Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 Formula One World Championship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Race Title Language

I've noticed some of the race titles have been put in the host country's native language in the native language's writing. Is this something we really want? Furthermore, no sources have been provided to support these changes. Tvx1 (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should follow this official calendar's names, and only use Latin alphabet, like we did last season. --hydrox (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because the local name does not appear in the source, that does not mean that there is no name in the local language. Russians do not necessarily call a Grand Prix a Grand Prix; after all, they may not speak French. If you accept that the Brazilian Grand Prix is the Grande Premio do Brasil in Portuguese, then you must accept that other races have their own names. After all, when the Russian Grand Prix was first announced, the name at the press conference was given in Cyrillic. Translations do not need a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not that much the language, but the local alphabet or syllabary which is the problem. Whe should at least use the English or rather Latin aplhabet transliteration. After all we don't write 小林可夢偉 or Дании́л Квят for Kamui Kobayashi and Daniil Kvyat either, do we? Tvx1 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. "English" is the language of the Wikiarticle and this version of Wikipedia, NOT the subject matter. You might as well translate all articles about non-English subjects into the subject language if you are going to take this route. 195.88.237.18 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

TOTALLY CHANGED MY MIND AND WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS COMMENT 195.88.237.18 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the Race Title for? Is it really that important? And especially those that are not written in pure English. StandNThrow (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If we actually need this extra column, and I'm not convinced we do, then at least keep everything in the Latin alphabet. I agree with Tvx1 on this. QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm with User:QueenCake and User:StandNThrow - I do not think the column is necessary at all, and its presence has never been adequately explained beyond "we have a reliable source for it". All it does is repeat information that appears elsewhere in the article and in the table, and name the sponsors of individual races. Look at the FIA entry list, which lists the formal name the team competes under, the constructor name to which all results are credited, and the name under which team is registered as a business. Even though it appears in a reliable source, we do not include that final name, as it is redundant and only tangentially related. So can somebody please explain once and for all why the race title column is so important? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If people are going to start insisting on non-Latin scripts for certain races, get rid of the column. Bloody ridiculous. There's no pertinent information for anyone there, even the tiny minority who can actually read it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Even as the guy who designed all these I'm starting to think removing the fancy names is probably the best idea. —Gyaro –Maguus— 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am all for removing the column altogether if the only other option that there can be a consensus on is having all the race names in the local alphabet, without any way to check that is how they are actually written in that language. It's both ridiculous, ugly, and prone to mistakes. --hydrox (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So then, how about this one, of which the first three races I've put below?

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	16 March
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	30 March
3	Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	6 April

—Gyaro –Maguus— 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that the flags represent the host country / circuit, and there shouldn't be any ambiguity in the table regarding that. Might be worth losing the "Nat" heading so that the flag icon is clearly in the circuit column. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We've skirted around this issue for years, and I'll happily go and finally remove the duplicated columns as it looks like we're achieving a consensus. We already have the formal title on the individual race pages anyway. And yes that "Nat" heading is unneeded. QueenCake (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Nat." column makes the table work properly on mobile. —Gyaro –Maguus— 21:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's either got to go or be renamed or we're going to have people changing the flags to the "nationality of the race" and all that rubbish, and cyberspace will burst if we have to go through all that crap again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My position is well-documented above: the race title column is redundant. If you remove all of the redundant content, all you really get is the sponsor of the races (where there are sponsors). But because the content has a source to go with it, some people have opposed its removal and insist that it is important. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Breton: If you could come up with a compromise word/abbreviation that can adequately replace "Nat.", then we could use that. I could change the tooltip text to "Nation of the circuit", but for the second season in a row, all the Grands Prix are in the country of the Grand Prix and hence, the flags of the circuits are also the flags of the races, so "Nation" really works just fine.

