Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Someone just said that this doesn't concern the 2020 season, even though it is heavily promoted by F1 for the 2020 season, and the taking a knee is in the press concerning F1 for 2020. This seems to restrict Wikipedia to being a sports almanac instead of a general encyclopedia. F1 exists in a world affected by racism and politics, the articles about F1 should reflect the world it inhabits. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Excised material:

As part of the 2020 season, in June, Formula 1 launched the We Race As One initiative to fight global inequity and the impact of COVID-19. The initiative used a rainbow logo, with the #WeRaceAsOne hashtag.^[1][2]

I left in a mild condition, since it might attract political diatribes otherwise. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. The season articles are not meant to be concerned solely with the sporting outcome, but anything to do with the season. This was sourced, concise and balanced. I think it ought to be restored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I would create a new section below "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" entitled "Anti-racism campaign" or something along those lines. Then it could be expanded to refer to the pre-race kneel and the signage around the tracks/on the cars as well as the initiatives from each of the teams.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nic Latifi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the Perez's race entry.

I know that when an IP inserted a revised entry list and treated the original as void (by removing Perez has having entered round 4) it was reverted by @Admanny: with the summary Not what we did per 2017's wehrlein and massa - which is fair enough. However the situations are not as similar as this summary leads us to believe, for two reasons.

1. Both Massa and Wehrlien participated in Friday practise (see 2017 Australian Grand Prix and 2017 Hungarian Grand Prix)
2. For these instances the FIA didn't publish new entry lists with thier replacements but instead publish other officially documents which effectivly served as an amendment to the entry list (AUS entry list, AUS "amendment", [https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/entry_list_44.pdf Hungarian entry list and Hungary "amendment".

As this is not a situation we have with Perez this time out it would seem to that this second, revised entry list (list Hulkenberg, not Perez) makes the original (which listed Perez but not Hulkenberg) void. By extension it would seem to me that Perez isn't considered to have entered the race (if the first one can be deemed void).

Or that the first entry list is effectivly voidam I alone in thinking that Pérez is not considered to have entered the British Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

My view is that the second entry list voided the first one. The FIA don't normally do revised lists like this, so the second one is clearly replacing the first one i.e. Perez didn't compete. Whereas in all the other cases mentioned, a driver did some practice sessions, and then withdrew. Meaning they did compete that weekend. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we have to consider Perez withdrawn - he appeared on the entry list and then did not compete, and I would see that as triggering a revised entry list. However, I do see the point Joseph2302 is making.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If driver haven't competed in any sessions-he didn't participated in grand prix. I don't know why people here still think we should just write what is written in entry list. Also what's even the point to have separate stats for grand prix entered and grand prix started? We could've also counted friday practice drivers to grand prix entered stats cause they participated in weekend. And is there even a website where grand prix entered stats is tracked, which could be used as sourse? Also I see statsf1.com is used as source here for races started but website says that Barrichello has 323 starts, while in Wikipedia it's written 322. 212.90.63.155 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Perez didn't even get in the car and was replaced prior to the first practice session, so for me, his entry was made null and void. There are dozens of similar cases historically, and we don't list those as WD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Luckly we aren't discussing participations, but entries. And an entry list is a legal document. You can't just ignoring it when it conveniences your arguement. As for the rest of that rant. It is irrelevant to this discussion.
SSSB (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to be mainly neutral about this. If we consider Perez not entered, that would render Massa and Wehrlein as "practice-only drivers" in my view, similar to Kubica earlier for Alfa Romeo. Contrary, if we consider Perez having been entered, that would open questions as if an "amendment" is the same as a "revision" which to me sounds similar. All I was doing was mainly maintaining consistency. Admanny (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say a driver is a "practice only" driver when a driver enters with the intent of only running in practice.
SSSB (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that – if a driver participated in practice but intended at any stage to take further part in qualifying and/or the race, then he should be DNS/DNQ etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well we had a hefty discussion over this, which continued somewhat [], and since that point we have applied a consistent approach that a driver that appears on any grand prix entry list is credited with an entry. And that even includes a previous case with Pérez himself. What ever the entry resulted in for those that didn't race is conveyed with a code like DNP, WD, DNQ, EX,... I don't think we have ever used PO in a season article. That one isn't even in the key.Tvx1 00:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But we did not credit anyone on the 2020 Australian GP entry list with an entry.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a special case. It was cancelled and voided alltogether and is no longer considered round 1 of this season in any way.Tvx1 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: don't you think this is a special case? The FIA published an entirely new entry list. Something which, as I understand, has not been done for the AUS 15 or the CAN 11 situations. Additionally Perez took part in FP1 in Canada (from what I can make of the article) I still view the publication of the second entry list as making the first void.
SSSB (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No. This is not unique. They have always issued a new entry list when a driver was replaced during the weekend. Of course they didn’t do so for Australia 2015 since no one was replaced. The entries didn’t change at all. I don’t think the issuing of a second entry list simply voids the earlier events. It simply means an earlier entry was withdrawn and someone else entered instead.Tvx1 11:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Always, not in either of the 2017 cases.
SSSB (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve found the right talk page now, here’s my understanding of the results key:

DNS (Did not start) – driver qualified for the race, but did not take the green flag

EX (Excluded) – driver participated in the weekend, but was not allowed to start the race due to an infringement (eg. Nick Heidfeld at the 2000 European Grand Prix – car was underweight in qualifying)

WD (Withdrawn) – driver was entered as a race driver, participated in practice session(s), but was replaced before qualifying (eg. Felipe Massa at the 2017 Hungarian Grand Prix – feeling dizzy during P3)

PO (Practice only) – driver was entered as a practice driver and participated in a practice session (eg. Robert Kubica in the 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix – competed in FP1)

DNP (Did not practice) – driver was entered for the race weekend, passed scrutineering, but did not take part in any official session (eg. Marussia team at the 2015 Australian Grand Prix – cars were present but did not compete)

DNA (Did not arrive) – driver was entered for the race weekend, but the car did not arrive at the circuit to undergo scrutineering (eg. Andrea Moda team at the 1992 French Grand Prix – team was ‘stuck in traffic’)

TD (Third driver) – back when teams were allowed to run three cars in FP1 from 2003 to 2006, this driver would be in the third car (eg. Anthony Davidson for Honda in 2006)

Blank cell – driver was not on the entry list (eg. Fernando Alonso at the 2017 Monaco Grand Prix – participated in the Indianapolis 500)

Sergio Perez was on the original entry list, however was not listed in the second entry list which superseded the first. Since he didn’t take part in any session, his result should either be interpreted as a DNP or left as a blank cell. In any case I don’t think that WD is the right result to use.

