, if you "read left to right"? Shioritan (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the calendar of events you read each row of information (left to right) is about a single round, from first to last in chronological order. In the championship tables each row of information (left to right) is a single competitor, ordered by finishing position. Where is the inconsistency and what comparison are you trying to draw? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And why chronological order differs from table to table? Why in calendar it goes to the bottom and in standings it goes to the right?

Your "because we read left to right" definitely does not answer this question. Shioritan (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it does, since the tables are showing entirely different things. It's not a relevant or useful comparison and I'm at a loss to understand why you're so inistent on making it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Because all of your arguments look irrelevant and not disclosing actual state of things.

As user I want to see points without scrolling. Your "It's fine" maybe the source of your total misunderstanding. Shioritan (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, so as I've said the point of the table isn't to show the points total. You want convenience for your use case, but others actually want useful information. In trying to impose this you're now at the point where you're comparing the championship tables to the calendar. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You know nothing about what others want. And I see that you do not want /or maybe can't/ anything to find proper solution that would be useful for all users, but not only to you with your occasional devices. Shioritan (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You could see official driver standings:

https://i.postimg.cc/W4N8qMVx/Screenshot-2023-03-08-222353.png

There are no race finishes, only driver, nation, team & points.

Race results are displayed only at the according race pages.

Also sometimes drivers could take some points penalties and just sum of race point would not give you right number of points. Shioritan (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• What F1.com chooses to do does not impact on what we do. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway current format of table never show race results. With points or without. One never can see season summary. Just part of them. NASCAR 2023 has not 23, but 36 races. How to show all of them? And how will table look like if f1 or any race championship would have for example 50 or 100 races? Do you offer to show only 15-20 from them? Is this valuable season summary? Shioritan (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you trying to ask about wide tables? Because NASCAR is doing just fine. Regardless, F1 does not have 50 or 100 races, it has 23, and that is a perfectly workable number. Even a number as high as 36 is very clearly still workable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you joking about perfection? What is perfect in table with horizontal scroll bar and visual defects with layout of elements? Shioritan (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The standings page on f1.com is not the “official” championship table. FIA is the governing body in charge of running the races, formulating the regulations and crediting the results. Tvx1 07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well. Why table could not just fit the page like table of official fia.com?

  https://i.postimg.cc/bqLVZyQZ/Screenshot-2023-03-11-011025.png

  Is this so hard or impossible task? Just fit without defects for all users who want to see full table, but not chunk of it. Shioritan (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is exactly wHat we currently do. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you see defects in current table & page design?

  https://i.postimg.cc/3wxhsS7B/Screenshot-2023-03-11-011025.png Shioritan (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, actually, I don't see it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  But they exist in form of excess scrollbars and hiding side menu list by oversized table.

  So if you doesn't have needed qualification to detect this it is very sad for overall quality of Wikipedia. Shioritan (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see the formatting errors you do when I visit the page on my devices, and that is not a matter of my "qualifications". That I cannot replicate the problems you are facing is not a rebuttal of my argument, it actually counts against yours. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a resource just for "your devices". And not your resource. If other users have problems with layouts defects on their devices, it would be better to try to fix this problem instead of ignoring or prohibiting it. Shioritan (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it's not just for your devices either. I cannot replicate your issue so I can make no progress towards fixing it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is for all devices but not for elite users with proper devices that enjoy of barriers and prohibitions. Shioritan (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just because you can not replicate an issue does not mean it doesn't exist. The screenshots are also very clear. Not all the coumns fit on the screen.

  Are you saying we would be better off not displaying the race results at all and simply having a table of points, since all that can be found at individual articles. no. Because then I would have said that directly. I'm just arguing that the results of individual rounds is the least relevant and least important peice of information. Suggesting that this is my argument is like if I suggested you wanted to get rid of the points total, becuase you said "points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over." Please don't put words in my mouth.