PM: We can always remove unnecessary sources. I do recall giving an example of something like if someone put a sourced paragraph on quantum mechanics in the article, we would delete it and the sources since they are not relevant. If we make a source irrelevant, then it can go. —Gyaro –Maguus— 21:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this table going to be rolled out to past seasons? If not, there's no problem with the flag / tooltip while there's no discrepancy between the names of the races and the host nations. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that we can remove unnecessary sources. The problem is that the main argument in favour of keeping the race title column is that it is necessary because there is a reliable source. At which point I am told that the only way to have the column removed is to form a consensus by proving the source is unreliable, or by demonstrating that sponsors are of no benefit to races (both of which are impossible, and the people making that argument know it). It is very frustrating. I am in favour of completely removing the race title column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine on mobile to me. What was the problem this was meant to fix? In any case, adding a completely unnecessary heading is a poor excuse of a fix. Either find a new way or if this problem isn't major we'll have to live with it. QueenCake (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Breton: As long as the flags are the same as the ones on the result matrixes, we should have a solid argument against anyone who contests the flag choices.
PM: Removing the race title column is what I am now supporting, because it causes more problems than it helps fix. But surely calling a reference unnecessary should overrule the reliability of a reference. To my previous example, the source on quantum mechanics would be reliable, but on this article the source would be unnecessary and would therefore be removed.
QueenCake: The issue is that flags don't work properly on mobiles – firstly, they ignore non-breaking spaces, which makes the text have line breaks in undesirable positions. To solve this, you put the flags in their own column; then the mobile WP treats the flags as 1 px wide, so the text overlaps the flags. To solve this issue, you have to write some text in the column to make the column wide enough. The word "Nat." conveniently is the right width for this. You can't hide the word "Nat." because doing so will uncentralise the "Circuit" piece of text (as shown here). So that is why the "Nat." is there. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

PM here (posting from a public terminal) - that has always been my argument. But for some reason, there has become this strange obsession with perfectly recreating sources in articles, with editors under the asumption that if it does not do that, then the whole thing is compromised. Just look at some of the above arguments for rearranging the order of the team and driver table to a confusing state where drivers are included in a seemingly random order because "that's how the source presents it". So long as we present all of the content that is included within a source and do so whilst maintaining a neutral point of view, then we are free to present that content as we see fit, esepcially if we want something readable.

The way I see it, this is the article for the 2014 season. Therefore, priority should be given to things that affect the 2014 season as a whole - like who will race for which team, and which races will be held. I really don't see why the full, formal, "official" race title is so important, given that they only affect one race (in nineteen) in isolation. But because it appears in a source, some people seem to think that that automatically merits inclusion in the article. They insist that sponsorship is important to races, and while I agree with that sentiment, it also implies that sponsorship is the only thing enabling the race to be held at all. Nevertheless, they insist that because there is a reliable source, it should be included, and the only way to remove it is to disprove it, which they know perfectly well cannot be achieved as it comes from FOM (which is why I suspect the make the argument in the first place).

The value of the race title column has yet to be explained to me. Sure, it appears in all official paraphenalia, but WP:COMMONNAME applies here. People don't go around calling it the "Rolex Australian Grand Prix". They call it the "Australian Grand Prix". This isn't NASCAR, where the sponsor name is the name of the event (like the "Kobalt Tools 400"). So when you think about it, by including the race title column, all we are really doing is advertsing which sponsor paid to get some more signage around the circuit for the race. Should that really be our priority here? And if not, why have we included it? 115.64.20.99 (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does NOT apply here. That guideline ONLY applies to article titles and we have told you that before. The race title column does not only give us the name of the sponsor, it mainly gives us the official title which is mostly in one the countries official languages. E.g. Grand prix de France, Grand Prix du Canada, Gran Premio d'Italia, Großer Preis von Deutschland, Großer Preis von Österreich, Grand Prix de Belgique (or Grote Prijs van België for those who were held at Zolder) etc... . Most of these countries don't use English by any means and the anglicized title is rarely used there and the official title is therefore the "common name". And these official titles are the only ones used universally. The English translations are only used in English speaking countries. Just take a look at the following picture:

Very clearly, the race is not known as the "Hungarian Grand Prix" but as the Magyar Nagydij. We might call it the Hungarian Grand Prix, but that's not the race's name. That's the primary purpose of the race title column. I don't know where this obsession of writing the race titles in the local writing comes from. Can anyone give me any reason why we cannot use the Latin alphabet transliterations? That's why I raised this issue ib the first place. Furthermore if there's one column that should be considered for removal it's the Grand Prix column. That's very obviously the more redundant column. Can anyone demonstrate any function that column has that cannot be fulfilled by any means by the race title column? Tvx1 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what it us called - in the local language. "Magyar Nagydij" means "Hungarian Grand Prize". Either we use all the race titles in their local name, or none of them. We cannot have some in the local name and others not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Once, again I have no problem with using the local names, but with using the local WRITING. Why can't we use the Latin transliteration by any means? Please tell me why we can't write Gran-pri Rossii Formuly 1 sezona 2014 goda instead of Гран-при России Формулы 1 сезона 2014 года. Furthermore Magyar Nagydij, as well as the other ones, is the official name, not just the local name. Hungarian Grand Prix is more of a local translation than Magyar Nagydij is. Just like German people sometimes translate it as Großer Preis von Ungarn, French people call it Grand Prix de Hongrie, Dutch-speaking people call it Grote Prijs van Hongarijë, Italians call it Gran Premio d'Ungheria and so on. Tvx1 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to remember that this is the English language Wikipedia and we are not required to place such importance on foreign-language translations of anything. In the English language, this particular race is known as the Hungarian Grand Prix. It is the race's name in English. What it's known as in Hungary is relatively irrelevant here. Using Latin transliterations contradicts your idea of using the local language; for example the Chinese Grand Prix is not at all known in China by its Latin transliteration. And patently the Grand Prix column is required to help those people who can't read the foreign languages in the race title column. We simply cannot have the table's only link to the Hungarian race written in Hungarian. Obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree here. It's not the race's name in English, it's the local English translation of the official name, just like all the other local translations I presented you with, which is not the same thing. And Magyar Nagydij is not solely how it's known in Hungary. It's the official title as it universally appears for instance during the podium ceremony, on the official calendars etc... Just take a look a the sources provided which strem from the FIA and FOM. They use English as primary language, yet they write Magyar Nagydij. And that's only one example. Regarding the names in countries using the different script than the Roman script. Wether you write it in the local script or in our Roman script, the words are exactly the same. The are pronounced identically. Whether you read aloud in the local script or in our script it sound exactly the same. So that is how it's know there. Furthermore the Chinese Wikipedia does not write Australian Grand Prix in Roman script either. They transliterate it to 劳力士澳大利亚大奖赛. Just like we should transliterate. Regarding the Grand Prix columns, there is another set of links to the Grand Prix pages in the season overview table. That should be more than enough. Tvx1 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the discussion here, Tvx. We are not disputing that "Magyar Nagydij" is the official name of the Hungarian Grand Prix. What we are questioning is the need to show those official titles in the article. Why are they so essential? I do not see what they contribute. Sure, there's the recognition that the Hungarian Grand Prix is the Magyar Nagydij, but how many times have you heard that name used? You say COMMONNAME only applies to article titles, but where have you ever heard the race referred to as "Magyar Nagydij" outside the official documentation and this article? Commentators don't use it (unless they are telling us that it is Hungarian for "Hungarian Grand Prix", and I have never known them to do that). Reporters don't use it (headlines will read "HAMILTON WINS IN HUNGARY", not "HAMILTON WINS MAGYAR NAGYDIJ"). Your entire argument boils down to "that's the official name" and "we have a source". The problem is that you haven't demonstrated what it adds to the article - the thing that makes its inclusion necessary beyond all doubt. If you look at the entry lists released by the FIA, you will note that they list the team name with sponsors, the constructor name and the name the team trades under as a company. We don't include those company names, even though we have a reliable source in the entry list, and they are the official names that the teams register to operate as a business. Those names satisfy both of the conditions, but we still don't include them. Why should this be any different? Prisonermonkeys 115.64.20.99 