Considering that this was a new entry list rather than an amendment to the initial one, I would suggest leaving a blank cell for the result.

Mark John Mallia (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should leave a blank cell for Pérez JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@JamesVilla44 and Mark John Mallia: this is less about results matrix and more about the entry table. Can I safely infer from your comments that you believe that Pérez's British Grand Prix entry void, (I.e. rounds should be 1-3, not 1-4, this is the only way a blank cell could be justified).
SSSB (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what I believe JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That is my understanding Mark John Mallia (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

So what I gather is that we should be recording Perez as DNP in the results matrix and participating in rounds 1-3 in the entry table. That would make sense to me.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: I think we're saying participated in rounds 1-3, and a blank cell for round 4, right? Mark John Mallia (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Having rounds 1-3 with a DNP for round 4 is inconsistent. In order to be listed as DNP you must be considered entered and, by extension, it would have to be 1-4.
SSSB (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree with participated 1-3, however he did appear on the entry list and then did not participate. I think it's appropriate we mark him as DNP as was done in the case of Marussia in 2015, who appeared on the entry list but then did not run in any sessions. I simply don't see how we can avoid the fact he was entered and then didn't compete, but it also seems intuitive that it should only be 1-3.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Marussia were never taken OFF the entry list unlike Perez. In the 2015 AUS GP, the Qualifying session took place with 5 cars out in Q1 (including the Marussias) and 5 out in Q2, as opposed to 4 out in Q1 and 4 out in Q2. Mark John Mallia (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: but having 1-3 and DNP is just being inconsistent within the article.
SSSB (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm finding it difficult to reconcile both the fact he appeared on the entry list and then didn't.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Again PO (and TD) do not exist in these articles.Tvx1 11:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Included them for the sake of completeness seeing as there was some discussion of the difference between PO and WD earlier. Feel free to let me know if I have any mistakes in what I have written. Mark John Mallia (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Perez didn't enter this race, he was removed from the entry list and didn't appear in the car at any point, he should be considered as not having taken part in this event at all.Ar558a (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

He did go through scrutineering, passed that and was entered for the event, his entry was later withdrawn however and someone else was drafted in as a replacement entry. As established in the aforementioned linked discussion, the FIA considers a driver to have taken part in an event as soon as they start taken part in the initial scrutineering process.Tvx1 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source to say Perez went through scrutineering? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The entry list.Tvx1 19:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No, scrutineering at the circuit, specific to this race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the entry list. They simply cannot be entered for an event without passing initital scrutineering at the circuit. That's basic practice.Tvx1 11:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The entry list exists before drivers arrive at the circuit. Where's your source that Perez himself (not his car) went through any kind of scrutineering at the circuit? Drivers go through checks before the start of the season; there are no driver checks before each race, what would they check? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's just no true. No entry list is published without the drivers having been at the circuit. We already established that during the linked discussion years ago. And yes the drivers go through checks before each race. They have to pass some medical checks. They have to be fit enough to take part. Drivers have been ruled out of events on medical grounds in the past.Tvx1 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The drivers are named by their teams at initial scrutineering, but the drivers are not necessarily present at that time. Drivers do not go through checks before each race. Medical checks, height and weight checks and cockpit checks are done at the beginning of each season before the issue of a super licence. Their personal equipment, helmets etc, are (or should be) checked at each race during initial scrutineering, which is otherwise a vehicular technical test. All drivers can be medically tested before a race, if officials feel there is a need, e.g. after a previous heavy accident. But the only driver required to have medical checks and cockpit checks at Silverstone was Hulkenberg. Drivers are not weighed until after the race, or unless they are called in for a vehicular weight check during qualifying. They are weighed pre-season and this reference weight is used throughout the season (again, unless officials feel a need to recheck it). If Perez had been present in his pit at any point, then everyone with whom he came into contact would have had to self-isolate after his inconclusive COVID test. There were only a couple of RP crew members who had contact with him. The drivers are tested for COVID on arrival at the circuit, and after his first test was inconclusive he was isolated. Why on earth would drivers see FIA officials before their COVID tests? All racing licences are the same in principle – once you have satisfied the licence-issuing authority that you are medically fit to hold a licence and that licence has been issued, they don't keep retesting you at every race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As you see here , during initial scrutineering for the Anniversary race, only one driver had to do the cockpit checks and that was Nissany, who doesn't have a super licence, but whom Williams are (inexplicably) attempting to prepare for FP1 appearances in the future. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"FIA considers a driver to have taken part in an event" - And where exactly is this written? Are there such stats as races entered on fia website? 212.90.63.155 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