  The point of these tables is to provide an overall summary of the season, - no its not. That's why we stopped doing one row per driver. You just choose to use it that way.

  When looking for a summary of the season, the first and most obvious piece of information is why driver or constructor finished where. - the reason why a driver or constructor finished where is the points. You've just argued that the first and most obvious piece of information people look for is the points total.

  The second is an overview of their campaign. Finally, the least useful bit of information in the equation, is what points they scored. This is nothing but how you choose to use the table, but the reallity is that this table exists to tell people the championship standings, and what determines the standings is the points totals (and then the results in the event of a tie-breaker)

  It is far more intuitive to read a summary table as "this plus this equals this" than as "this, being the sum of this and this", and far more intuitive to say "this happened and this happened and this was the result" rather than "this was the result and it happened because this happened and this happened. clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

  With the greatest possible respect, these tables exist to convey the championship standings, and the championhsip standings are determined by the points totals. This is why I believe this information should be proritised. I am struggling to see how your argument for not prirotising the points (the basis of the standings) extends beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT because I use the table for something other than its primary purpose. SSSB (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let me put it another way. If what you're saying is true, then the only important piece of information for these tables to consider are the drivers' positions and points. Anything else is secondary. However, the points total is determined by the results of the season. Why do we include the results of the season if the points are the only important piece of information? Because having a single table which includes all points-scoring results (and non-points scoring results as I have mentioned above) is the best way to concisely summarise the season. The order of the points totals fromm greatest to smallest determines the championship, yes, but the actual precise number of the points doesn't matter - we logically know that first place had the greatest number, second place the second most, and so on (except in cases of ties where the countback is used). The championship table's primary purpose is indeed the championship standings - I have never disputed that, that was actually what I called the primary concern (I intended to write which, not why, which is why the sentence is grammatically wrong). If you know VER and RBR won the '22 championships, you know they scored the most points - but how many they precisely scored isn't that important really (with a few significant exceptions like 2007). Once you know where they finished, the most important bit of information is why they finished there, and the most logical way to present this is chronologically working from left to right through the season which sums to produce the points total.

  no its not. That's why we stopped doing one row per driver. On this point you are completely mistaken, we stopped using one row per driver because which driver scored what wasn't relevant to the constructors' championship. Having the best result on the top row allows for the best overall summary of the constructors' season. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Its just your opinion that quantity of points isn't important. You can not proof this. This not a fact, but your opinion.

  And if you really want to show summary of the season than SHOW it. For now there is NO such showing. Only chunk with awful layouts. Screenshots clearly proof this.

  If you have no qualification in UX/UI try to delegate this task to more experienced people. Shioritan (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  At this point you're not even trying to criticise my reasoning, you're just telling me I'm wrong and slagging me off. If you can't advance your case for change it might be time to give up. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Dude, I see the problem. You are ignoring it.

  I try to propose four different solutions:

  • Move point column by price of subtle shift of races results. I think that this is very cheap price
  • Or we can change cells margins to squeeze column widths to fit all table in narrowed new wiki design space
  • Or we can for example put finish positions and other info /about fast lap, sprint and pole/ into two string — again to squeeze column widths
  • Or /the most radical and actually I don't like this/ we can swap columns and rows to order race results from top to bottom

  All of this aims single purpose — to make table design and UX better. From awful to at least decent. Because honestly in comparison with many other sites it really looks bad and this is sad for me.

  For example background coloring of finishes /in legend/ looks like web 1.0 from 90th. These are Excel-98 colors. Also DNS and C has white color, but DNP, EX etc has blank color. And in practice user can't to differ one from another by color scheme. This is example of bad design. This is sad.

  But I'm not try to radically change all. I propose one slight alteration.