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ENGLISH reporter sometimes refer to it as the Hungarian Grand Prix. Others don't. As I have pointed out earlier. Regarding the comparison with the team names, there actually is a clear analogy with them. We use the official team names as well. We don't write Ferrari Racing Stable instead of Scuderia Ferrari just because this is English wikipedia. Neither do we write Red Bull Racing Stable instead of Scuderia Torro Rosso. Nor do we write Gonfaron Sports Cars instead of Automobiles Gonforonnaises Sportives (or AGS) and so on and so on. We use whatever is the official name and can't see why we can't do the same for the races by any means. Hungarian Grand Prix is how it is how it is referred to in some of the English media exclusively. English is not the only language in the world, you know, and it certainly isn't the official language of Formula 1, as is evident in the different languages used in team, engine and race names. Tvx1 (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And this is the English-language Wikipedia. Using the official name serves no purpose other than to recognise that organisers for whom English is not their first language do, in fact, use their own language to name the Grand Prix. As has been pointed out above, we cannot have "Magyar Nagydij" link to "Hungarian Grand Prix". And so far, I would say the consensus is largely in favour of removing the race title column all together. Prisonermonkeys. 116.50.58.180 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, we are only concerned with what English-language sources (upon which this encyclopedia is based) call the race, and that is 99% of the time "Hungarian Grand Prix". To say that "sometimes English reporters refer to it as the Hungarian Grand Prix" is a massive understatement. What else do they call it on BBC or Sky, or Autosport? Who gives a toss what foreign-language reporters call it? Nothing on this encyclopedia takes into account what terms are used in foreign languages. The comparison with team names is null. Team names are never translated into foreign languages, and race names are nearly always translated, into all kinds of languages. English may not be the only language in the world, but it's the only one in which this encyclopedia is written. And that's pretty much that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Have both of you now become oblivious to the fact that there is a "Grand Prix" column containing the English translations, or what? Please focus on the matter we are discussing, which is the race title column. We cannot put Spanish Grand Prix, Italian Grand Prix, Hungarian Grand Prix and so on in the race title column because those are not the races' names, period. By the way the English source on which the table is based write Magyar Nagydij and not Hungarian Grand prix. Myself, Gyaro –Maguus (who has changed allegiance for reasons, expect for some minor technical issues, I fail to understand) and Joetri10 have provided solid reasons for the presence of the column which have been met with only some resistance pertaining to "We don't like it". I would like to recall to you that consensus is not a vote. Tvx1 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed my allegiance because I thought about the issue, saw what happened, and understood that while I, for example, know what "Magyar Nagydij" translates into, but would the average user be able to read a little bit of Hungarian? As for the technical issues, using English really helps when it comes to linking everything. When you include the full race title, it is nearly impossible to link the text to the GP as a whole without potentially enticing the reader into thinking that they are being directed to the season's race article. I've also realised that linking to the official name is not necessary. For example, if I where to look at a list of the Big Four audit firms, I see "Deloitte", "PwC", "Ernst & Young" (which could be "EY") and "KPMG", not "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited", "PricewaterhouseCoopers", "Ernst & Young" and "KPMG" ("KPMG" is the full name of the company). If I look at the 2013–14 Premier League, I see all the teams without the letters "F.C." or "A.F.C.". So why do we need to show the full race title? It doesn't do any good other than being politically correct – and that is not what we need to do. —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid this as much as I could after everything but it seems my name has been brought up. My opinion on this particular matter is very torn. On one hand I can understand wanting to use the official language but much like with everything foreign on (The English-written) Wikipedia, we often refer with the English language and it's not exactly incorrect to do so. We want the reader to be able to understand what they are reading and being politically correct is rather more then is asked of us. That being said, if we are to keep the grand prix column then I'd be in more support of having it written in it's official language because after all, with all the fighting about what's official, it should be 100% correct if we are to go so far. Honestly though the most important thing here is for the information to be readable. I don't have much more to say really... *Joe Tri10_ 15:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