See the aforementioned earlier discussions.Tvx1 11:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I found the Initial Scrutineering source.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Sergio Pérez was entered into the 2020 British Grand Prix, but later withdrew after testing positive for the SARS-2 coronavirus. This is the note reported for him into entries table, but into World Drivers' Championship standings table there is showed DNP for him and not WD, why?--Island92 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I changed it back to WD, as that is what it should be per the precedents.Tvx1 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Island92 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The driver standings are wrong at this moment in time because whoever has entered the British GP result has not taken Giovinazzi's penalty into account. I'd change it myself but it's so ridiculously complicated to edit, being templates within templates apparently. Why is it not just a simple table that anyone can edit? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point it's still wrong - it says Grosjean 19th and Russell 20th, when Russell should be 19th due to countback?115.66.81.234 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I updated the template- if it's still showing wrong, you need to bypass your cache. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Mercedes driver standings is also incorrect in the "Constructors' Standings" table - it shows Hamilton as having placed 1st and having gotten pole position at the Austrian grand prix when in reality it was Bottas that did this as evidenced by the actual "Drivers' Standings" table right above it.67.140.176.110 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it shows that a Mercedes got pole and won that race, no mention of car numbers. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no "one driver per row" in the constructors standings.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we come back to the bold and italic for indicating pole and fastest lap? The small letters beside the numbers are terrible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.52.87 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Using bold and italics does not satisfy MOS:ACCESS.Tvx1 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Using the small letters does not satisfy the eye. Why do you always have to change what it is not broken :( --87.9.52.87 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It was broken because those who use screen readers couldn't see it. Just because it works for you doesnt mean it works for others. Frankly, arguing for a return to bold and italics after the reasoning (accessibility) has been given is just selfish.
SSSB (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Just because it works for you doesnt mean it works for others." This same logic could be applied to the current setup: Just because it works for you does not mean it works for others. Frankly a lack of willingness to continue discussion of potential changes/improvements to the format of an article is just selfish. Isn't this fun? 2600:380:E8D7:C0B4:4416:71B0:BE5E:8B20 (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How doesn't it work for you? (and "it doesn't look good" is not the same as "it doesn't work for me". If you can interpret it, it works.) If you can think of another way to show this which satisfies MOS:ACCESS I would be happy to discuss. But if your unhappy the onus is on you to suggest an alternative.
SSSB (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And for that it's worth I actually prefer the look of the letters over the use bold and italics.
SSSB (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bold and italics look a lot better. If we have to consider MOS:ACCESS can fastest laps and poles not be ascertained from the grand prix summary table? As I would argue it is easier for the majority to see with bold and italics. Yes, we have to be inclusive, but can we be logical? --Stevebackgammon (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And I would argue that letters look better and are easier for the majority to see (as raised in the original discussion). And what is illogical about the letters? If anything it is more logical as it is fairly obvious what they mean. Additonally this extends beyond this article. The letters are also used in results marices for engines, car and construcotrs. Going back to bold and italics would be of major detriment of many for a small benefit for a few.
SSSB (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Stevebackgammon MOS:NOSYMBOLS specifically highlights why we shouldn't use bold and italics. Whilst I think bold and italics looks nicer, accessibility-wise the F and P are accessibility compliant, whereas bold and italics aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You admit it looks better! Surely this is logic! To have the least amount of symbols as possible... Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Information as concisely as possible... I understand the accessibility argument (please keep the extra letters) but I would argue most people prefer less to more (in terms of the amount of symbols) If you are interested in who has the fastest laps and poles surely you would go to the summary table, isn't that the most logical place? Isn't the drivers' standings -primarily- for the championship placings and number of points?? I get the idea that it's nice to compare visually the results all in one format, one place (the drivers' standings table) but what difference does it make for MOS:ACCESS compared to reading out the summary table Stevebackgammon (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not logic at all because looking better is an opinion, and not one I share. Your logic basically argues that there is no need to indicate poles or fastest laps at all in the results matrix, extending your logic why should have have any indication for poles and fastest laps in the results matrix at all if they are all in the above table anyway? You may think it logical but really its illogical. Additionally Wikipedia isn't about conciseness. It's about Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers (taken from WP:Purpose) by going back to bold and italics wikipedia is less beneficial to a significant number of people whilst the current system doesn't impact its benefit to you, even if you don't think it looks as pretty. Preference is irrelevant if it violates access.
SSSB (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Stevebackgammon "You admit it looks better"- this is massive selective quoting to completely misrepresent what I said. Don't do it. The important point from what I said - that you're delibrately ignoring- is that whilst my personal preference is bold and italics, MOS:ACCESS issues are way more important. And your argument doesn't argue anything logical anyway. If you understood accessibility like you claim, you would understand that MOS:ACCESS is clear, and that it trumps your own opinions on bold and italics. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely conciseness benefits readers? 'looking better is an opinion', as is 'we should stick to the guidelines without question' -not in an anarchic way obviously, not 'screw wikipedia's values' but just to question it, to think. Where can improvements be made!? What about COMPROMISE! Probably too difficult on a wide ranging global information platform. Surely it is logical to cater for as many views as you can, does that not benefit readers? The world is not binary. So neither should wikipedia be. Think out of the box, not 'oh yeah let's just make improvements within this preset set of guidelines and precedences' I was never going against accessibility, or proposing 'my opinion', as if anything I say here is actually how I feel and not just a shitpost, should a trump a precedence, but maybe that way of doing things needs a little work (not because I believe my opinion should trump accessibility. That sounds stupid! But to get you thinking. My point was NOT that the results matrix does not need poles and fastest laps at ALL, but that if someone wishes to find out just the poles and fastest laps it is more logical to go to a column titled 'poles' and a column titled 'fastest laps' than a MORE complex results table! Irrespective of how said fastest laps and poles are displayed, or how they wish to view that data.Stevebackgammon (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

How is the current system not concise? It's two letters and a number (most cells are just a number). Surely it is logical to cater for as many views as you can, does that not benefit readers? - catering for as many readers as we can involves using letters instead of bold and italics because the letters system can be interpreted by more people. Ther removal of all indications of pole/fastest laps doesn't helpwith cater to more views either. This is why your argument is illogical, not logical.