  And you? You do not want to change anything. And you show no intention to find the best solution for all /not only for you and your devices/. So this behavior is very sad for all community and for wiki developing. Shioritan (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. As I have alredy explained, that is contrary to the purpose of the table. Further, doing this would not solve the issue you are encountering with table width.
  2. We could simply reduce the scaling of the table, or as others have mentioned there are CSS tricks that could allow for a solution to the table width issue.
  3. I don't understand what your third proposal is.
  4. As I have already explained, this is ridiculous, so I'm glad we agree it's not a viable option.

  Again, I do not experience any issues with the table design or UX of the table. You keep saying that this is my "opinion", but the issues you are experiencing are only your contrary opinion. You also mention a range of aesthetic opinions about the design of the table looking outdated, which counts for nothing, since these are again simply your opinions. There are other considerations that go into these decisions, such as accessibility, which requires sufficient contrast between different cell colours and between the text and background colour. There are also technical reasons for why DNS/C are white and DNP/EX are blank which relates to the sort of participation an entrant had in each round.

  Once again, you are simply sharing your distaste for the current design scheme, which is an opinion I do not have in common with you. I cannot replicate the issues you have experienced with table width, and the article renders perfectly fine on my computer in Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. On mobile, the table renders as a scrollable field which is the same for all tables on Wikipedia. If there is indeed some table width issue that does not relate to your personal scaling settings on your computer and browser, then further investigation into a solution may be required. However, I have not been able to find such an issue using default settings.

  So no, Shioritan, I do not want to change anything, and I remain completely unconvinced by your arguments. I have repeatedly explained why your "solutions" are not the best option. Your "slight alteration" is a fundamentally counterintuitive change to the way we present results on Wikipedia that would reduce the net usefulness of these tables. You can call my behaviour sad all you like but it will not disprove my reasoning. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  You know, table may looks like these:

  | BAH | SAU | ... | Pts

  VER | 1 | 2 | ... | 357

  It is also useful. Anyway doesn't matter. Shioritan (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  It matters to me. SSSB (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this is going nowhere fast. I say we keep it how it is because it is designed to go left-right. Plus if we change it once we're going to have to change it for every season. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to do anything. Anyway, this only applies to very long seasons, so we would only need to look at the last 10 years or so. SSSB (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You two are as bad as each other. Both of you are now making arguments along the lines of "my opinion is worth more than yours".

And as I have explained to you, it is not contrary to the purpose of the table, it is only contrary to how you use the table. The purpose of the table is to show the championship standings, and the championship standings is determined by who has the most points.

On this point you are completely mistaken, we stopped using one row per driver because which driver scored what wasn't relevant to the constructors' championship. Having the best result on the top row allows for the best overall summary of the constructors' season. - I'm afraid it is you who is completely mistaken. We stopped using one row per car number (which is what it actually was) because it has no impact on the championship, and career numbers resulted in excess rows (Aston Martin's results would be over three rows last year). It had nothing to do with allowing for easier interpretations of individual rounds. This wasn't even considered (because that is beyond the table's purpose). You'll notice that pre-2013 championship tables still use one row per car number

If what you're saying is true, then the only important piece of information for these tables to consider are the drivers' positions and points. Anything else is secondary. not "only" but certainly "most". This is why Formula1.com and BBC don't include that info. And why Autosport (who suffer from this issue too) have the points first, and then the results. Why do we include the results of the season if the points are the only important piece of information? to supplement the points totals. To give context. That's what your "overall summary of the season" is, additional context to supplement the points totals showing how a competitor secured their points.

If you know VER and RBR won the '22 championships, you know they scored the most points - but how many they precisely scored isn't that important really this is just your opinion and I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. I would say that how the points gap is significanly more important that how strongly they performed in any single round, or how their relative perfomance evolved.