TVX, I know that consensus is not a vote, and your persistent dismissal of people's arguments as "I don't like it" is becoming obnoxious. You say, "We cannot put Spanish Grand Prix, Italian Grand Prix, Hungarian Grand Prix and so on in the race title column because those are not the races' names, period." – they are the names of the races in English. This encyclopedia is written in English. The official race title belongs on the generic race page, and possibly the individual race reports. I see a clear consensus to remove the official race title column from this table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And with that in mind, I have removed them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I didn't see agreement to this? You just removed relevant sourced information. You cant just go around deleting sufficient information because you feel like it. On no basis does this stand as a positive and correct change. I also find it ironic that this comes about through a back door topic. Someone was certainly determined.

from what I understood this topic was about what language the titles should be written in, not if they should be present at all.

Actually re-reading the bottom half of this discussion, I have noticed that you guys in-fact discussing the merit of what these names deliver. I find the support for the deletion of this section absurd and baseless. The only reason I have heard is 'because the English media doesn't say it', That's a laudably weak excuse. *Joe Tri10_ 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody at all here has advocated keeping non-Latin script in the table. I'm not even sure how it got there. All bar one or two have (apparently) been in favour of removing the column. It is effectively the same topic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All 3 of the guys arguing for the deletion of the column are the ones who wanted it deleted in the previous topic regarding sponsors and their same argument was/is 'what point does it have'. We have given many reasons to what point they have and they get dismissed by much weaker reasons all spanning on opinion and because 'they don't like it'. I mean for gods sake, just leave it alone. *Joe Tri10_ 23:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a consensus has been formed. You cannot simply disregard it because you feel it is weak. If your reasons were as compelling as you claim they are, then we would have a consensus in favour of keeping the titles. As it stands, all you managed to come up with is "we have a source", "this is official" and "sponsors are important to this race" (with no source to support the claim or explanation as to why it should be included in the article). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I even offer a good and proper reason above as to why it should be deleted. The information is not relevant. It can be deleted. —Gyaro –Maguus— 00:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeh, and your reasoning of "because the English don't use them" certainly has all the basis of a strong consensus. They are the official titles used by many media [1] [2] [3]. They are used at events (See above) and on the trophies won [4]. Other nations use them more often then not obviously [5]. Tickets have it on them [6]. In fact I detract my earlier statement of keeping it all in English because the more I think about it, the more discriminatory we're looking. Sport is about accepting all cultures. We have the English generic titles in their own column to keep and then we have this one, the official one. Relevant sourced important information. All you have is Suzie Perry calling it the Japanese grand prix and other completely irreverent sporting pages doing something different. You need more than that in my opinion or otherwise you're just being ignorant. I don't agree with this deletion and neither did/does Tvx1. This may not be a vote but you're not going to bully people into a consensus based on a bais opinion founded by you (PM) who wished the deletion months ago and Gyaro who changed his mind because (blank?). It's starting to look like an opinion war (again) *Joe Tri10_ 00:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the race title at the event, on the trophies and on the tickets are bound to be the local language. What bearing that would have on this table, I don't know. There's no evidence whatsoever of "discrimination" – against whom? You dismiss the BBC, Sky, Autosport, Motor Sport magazine, FORIX, and any number of other specialist sources as "irreverent sporting pages"? What the hell is that? They are fully accepted reliable sources, and writing them off to suit your argument only weakens it. I'm fully in favour of deleting the official race title column as irrelevant to the season itself – they are only relevant to the race articles. There's already too much clutter in season articles, and it's about time we reduced it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just tell me Joetri, is the fact it is officially called the Pirelli Magyar Nadydij actually relevant to the season as a whole? —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Joetri10, please stop edit-warring. Enough users are in agreement that a consensus has been formed for the changes to be made. You are entitled to disagree with that, but it does not give you the right or the ability to override a consensus. Nor does it give you the right to engage in what is blatant character assassination in an attempt to discredit the editors opposed to you. I find it particularly galling that you claim my opinion is invalid because it has not changed, and then with your next breath you say Gyaro's is invalid because his has changed. You repeatedly claim that the content is "relevant sourced important information", but you have not supported any of that with evidence. Your entire argument amounts to "it has a source", but there are literally hundreds of things that we could include in the article because they have a source, and yet we have not. Valtteri Bottas was given licence points for impeding Ricciardo in qualifying at Sepang, so we could include a table showing the licence points issued to each driver - but we don't, even though we could have a reliable source, and it could be considered important as a means of keeping track of which drivers are close to getting a ban. Why should this be any different?