Additonlly, if the logical place to look for poles and fastest laps is the above table how does that support a return to bold and italics. It doesn't. It neither supports nor opposes the use of bold and italics. Or do I misunderstand your arguements. If you are arguing for the removal of fastest laps/poles indicators you ought to start a new discussion for clarity. (bolded so you can't possibly miss it, otherwise we will be stuck in an endless loop)

I am more than willing to discuss changing the symbols used (maybe * or ^) or their complete removal (although I am currently opposed to such measures) but I fail to see how a return to bold and italics is a) a compromise or b) beneficial in any way.
SSSB (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Stevebackgammon, you do realize that at least the fastest laps DO impact the championships’ standings, don’t you? Poinst ARE awarded for them.Tvx1 16:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My point about conciseness is that a digit and an F or a P is less concise than simply a thicker or slanted letter. An * or ^ would be more concise as it would take up less room. I am in favour of this. (Concise in the sense it looks less crowded as a whole -i realise in both options three lots of info are being displayed (F and P and numerical value). In response to the benefit of readers -does considering the benefit of readers stop at a simple ability to understand the data, or should it take into account how readers wish to view it? This is what I mean by compromise. As this discussion has already highlighted, more than one view on how fastest laps and poles should be presented has been vocalised, and so a way to cater for both should be found. Is that not fairer, doesn't that benefit readers (and their ability to understand and enjoy the page)? Surely that is a benefit? To cater for all opinions as much as possible. In response to the point about fastest laps being worth points I would note that bold and italics have been removed from previous years' results standings and so my original point still stands. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding the point of wikipedia? Is it just another boring 'learn how it's displayed' database or a platform to cater to as many people's way of enjoying information as possible?Stevebackgammon (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The ability for all to view the data takes precedence over aestetics. Additionally consisness is as few words as possible. So changing letters to other symbols isn't more concise. I think the main problem with using other symbols is that they will are smaller and it's less obvious what they mean. (using P for pole and F for fastest lap is intuitive). Therefore I am not in favour of changing the symbols.
SSSB (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with SSSB. The ability to understand the data simply takes precedence over how readers wish to view it. The sheer subjectiveness of the latter alone makes that unworkable. You'll never find something everyone likes. As for your personal proposal the * wouldn't work because we already use that in drivers' and constructors' tables to denote an ongoing season. And the letters P and F are indeed more intuitive to their meaning. All in all, I feel the current system makes a good balance between conciseness and accessibility.Tvx1 12:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we not leave the F symbol for fastest lap as it is a component of the championship as it is worth 1 point? Pole positions on the other hand are not worth any points so that could be reverted to bold. That way the table will look less cluttered and for those still unsure of who got pole position can refer to the race result summary table. I prefer the bold and italics format previously in use but I understand the need to be more accessible. I believe this would be a suitable compromise. What are other people's thought on this?DougThePontiacBandit (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as needlessly inconsistent and still an accessibility issue. I'm willing to accept alternate symbols. But not reverting to formtting of text. Bold, italics, underlining etc. are all unacceptable.
SSSB (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In the constructors' championship table, the 4th and 9th places for Stroll and Perez in the Styrian GP should be purple and not green, as these are results being specifically deducted. Similar to how McLaren's constructors' results for the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix are shown as purple. The number in the points column should also just be one number, instead of the current number of points with the total amount of points in brackets, as I believe this will create confusion with point systems where not all the results are counted (pre-1991). --Stevebackgammon (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that these were specifically the points removed? Because a 4th and a 9th is 14 points, not 15. I think our current table- showing all results, and adjusted points total- is correct, and is consistent with 2018 when Force India lost all their points. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Their Styrian GP results were 6th and 7th, not 4th and 9th.Tvx1 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated in the official document (Conclusion of the Stewards, paragraph 15): The penalty imposed for the Styrian Grand Prix is intended to penalize the potential advantage Racing Point may have incured... For the first protests in the Styrian Grand Prix, it is therefore appropriate to impose a penalty that covers the entire process of (non-)designing the BDs and making them available for use during the whole 2020 season. Therefore the points deduction is not specifically for the running of the brake ducts during the Syrian Grand Prix, but applies to the season as a whole (I.e. because they are found to have copied Mercedes' brake ducts the FIA basically said "start the 2020 season on -15 points for breaking the sporting code" (by copying)). Although the official findings document makes it clear that the points deduction is attributed specifically to the protest from Styria it is also clear that it is not the case that it is the points from Styria which are removed (not only because they scored 14 points in that race but are being deducted 15).
SSSB (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the document also states "A withdrawal of 7.5 points per car" which doesn't sound like a withdrawal of the points gained at the Styrian Grand Prix. FozzieHey (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me for getting the results wrong. Frankly I'm puzzled why the FIA have docked Racing Point 15 points and not 14, but there we go... Surely there should -thinking more wide ranging- be a colour change for results that do not stand? (I realise the Styrian GP is a weird exception) [Indian] Force India in 2018 for example, as you mention -surely the points position not being purple implies they stand for something? Otherwise why are they coloured, just to show where the points places are? And that the constructor is eligible for them? Do we need Force India's constructors' results to tell us this specifically? I understand continuity throughout everywhere is important, but doesn't it make more sense for the results to be purple? Surely the primary reason for coloured results is to show you visually who has points and who does not? Ok ok so Force India 'has' those points as they attained those places originally, but their points were fully deducted, and the numerical value provides suitably what the results were, as does the key above the standings telling you the points positions... (i realise this may be the wrong place to start this argument... Sorry!)Stevebackgammon (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RP were docked 15 points not 14 points because they're not specifically docking the Styrian Grand Prix points... and so we shouldn't be making up that they lost the Styrian Grand Prix points when that's supported by 0 sources. We follow what sources say, and they make no mention of them being the Styrian Grand Prix points. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about in my last post:)Stevebackgammon (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Uhm it was? You suggested we change to colors of results, thereby suggesting that the docking of points applied to specific results of a specific race. Another user then pointed out this is wrong. They did not change specific results of a specific race. They only deduced from their total. So in no way is their justification for us to change any colors.Tvx1 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