And the truth is that most of your points are moot, because all the characteristics of this table are being retained, it is only the order of columns which we propose to change. So you can still do everything you do now. You haven't explained the harm in this change, only why you disagree with the principle. We have (tried) to explain why we think the current system is (for the sake of consistency in language) harmful for someone who wants to read the table. Finally, you keep saying that this table width issue doesn't affect you - that is irrelevant, so stop bringing it up. SSSB (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Might I remind all of you that tables are not a substitute for prose. If you want to see points gaps and the evolvement of them the season report is the place. The tables are supposed to be a simple representation of the outcome of the championship. Its layout is the result of years of establish practice based on the most logical way to do it. We start with the championship positions, then the individual races results as they combine to the points totals. We use the most instinctive ordering, per the Arabic writing system we use here, of left to right and top to bottom. I'll also point out there is no such thing as a perfect table. There will always be a reader somewhere who as a personal issue with it. That's why we operate on consensus and not unanimous agreement. Neither do wo change decades long established practice on the whims of one editor. Lastly, as the initiator of the discussion that led to the change of format of the WCC tables, I can say to lack relevance was actually very much my motivation to start that discussion.

Now for the issue with the width of the new default UI of English Wikipedia. That new UI has not been established as going to stay (certainly not as is) and certainly the reduced and fixed default with. There is an RFC still running on the new default UI and I strongly invite you to contribute if you haven't already. Tvx1 01:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

About "Its layout is the result of years of establish practice".

You know, any system has its limit. I think that this years-proofed practice works good with numerous seasons with 10 to maybe 15 races. Because there is no width problem. But nothing is eternal. There is a trend of increasing f1 races per year.

And the choice comes. To do nothing. Or try to find better structure /if it exists/.

So I understand your reasons. But even dinos extinct sooner or later. Shioritan (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We started using those tables when the calendar had already exceeded 15 races a long time, so no that's the limit. And as 5225C's Nascar example shows, we've not reached any practical limit at all yet.Tvx1 18:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been mentioned in this tediously long thread, but why not put the points total at both ends of the columns? The point about forcing the user to scroll to see the points is well made, but the counter argument that essentially the table is meant to be read from left to right also makes sense. Putting the points total at both ends satisfies both needs whilst only adding a single, narrow column to the table. Duplicating a column in this way is common practice in wide tables, just as duplicating row headings is common practice with large datasets. I don't know if it is technically feasible, but it may be possible to create the duplicate column with the use of variables so that only one column need be updated after each race. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the points totals column is determined by a template ({{f1stat}} and its equivalent?) So it sounds like a plan to me. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is good! I'd like to hear from others before making a change that might precipitate an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This solution would be totally satisfying for me. Shioritan (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Only points on the right as tables in 1950–2022 articles.--Island92 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have explained to you multiple times, across multiple different ideas - this argument is rubbish. Firstly, there is no need for all articles to follow the same format. Secondly, insisting they do and reverting any changes is unconstructive, as it means that nothing will ever improve (because few people have time to change 74 articles in one go.), and I would argue that this behavious is disruptive. Finally, if you want all the tables to look the same, you can change them. I have reverted your reverts, as this is a non-reason. If you have a genuine reason, feel free to bring it up. SSSB (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Having points information showed twice in the same table is just elementary and ridiculous. "There is no need for all articles to follow the same format". That's true, but the whole picture in 1950–2022 articles tables is always the same: tables feature the same contents and I don't see the need to report two points columns. Is that a joke or what?--Island92 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

To name a proposal ridiculous is much more ridiculous than the proposal. Is that a joke or what?

You can name proposal excessive for example and it would be fact. But ridiculosity is just your ridiculous opinion. Not the fact. Think about it. Shioritan (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential compromise solution: Is there any way to detect desktop vs mobile / the screen width / if the table is being cut off, and automatically show/hide the left-side points column if it is, but hide it if it isn't? That way you'd 1) always be able to see one points column, and 2) never have to see two points columns at the same time. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the wiki markup to know whether or not this is possible. It would be trivial in CSS though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a floating points column is the most logical and aesthetically pleasing solution. I also agree with Island92 that two points columns is ridiculous. One column at the end of the table is all we need, full stop. Having two is still preferable to moving one column ahead of the results though (which would be the most absurd "solution" of all). Again, I'm not sure of the technical solution here. I believe MediaWiki does support CSS but no doubt there is a policy somewhere saying that's a no-no. The best course of action may be to reach out on the village pump or some similar forum to see what more technically capable editors think. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Having two is still preferable to moving one column ahead of the results though (which would be the most absurd "solution" of all)

