Talk:2004 World Series by Nissan

Another table?

Looking at this article I see a newly added table, a duplication of an already existing results table. That made it until deletion seven tables versus four sentences of descriptive prose. I think there are other priorities with this article with another tabular layout describing who finished where in each race. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driver standings already covers completely race results. Instead of duplicating the same information and adding qualifying to justify a separate table, a short table explaining how points are allocated achieves the same goal for far less content.

If a racing series only has four lines of textual description that it is not sufficiently notable for this level of in depth statistics coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* There was no "newly added table"? I have only re-established the original point table which was deleted...

* If the "Driver standings already covers completely race results", then lets also delete the sections "2004 Driver Lineup", "Calendar", and "Results"! These three sections are also covered in the "Driver standings"?

* "depth statistics coverage"? A point table is the most important table! "Depth statistics coverage" is to show who retired or did not start?

* Isn't the best solution to keep both tables? So every user can chose which info is needed...

Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Driver Lineup doesn't covered in the "Driver standings". Calendar and Results now is merged. Cybervoron (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this series is important enough for this level of statistics, then it needs more than four sentences of description. --Falcadore (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you add something like this:

Position	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	Pole Position	Fastest Lap
Races 1 & 2	12	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	1 (R1 only)	1
Race 3	20	15	12	10	8	6	4	3	2	1	0	1

Then you do not need separate points and results tables. One table can serve for both. It takes up considerable less space and for a serious where notability does not appear to be sufficient to justify even a paragraph of description, this is surely desireable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of tables. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]