In the calendar of races, the entries for individual races point to the names of the annual races, such as Italian Grand Prix, rather than to the articles (or stubs or redirects) for the actual annual races, such as 2020 Italian Grand Prix. Is there a reason for this? It seems wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This was done following some discussions here.Tvx1 16:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Lance considered entered for the race? The FIA registered Hulkenberg as a "driver change," does that remove Lance from the entry list? Link to FIA documentation of driver change GroundPound69 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well he was on the entry list and then was removed from it before the race, so I would take that to be a withdrawal.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 5225C- Stroll was on initial entry list, and so he withdrew. Same as Pérez earlier in the season. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

However there is an issue there, as the column concerns the "Race Drivers". Perez and Stroll did not enter the race, but the GP weekend. One team cannot enter a race with 3 drivers. Foivos87 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the entry list documents you will find that Stroll and Perez did enter the race, and then withdrew from the British and Eifel GPs respectivly.
SSSB (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Formula One/FIA has not explicitly cancelled either race from occurring in 2020. Do we leave it as postponed/cancelled with intent to reschedule or simply cancel it completely? It is assumed the season ends at Abu Dhabi by wording of the source "making this 17-race season possible" and "The season concluding Abu Dhabi Grand Prix..." Admanny (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Abu Dhabi is contractually required to be the final race. This makes it very unlikely for any additional events to be added to the calendar unless they slot in between others, so I believe it would be safe to assume they are cancelled and if it were my decision I would list them as cancelled. However, I expect others will say we should wait for official confirmation, and they should thus remain postponed.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume things. That's original research. We should reflect what the sources tell us.Tvx1 12:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

From F1: “ The season concluding Abu Dhabi Grand Prix will take place at the Yas Marina Circuit on December 13.” JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Therefore, the Australian and Vietnam Grand Prixs must be cancelled JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No official announcements have been made yet about the future of the Vietnamese Grand Prix. We must wait. It remains Postponed actually.--Island92 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say the Vietnam GP remains postponed? JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the most recent source for the revised 2020 calendar. No news written about the Vietnamese GP. A new announcement will be made in a different source, more specific for its debut originally planned for 2020.--Island92 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, saying that the Vietnamese and Australian Grand Prix are cancelled is WP:SYNTH as no source has been published confirming this.
SSSB (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite reporting the confirmation that the Chinese GP will not be run this season and that it will include 17 races, they could have written something for the Vietnamese GP. They forgot? I don't think so. We expect a new source will be published very soon, confirming that this race doesn't have room for a race date, for helding its debut.--Island92 (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We have an official source saying there are to be 17 races in this season's World Championship, and official sources to say what they are. Ergo, there's no Vietnamese GP this year. Here's a source saying it won't happen . It's irrelevant whether it's cancelled or postponed, we have sources to say it won't be part of the 2020 Championship. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right. What you said is the reality for this Grand Prix. They've confirmed officially 17 races for this year. However, it's more correct to wait the formal confirmation, having the absolute 100% certainty, as we have done so far for the whole calendar, waiting official announcements per every single Grand Prix, before adding cancelled or postponed.--Island92 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The FIA can't announce it has been cancelled as they are not holding the race; they can only release a calendar without the race on it. As far as the World Championship is concerned, that is 100% certain. The Vietnamese authorities could technically still hold it, but our twenty chaps won't be there and it won't be a Championship race, which is what this article is concerned with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes we have an official source confirming 17 races. before that we had one confirming 13 races, before that 10 races and so on. You know full well how fluid the calendar is this season and there is nothing in the recentmost source stating that the current number is final in either direction. It can still very much change. Thus we cannot claiming the cancellation of the other races until we have a proper cancellation notice.Tvx1 11:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point if no word of Vietnam comes along by the time Monza rolls around I would think it would be appropriate to attach an efn note regarding the matter that it has been postponed but not been officially cancelled (yet). I suspect the organizers of the Vietnam GP are still sorting out issues such as ticket refunds and that's why they're holding out. Thoughts? Admanny (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This FIA Document doesn't include the Vietnamese flag. It principally follows the confirmation of 17 races for this season. It seems to be now we have a few certainty that this race has been definitely cancelled from the original 2020 planned calendar. What do we do now?--Island92 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But this documents did not have two Bahrain flags and a Abu Dhabi flag prior to those races being (re-)added to the calendar either. Likewise there was no third Italian flag, no Germ·an flag and no Portuguese in those documents prior to the addition of those races. These have never included postponed races and thus are utterly meaningless with regards to Vietnam. What we should do is thus very clear: wait!Tvx1 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Naturally! Personally I can wait for weeks or months whether necessary till a good enough source is published. The only thing that can make a reliable difference, unlike before, is that now the full calendar consists of 17 races according to the last confirmation. No room for the Vietnamese Grand Prix race date actually. I don't think Formula One will move to Hanoi just for holding an event without having another race close to it as Chinese, Japanese or Singapore race (all of them already cancelled).--Island92 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But that remains speculation. None of the Formula 1 (FOM) and FIA announcements for that last calendar update make a statement that it is the final one. Nor does the mention that Abu Dhabi is to be the season ending event. The number can still very much change either way because of the fluid nature it has had all the time and because of the fast changing nature of the epidemic that caused these calendar changes in the fluid. The Vietnamese Grand Prix could theoretically still be slotted in on any of the not yet occupied weekends ahead of Abu Dhabi (which could possible be pushed backed a week to accommodate it) or it could be used to replace one of the events currently on the calendar if they were to be cancelled (again) because of the changing epidemic (including Abu Dhabi itself). Everything that has been presented here so far as "evidence" that Vietnam is cancelled falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. The only verifiableinformation we have at the moment is that it's postponed and that's the only way we can represent it in the article.Tvx1 16:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The last reliable source we have which reports something about the whole calendar is this. There is clearly written that actually the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is scheduled to be the last event for this season. But, as you told me, every single Grand Prix race date is able to change in base of this mad pandemic, and some races can replace other races, therefore the Vietnamese Grand Prix can still have an alternative to be rescheduled replacing another race. That's fine what you told me, as well as it's fine that the Hanoi race at the moment must have the "postponed" information.--Island92 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The Australian Grand Prix is definitely cancelled per the official schedule. The Vietnamese Grand Prix remains postponed. That's all there is to it. Any other speculation is a waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that link, but I do not trust it a lot because for example the Bahrain Grand Prix is reported twice. Once as race postponed, once as Grand Prix to be run (29 November, below). The Mexican is reported as postponed, but the race was cancelled on 24 July 2020. Therefore it isn't properly updated.--Island92 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The inaugural Vietnamese Grand Prix officially cancelled today.--Island92 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we also say Australia is "cancelled" cancelled? There will likely be no more news regarding Australia; it's pointless to have now. Admanny (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Nürburgring entry in the calendar table should read "Nürburgring GP-Strecke" because this is the specific layout the sport will use. If you go to the Nürburgring article, it covers the GP-Strecke, the Nordschleife and the combined circuit, and some of those circuits are still in use today; the WTCR races there.