If it's absurd, why does the FIA use it in their own points table, which is actually the source for our table? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not the FIA. That they do that is also a perpetual source of bewilderment for me and it's just as ridiculous there as it would be here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so called absurd and ridiculosity live only in your head as an opinion, but not the fact? Maybe your arguments are ridiculous? Maybe you just can't understand FIA decisions and this causes bewilderment for you? Shioritan (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about and I'm not going to continue giving credibility to these inane responses with my time and effort. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

About your ridiculous replies. I see that you describe not only my proposals with word "ridiculous". As far as this is only your opinion, but not the fact, I have also an opinion that your opinion is ridiculous.

Simple, isn't it? Shioritan (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the best format with the current situation. While the future UI is being decided, having two totals columns, to accomodate both the left to right additive format and those who are unable to view the entire table at once, appears to be optimal.

A future option which appears unavailable/impossible at the moment could be to ‘freeze’ the end totals column so it is always in view, thus satisfying both of the arguments I mentioned above.

Personally, I use the table to check the points standings as I watch the races, so I was pleasantly surprised by the additional points column. I have not yet viewed the table on desktop where I also use the old UI but I believe this current table design works best at least until the future UI is decided. Jcblyth (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I think the two-column points solution is working very well because it provides an at-a-glance view without the need to scroll or swipe for the details. I would much prefer a solution that moves the end column to the beginning for mobile viewing, but in the absence of that I think this works well enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the new Wikipedia view system. I'm keeping the old one which does not cause the issue to make the table work as you desire (one points column). Go to setting and set the old one and it's solved. User Shioritan please be respectful towards other user. Just because we give our opinion does not mean is ridiculous just because things are going your way. I can say having two points columns is ridiculous for other 1,000 times if you agree. And I don't change my idea.--Island92 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that "ridiculous" word is not a sign of respect at first.

For me it's ok if my proposal would not be implemented. I'm not insist. But opinions about ridiculosity are very disrespectful. You could say you don't like the proposal and it is not suitable or appropriate. But not with so offensive word.

Anyway I'm glad that two weeks later somebody has recognized that there is a problem with new wikipedia design. This was my very initial thought. Shioritan (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect, this is only ridiculous if you are fortune enough to have a wide enough screen to see all the columns. Otherwise it is not ridiculous at all. And you can say that it is because of Wikipedia's new veiw system, and say that you don't use that system. But most Wikipedia veiwers don't log in and don't have a choice. The claim that having the points column before the results is ridiculous also carries no real wieght (and borders on ridiculous itself) when the evidence of this thread suggests its the most common system.

Is having two points columns ideal? No. But compromise rarely is, and this is the only situation which we can all at least accept? SSSB (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Another reminder that the "new view system" is not set in stone, especially not the default limited width. The community already arrived at a consensus to rollback that aspect and active efforts to implement that are underway. Also can we please wait to change anything to our tables until such time we actually achieved some consensus? I have researching ways to make the tables horizontally scrolling and the points column sticky, but it appears that making a column on the right sticky is not that simple. Tvx1 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It is my understanding that we already had a consensus. It has been stable since March 22 and now you've gone against this apparent consensus to change it. I know it isn't an ideal solution, but it is certainly a workable compromise until a better solution is available. This kind of slow-motion edit warring is very annoying. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

CSS method

Just to get into the weeds a bit, if we can figure out a way to target the table specifically, the CSS to make the last column "sticky" is quite trivial:

tr {
  position: relative;
}
th:last-child, td:last-child {
  position: sticky;
  right: 0;
}

The last column, which in our case would be the points, would always be visible. Here's an example of that CSS working. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on this approach, I've tried it out. It works on my machine but your mileage may vary, as they say. Feel free to revert if it breaks anything that I'm unaware of. I can add it to the constructors table if everyone likes it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't changed anything for me, but this is my preferred solution so if it's working for everyone I'd go for implementing it everywhere. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@5225C: What browser are you using? I can only check on Chrome and Edge (Chromium) at the moment. Don't forget it only works if you make the window narrow enough to need a horizontal scrollbar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It works fine for me in Firefox, but the gridlines are now missing from the points column, so please reinstate them if you can. Marbe166 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I am getting an issue where it won't work on my mobile, but when I selected "mobile view" on my laptop it does work though. Just an FYI that it not working on some devices may be an issue. SSSB (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tried explicitly setting a bottom border to bring back those gridlines for Firefox, but it was ignored. Not sure what is going on there. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a way to bring back those gridlines in Firefox. Working with tables in this software is awkward! If this is considered unacceptable, I think it would be best if the sticky column is reverted. What does everyone think? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured out that

border-collapse: collapse

is what is causing the gridlines of the sticky column to disappear in Firefox. The only way to restore it is to set the table to

border-collapse: separate

and set the border spacing to zero, but this causes the borders to have a double thickness issue. I can fix it if I explicitly set the border in every single table cell, but this seems excessively complicated. So the choice is basically:

1. Sticky but with no gridlines in Firefox
2. Sticky with double-width gridlines
3. Forget the whole thing

I'm inclined to forget the whole thing because it doesn't seem to be working consistently for everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with 1&2. Option 3 is a little silly. It being inconsistent is better than not having it all - at least some of us will have the benefit. SSSB (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to get half of the borders to render by adding background-clip: padding-box; to the points column. The borders getting left behind has been a known issue on Firefox for over a decade now: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=688556 AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023 regarding sprint format of 2023 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Please added that in Azerbaijan GP (weekend sprint race), new weekend format will be used, source/proof:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-agree-to-pursue-standalone-sprint-format-for-baku/10452000/
https://racer.com/2023/04/06/all-teams-agreed-on-sprint-changes-to-two-race-f1-weekends/ 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

what i mean is that please add a section in sporting regulation that tells people about the newly modified timetable for Sprint round of Azerbaijan GP 218.188.208.98 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please mention specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Or in this case "add x". This means you need to write the prose which can then be copy and pasted in the article. That is what an edit request is. It is not an opportunity for you to list everything that is wrong and missing from the article. SSSB (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In section “Sprints events” of “Sporting Regulations”, add a paragraph like this while some editing would be needed between the two lines using this link as reference for the First Paragraph and this link as reference for the Second Paragraph (after the bullet-pointed list):

---

In 6^thApril, all Constructors agreed to update the sprint format that will host two qualifying and races for every sprint weekend since Azerbaijan Grand Prix while many details is still being discussed. But the weekend timetable format is planned as follows:

• Friday:
  • AM: Free Practice session
    This would be the only practice of the weekend
  • PM: Qualifying for Feature Race:
    This qualifying session will not affect the sprint qualifying/sprint race in any capacity, the duration and format will be exactly the same as in other race weekends that will not have sprint race.
• Saturday:
  • AM: Qualifying for Sprint Race
    This qualifying session will have exact format as normal qualifying but the time given will be shortened. Which means that in Q3, there might be just enough time for drivers to complete one lap.
  • PM: Sprint Race
    This sprint race will have exact same format as usual, the results will not affect starting grid of Sunday’s Feature Race, which will carry same point as in sprint rounds in 2022
• Sunday:
  • Feature Race
    This is the main race of the Grand Prix, grid position was set based on the qualifying results on Friday afternoon.