To Island92's point about the 2013 article not specifying which layout is used, the fact that the 2013 article does not do it does not automatically mean that this is the right way to do it. Both the GP-Strecke and Nordschleife were in use in 2013, so maybe F1 articles should be updates to reflect which layout was actually used since the name "Nürburgring" is synonymous with both. 1.129.111.172 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Most circuits have multiple layouts. Bahrain, Silverstone, Paul Richard, Barcelona, Hockenhiem, suzuka, I thought of them as quick as you can read them and I could easily list another half-dozen without even pausing to think.

But the calendar section deals with venues and I don't see why it would be necessary to mention circuit layout in the table. If the layout is notable (such as the two races in Bahrain being held on different layouts) then we can deal with it in prose. Otherwise I don't see the point on specifying layout on this page at all.
SSSB (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, there have also been multiple layouts of many circuits (e.g. 3 for Bahrain, 9 for Autodromo Nazionale di Monza), and it's not needed to tell people which configuration- we can list that in the Eifel Grand Prix article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The difference here is that the Nürburgring's multiple layouts are used for a variety of international events - WTCR, ADAC GT, DTM - and that those layouts are equally well-known. If you think of the Bahrain circuit, you probably think of the GP layout, but if you think of the Nürburgring, you probably think of the Nordschleife because 1) that's where most of the big international events have taken place in the last seven years and 2) it has a reputation outside motorsport as a civilian test venue. 1.129.111.172 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A casual reader wouldn't know the difference, and most F1 fans will know the Nordschliefe hasn't been used since 1976. It can be mentioned in the Eifel Grand Prix article when created- which gives a reader the information, but doesn't clutter up this page. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd logic. Whether or not somebody who already knows about the thing the article is talking about will know about the thing is besides the point. An encyclopaedia should seek to inform someone who has limited prior knowledge of a subject as well as possible. The fact of the matter is that a significant number of people will visit the page who are neither experts on the subject nor totally disinterested. While for most circuits the exact details of which layout the race took place on are likely not necessary information for the entire season's Wikipedia article when they can be listed on the page for the race itself, the reality is that the Nordschleife is more notable to vast swathes of the general public through media exposure such as video games or Top Gear than the GP-Strecke, and the two layouts are more or less completely separate. The distinction is likely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. The GP track and the Nordschleife are the same venue. The heading on the table clearly says circuit, not circuit layout. Personally, I find you logic absurd as you are advocating for details which are outside the scope of column heading. But, you don't want to apply cicuit layout to all the circuits. You're advocating for inconsistency.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no rule which says that Wikipedia has to provide information in a perfectly consistent manner. Wikipedia should seek to provide information in a useful manner. The difference between an event being held on the Nürburgring GP track versus one being held on the Nordschleife is extremely significant and is likely to be considered more important and more useful information than the difference between an event being held on Circuit 1A-C2 versus one being held on Circuit 1C-V2 at Paul Ricard, for example.

On top of this there is also the fact that the Nordschleife and GP track can be used separately simultaneously, and in the eyes of many they are likely to be viewed as separate venues which merely happen to be adjacent and homonymous, even if in the eyes of others they may be viewed as being parts of the same venue.

Following the announcement of the Nürburgring's return to the schedule many newer F1 fans who were not as familiar with the sport's history erroneously but understandable believed that the race was going to take place on the Nordschleife, as that circuit is far more famous.

I would also like to be clear that I wasn't saying the logic of "we shouldn't specify the layout" was inherently absurd, but merely that the argument that "people who already know will know and people who don't already know wont care" is absurd logic to apply when it comes to the writing of an encyclopaedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:dc08:9000:34a4:d83f:2076:5e90 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfectly consistent but here I see no reason to be intentionally incocnsistent. Following the announcement of the Nürburgring's return to the schedule many newer F1 fans who were not as familiar with the sport's history erroneously but understandable believed that the race was going to take place on the Nordschleife, as that circuit is far more famous. - you could equally argue that when Paul-Richard was reintroduced to the calendar people expected to take place on the same layout that was used in the 80s and 90s, but we didn't feel the need to clarify. Wether you like it or not the Nordschliefe and the GP circuit are different configuarations of the same circuit. The difference between an event on the Nürburgring GP track versus one being held on the Nordschleife is not something that needs to be specified in the table as they are the same venue, in prose maybe, but not in the table. I see no justification for intentional inconsistency, which just looks messy.
SSSB (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not something subjectively looks messy is largely besides the point. Effectively communicating information which those visiting the page are likely to either want to find or to need to know to have a correct understanding of the subject should be the primary goal.