Further details including number of laps in sprint race, tyre allocation, parc ferme rules, technical penalties, etc. is still under discussion

---

You may consider these texts above as a draft as it still requires some editing that I could not find a way to improve it. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary to report all this. We can just mention that there was a change in sprints events, with a new format adopted specifically for this Grands Prix. In any case, nothing is confirmed by FIA or Formula One yet. We need an official source regarding the change from FIA. When it's the case, we update as a conseguence.--Island92 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are just speculations and talks, talks, talks, and nothing confirmed by who should officially confirm (FIA).--Island92 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

so you mean that motorsport.com or racer.com is NOT trustworthy for now? 223.19.112.230 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm with the IP. While this has not been formally ratified or implemented, it is perfectly appropriate for us to report that teams have agreed to change the format, and the format will be implemented for all sprints, subject to its ratification. The sources are completely reliable. If it ends up not being ratified, we can stick a sentence about that on the end and report it as a proposed rule change. SSSB (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This insistence of waiting for official sources when perfectly reliable sources exist is not constructive. SSSB (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The section is called "Regulation changes", not "Things proposed (the new format for sprints events) and then ratified or refused during the season".--Island92 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your sarcastic response doesn't successfully argue anything. It is a (proposed) regulation change. I don't think the fact that it is proposed is relevant, unless you are arguing that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE (I don't think it is because the abundence of sources, and how close it is to being adopted, and you don't seem to be arguing it) becuase we are an encylopedia, not the rule book, and there is therefore no reason why we cannot report on developments which are awaiting final approval. SSSB (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sprint changes and championship tables

With the new sprint format being finalised, I believe we will need to reconsider how we display sprints in the WDC and WCC tables. We discussed this back in April 2021 and a consensus was formed that because sprints in 2021 and 2022 were not standalone events, they should be displayed in the same cell as the race results. This has worked fine until now, but starting with Azerbaijan the sprint will be entirely standalone, and with its own qualifying too.

I see no alternative but to begin splitting the sprint column from the race column. It would be a very difficult task to cohesively display sprint pole, sprint results, race pole, fastest lap, and race results all in the same column. It would also be misleading to continue to display them in the same column when they are now entirely distinct parts of a race weekend.

Thoughts? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

They are now entirely distinct parts of a race weekend, that's true, but we should continue as was the case in 2021 and 2022. The fastest driver in the sprint shootout doesn't go in the table because doesn't get officially the pole position for the Grand Prix itself. (We no longer needs Notes indeed). Why do we need an extra table/column to put who was the fastest in sprint shootout? For statistics, it doesn't count anything. As well as an extra table to report who won the sprint, fastest lap and other. Secondly, these tables are made up of cells in which we put race positions. When a sprint takes place, the little number (sprint race position) goes slightly up. We continue to put sprint race positions and Grand Prix race positions as 2021 and 2022, summing total points by those awarded in the sprint to top 8. Island92 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't officially get the pole position, but it's likely that sources will start collecting sprint shootout pole statistics since it is now a distinct event from qualifying. Perhaps this is something that we will need to revisit after the first few sprints to see how sources are counting them in their statistics. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources collect a whole host of sources. It doesn't mean we should collect them too, or give sprint poles the same weight as proper poles. SSSB (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't definitively say we should or shouldn't, only that it is likely sources will start to consider them as a significant statistic (since they are now entirely separate from races) and we will need to reconsider things if/when sources begin to reflect the new format. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What you say is incorrect - it was not because they were not standalone events. It was because they wouldn't be considered in the event of a countback, and wouldn't be considered in wins/poles/podiums stats. As far as I can tell none of this has changed and therefore nothing needs to change in these tables either. SSSB (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm incorrect? Do you think I can't read? Nobody in the centralised discussions brought up the countback when making their decision. Where was this discussion you refer to? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to start by cutting down on the agrresion? Nobody mentioned countback explicitly, but sprints didn't get an extra column because they don't count as full races, which is identical to saying they aren't eligible for countback or those stats in the context of F1. SSSB (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't – don't tell me I'm "incorrect" about what was said in a discussion I was involved in when we have a complete written record of said discussion. Countback was never brought up in the discussion and it wasn't a factor in the decision. If that's your reasoning then I have no problem with it, it's a perfectly good reason, but don't go lecturing me about being "incorrect". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep stating things which are incorrect then? I literally referenced the countback in that discussion in my 28 april 2021 comment. And that argument has been reiterated in every discussion on the subject since.Tvx1 08:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind pointing it out then?