Personally I am largely ambivalent to whether or not the layout should be specified, but I find many of the arguments against specifying it to be questionable. Obviously I've already stated that the argument that readers will either already know or wont care to be entirely contrary to the purpose of an encyclopaedia, and I find the argument that consistency should be maintained in order to stop things from subjectively looking messy to be somewhat trivial.

I must also be clear, I don't think there's a strong case for specifying that it took place on the "Nürburgring GP-Strecke with the Mercedes-Benz Arena and F1 Chicane" or something extremely precise like that; just merely that there is a stronger case for specifying which of the two adjacent homonymous circuits it took place at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Many circuits have multiple layouts (Silverstone, Sakhir, Monza, Algarve, Suzuka for example), so adding the specific layout for the Nürburgring is inconsistent. It isn't our fault if some readers assume it's the Nordschleife, even if that hasn't been used in F1 since the 1970s. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, "it isn't our fault if some readers assume it's the Nordschleife" is not a compelling argument, since surely part of the point of an encyclopaedic article should be to correct wrong assumptions readers may hold. Of course, in order to avoid creating an unwieldy mess of pedantic information, one will have to make judgement calls about how many readers are likely to come away with an incorrect interpretation of the text, and then change the text if that does happen. However, if a significant proportion of readers do come away with an incorrect interpretation of the text, then that is the fault of the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think circuit layout should be specified in the table because the table deals with location and location only. If readers read the article thinking it was the Nordschleife then they are reading more info from the table than what is being presented. When the layout for the British Grand Prix changed in 2010 did we specify it in the table? No. When F1 was last at the Nurburgring did we specify the layout? No. Because it is outside the scope of the table.

Finally, I don't actually see how specify "GP-Strecke" benefits the reader. The reader who doesn't know that F1 doesn't (and hasn't) raced on the Nordschleife for over 40 years is unlikly to know the distinction between GP-Strecke and Nordschleife (they might even think one is an informal name for the other). Those who do know the distinction are likly to be sufficently well versed in the history of the Nurburgring to know which layout it refers to.
SSSB (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a far better reasoned argument than I've seen previously here, and I largely agree with it, though I do think that articles dealing with racing series which compete at the Nürburgring should make it clear somewhere in a relevant article whether the GP-Strecke or Nordschleife is being used, although that is likely more an issue for series like the WTCC or DTM where a far greater proportion of readers are likely to know about the distinction between the two circuits but not which particular layout that series uses.

However, I do think that it is important to avoid the "if a reader goes away with a misunderstanding then obviously the reader is wrong and not the article" mentality. That's been my primary issue with the arguments presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If a reader knows the difference between the Strecke and Nordschleife, then they have significant subject knowledge, and so will probably know that the Nordschleife is too dangerous to be used in F1. If a reader doesn't know about different track layouts, then adding Strecke won't add any value anyway, as they won't know what Strecke means. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

though I do think that articles dealing with racing series which compete at the Nürburgring should make it clear somewhere in a relevant article whether the GP-Strecke or Nordschleife is being used - the relevant article for that 2020 Eifel Grand Prix. I have also consistently said that I have no problem with specify the circuit layout in prose.
SSSB (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL seems relevant here. I've never heard the track referred to as 'Intercity Istanbul Park' before, only as 'Istanbul Otodrom' or 'Istanbul Park' or 'Istanbul Park Otodrom'. While such an official name may be suitable to include in the season schedule tables, elsewhere the common name should be prioritised.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Intercity comes from the compnay that owns the track as was added to the official name as self promotion. Personally, I agree that the commonname should be used. Perhaps a WP:RM needs to be started at Intercity Istanbul Park on those grounds?
SSSB (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to Istanbul Park, as it was moved without discussion to Intercity Istanbul Park two months ago. I agree that the WP:COMMONNAME is Istanbul Park. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was moved to "Intercity Istanbul Park" in 2016, the move you reversed was reversing an undiscussed move from Intercity Istanbul Park to Istanbul Park in Aug 2020.
SSSB (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The section immediately below the calendar talking about 'calendar changes' only talks about those which were planned to take place and not those which actually took place or are currently intended to take place due to the impact of the pandemic.

This is likely to be confusing to some readers who are trying to navigate the page to find relevant information and some other way of communicating this is likely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:34A4:D83F:2076:5E90 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the relevant section to calrify which changes are being discussed. If readers take care to read the table of contents properly this shouldn't be a problem.
SSSB (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In 2017 in this long discussion, we agreed on the approach for a driver using multiple cars. Anyone wishing to change the consensus should start a discuss at WT:F1 instead of continuously just changing it, as WP:BRD applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem we have here is that all the drivers for a team are in one cell. If we had a one cell per car approach (as we had in 2011 and 1994, years mentioned in the 2017 discussion), I think that this would be less confusing as to why Hulkenberg is listed twice. This, by extension, would reduce the number of edits "fixing" this.