No. Formula 2 uses a different format for the sprint races. They are really proper races with a considerable number of finishers receiving points and all results counting toward the championship as well as extra points for fastest laps. They are only really different in length. Also the total number of races in a Formula 2 season isn’t increased by them. The total is adapted to it so if remains lower than the number Formula 1 has. The Formula 1 ones are only intended to be a qualifyingish thing at some Grands Prix. I would find it excessive to add entire columns for just three points scorers.Tvx1 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where I'm missing that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Formula 2 uses a different format for the sprint races. They are really proper races with a considerable number of finishers receiving points and all results counting toward the championship as well as extra points for fastest laps.

That’s where I made the point right there. F1 sprint race results are not full championship results. F2 and F3 sprint race results. The latter ones are also used for countbacks. That’s the point I intended to make.Tvx1 19:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be the point you intended to make, but it's not what you actually said. Semantics aside, the F1 Sprint is now an entirely standalone event, and it does count for the championship, so the discussion at hand is whether it should be displayed separately or not. At the moment the discussion is leading to "no" or at least "not yet". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "standalone event". It is part of the Formula One Grand Prix weekend, so in my book it isn't standalone. Its sessions just don't impact the final race results.

The WP:DUE weight of the sessions hasn't changed - the only thing that has changed is the logistics of how its run - so thee is no reason for us to change how we display the sprints outcome. SSSB (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I still know full well myself what my point was. I don’t appreciate being lectured what my posts mean. And sprint positions still don’t count for the championship. They still only yield some bonus points like before. An 11th place in a race can yield a championship position at the end of the season. An 11th place in a sprint cannot. Nothing fundamental change.Tvx1 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what you meant, but I'm not you and I can only go off what is written down. Anyway, I'm happy with the explanations for why not to split the results (assuming of course that sources do not begin counting sprint statistics as well). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Entries

Added that Alfa Romeo initially entered round 2 as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick. The FIA then released a second entry list with the entrant being named Alfa Romeo F1 Team Stake as usual. On top of that, Alfa Romeo took part in FP1 as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick, from FP2 onwards as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Stake. Island92 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But it Australian GP (Round 3), they still use “Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick” as entry name in official entry list. Shall anyone make a change? 218.188.221.130 (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done.--Island92 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

please also added that they returned to Alfa Romeo F1 Team Stake for azerbaijan GP in the note section (source: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2023%20Azerbaijan%20Grand%20Prix%20-%20Entry%20List.pdf) 223.19.112.230 (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The Note indicates where the Entrant entered differently compared to the usual name expected to enter in all Grands Prix, as the competitor was registered in the season entry list.--Island92 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Hi, this opening paragraph is grammatically incorrect, "The championship is contested over a record twenty-three Grands Prix to be held around the world, began in March and will end in November.". You might like to change it. Maybe just add in, "championship, **which** is contested". Thanks Mickey Smiths (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Modified it. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Mickey Smiths (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Correction - Constructor Standings

Constructor Standings table - for the Spanish Grand Prix, the finishing positions of the Aston Martin Drivers are incorrect. Stroll finished P6 and Alonso finished P7, however the table currently shows the opposite. Driver Standings table is correct. Formulapun (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The constructors' table is not "one row for each driver"; for each race the team's better result is shown on top. DH85868993 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)