Note that the only reason we stopped using one cell per car (or technically driver) is because row spans broke when you sorted by driver/driver number. This is no longer an issue.
SSSB (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. That still happens when you use the sort function in a table with rowspans. Also there was a second reason: accessibility. Not using rowspans is better for readers using assistive technology.Tvx1 18:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems on the whole quite unnecessary and confusing to me. Also, without wishing to read the lengthy 2017 discussion, is it really true that consensus is for "a driver using multiple cars"?? For example, (from 2019 Autocourse) in 2019, Hamilton and Bottas used chassis 01 and 03 (respectively) for races 1-6, chassis 04 and 03 for races 7-16 and chassis 06 and 04 for races 17-21. Not only did Hamilton drive three different cars in the season, but Bottas took what had been Hamilton's car from the Japanese GP onwards. And of course through the years this kind of thing has happened many, many times (including in 2019), where in the past drivers would swap cars very often (including of course during an actual race in earlier years). A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In this context cars and chassis are not synomous. The more accurate way to put it would be to say "driver using multiple allocations". i.e. For the British and 70th Anniversary Grands Prix Hulkenberg used the (power unit etc.) allocations that would otherwise belong to Perez. But for the Eifel Grand Prix he used the allocations that had previously been assigned to Stroll (if that makes sense).
SSSB (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've read almost the entirety of the 2017 discussion, and I can't see how anyone could read that and conclude there is a consensus for anything. In any case I at least understand the reason for arranging them in this way, even if I disagree with it (and I do disagree with it, but not enough to do anything about it unless others want to discuss it further), but I strongly object to using the word "car" here as it is quite misleading (unless I am missing where this definition of car is mentioned in the article, as it is not being used in a way that would be widely understood by the readers). So I'm going to change the wording of the note slightly to replace the word "car" with "entry" as from the 2017 discussion that appears to be why they are arranged this way in the first place. I also think that User:Tvx1's proposal of splitting each team's two entries into two separate rows would be better than the way it is now but I suppose that might stuff up the sorting. A final point, however, is that the number of users coming in and changing this is perhaps an indication that this is not the way it should be. A7V2 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to point that when the the 2017 discussion took place, that table looked a lot different to how it looks now. Back then it had a seperate row for every driver. That’s why the connections weren’t clear back then an the a name appearing more than once looked strange to some. My proposal back then was intended to improve from that. What we have in the article now is even better. Furthermore, duplication of names is not something we started doing in 2017, we have done that for years. The 2017 discussion merely attempted to change that practice and no consenus was achieved to do so. Lastly, I think that your making the problem bigger than it is. The “number of users” changing this isn’t really high at all. The last thing we should do though is to overhaul entire tables every time an editor thinks it should be done differently. It’ll become chaotic in no time that way.Tvx1 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with repeating a driver twice so long as it is obvious why it is done, and I don't think the current system does that at all, as it isn't obvious (imo) that we are grouping drivers by car (entry). I think that I would be made obvious if we had one cell per car (entry). If this means removing the sortability of the table, so be it. The table has so few rows (of those that are currently sortable, 10) that the benefit of sorting is negligable. You can easily sort by eye. This is something that would only need to be implemented in limited situations (it wouldn't be necessary for last year, for example, there is no scope for confusing, it is obvious who replaced whom and when). And it really isn't a overhaul, most people wouldn't even consciously notice.
SSSB (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I don't really see how what is there now is better than what was there in 2017 given that neither method gives any indication whatsoever of which drivers were using which entry and when, they are just listed one after the other with no variation in spacing etc. Also (assuming no socks etc) I see 4-5 users making the change in the last couple of weeks, and that's with a note being there in the table. I don't know about it being done before 2017 but from what I've seen usually these are grouped by number and/or constructor (where the engine changed, etc). A7V2 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no indication whatsoever?? There are footnotes explaining it. Moreover the chronology in the round column is self-explanatory. How can you not see now that Hülkenberg replace Perez at one point and Stroll at another. Removing his name once would make it utterly unclear who he replaced where. The current method is better because it provides the most clear and most accessible way to show who replaced whom when. Lastly, 4-5 users over a number weeks really isn't something worth making a fuss about. It's not much at all. There are many more different users editing this article every day, almost all of whom clearly don't have a problem with a table.Tvx1 20:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I'm not going to argue the minutiae of the number of users changing it: we don't know how many would have changed it but saw the note or talk page or reverts and thought it wasn't worth the trouble, and we don't know how many readers would have found it confusing. I was referring to the fact that the table without footnotes gives no indication of which drivers are using which entry since there is no split between the drivers. The footnote is a problem for a number of reasons. For one, footnotes should absolutely not be needed to explain the layout of a table, they should be reserved for explaining the content of the table, for example the note on the BWT engines. This is doing the readers a disservice. Secondly, the wording of the footnote is neither clear nor accurate. I changed the wording to use "entry" rather than "car" (since this is a fairly novel use of the word car that few would be familiar with, is not explained anywhere, and is not something I've seen myself), but it was put back by User:Island92 who rightly asks what an entry is?! Personally I think this division of drivers by entry, and focus on who replaced whom is placing undue emphasis on something fairly trivial (since it doesn't have an impact on either championship's points, for example), and so we have a situation where a confusingly worded footnote is left to explain a confusingly laid out table to keep track of something not otherwise mentioned nor explained in the article. A7V2 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion, I think it's bizarre to have the name repeated twice. If the rows were per car, that would be fine. But they're not, no car detail exists, and it simply states what races a driver has competed in. It looks like an editing mistake, and is even more glaring when Pérez has "1–4, 6–14" directly above. Whilst there was the heated discussion three years ago around how to present this, it _should not be taken as gospel_ as preferences can, and should, change. It would appear that the current format is confusing more people than it helps. I vote to revise it to remove duplication. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Having just taken another glance with the "it's in chronological order" argument in mind, it isn't in chronological order. If it were, it'd be those who started on race 1 first, then replacements. Additionally, if we're adding drivers in for the periods they race, it should read: Pérez 1-3, Stroll 1-10, Hulk 4-5, Pérez 6-14, Hulk 11, Stroll 12-14. You can see how the logic breaks down once you start adhering to it and it becomes a bit silly. Clarity would be much better achieved by saying Pérez 1-3, 6-14; Stroll 1-10, 12-14; Hulk 4-5, 11. Stick the footnote tag on Hulk's 11 to explain about the car entry sitch, but don't skew the purpose of the table for that. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You're taking a sound argument which hasn't been ideally phrased and applying Reductio ad absurdum to it. It's fairly obvious that the writer means, that is what is currently in the article, making the paragrapgh an inaccurate represnetation of what is by "chronological order".
SSSB (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's in chronological order by their first appearance. If a driver replaces more than one driver during a season he is listed separately for each such instance. Also the problems with rowspans still exist contrary to what you claim. If you add them to our sortable tables and use the sort function they are irreparably broken.Tvx1 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)