If you continue to edit-war, you can and probably will be referred to the admins. After all, you have a history of doing just that when yo do not get your way. If you wish for the race title column to be included, then your only option now is to form a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just including and embracing that separate cultures make up the sport. Your attitude towards this stinks personally and you claim to be deleting clutter yet you keep something that is already repeated multiple times throughout the page in favor of separate information?. laughable justification. Also pm, don't rush too much to get your Pm's guide to Wikipedia out, I know what I was doing, I understand edit warring. In fact don't even try to tell me about my history when I know of yours, you have no place to talk. Personally I'm sick of you guys and your forcible opinion bullying. You have express absolutely no reasoning for this apart from 'we're English and they aren't, we don't like it, too much clutter and because another page does it'. Also Maguus, yes it is relevant, just as relevant as it's English race title. I and TVX have supported the use of the official with reasoning much more then you have on your consensus pm . I've yet to even see any. Also, I talk about the problem of your previous position on this because you're carrying it on from the last topic. I prefer to have someone who isn't biased to create the consensus, not a bunch of us who seem to change our mind more times than our underwear. At least then it wont be out of opinion *Joe Tri10_ 01:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Joetri, your insistence that no-one has offered anything is wrong. I'll just quote myself a few times; I, for example, know what "Magyar Nagydij" translates into, but would the average user be able to read a little bit of Hungarian? and Using English really helps when it comes to linking everything. When you include the full race title, it is nearly impossible to link the text to the GP as a whole without potentially enticing the reader into thinking that they are being directed to the season's race article. and I've also realised that linking to the official name is not necessary. For example, if I where to look at a list of the Big Four audit firms, I see "Deloitte", "PwC", "Ernst & Young" (which could be "EY") and "KPMG", not "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited", "PricewaterhouseCoopers", "Ernst & Young" and "KPMG" ("KPMG" is the full name of the company). If I look at the 2013–14 Premier League, I see all the teams without the letters "F.C." or "A.F.C.". So why do we need to show the full race title? It doesn't do any good other than being politically correct – and that is not what we need to do.. So, including other ideas, we have:

Not everyone knows what the words in other languages will mean;
It confuses the link destination;
Very few articles elsewhere show full titles;
Non-Latin script is just plain wrong;
Nearly all publications that are not officially bound to use the official title do not use the official title.

When I say officially bound, I mean that if the British Grand Prix wish to sell tickets, they must use the official name. However, if I wish to blog about it or even write an article on my wiki about I that, I don't have to. The article will not be titled the 2014 Formula 1 Santander British Grand Prix, rather, the 2014 British Grand Prix. Enough reasons for you? —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

With both columns, not knowing the language is easily fixed by the latter column detailing which race it is in it's English form. We have no need to link it anywhere when we have the secondary column doing so. Those pages are irrelevant to this one. In fact I'm in danger of repeating something which has been directed at me way back during the driver table discussion which is 'no other page is relevant to this one as this is it's own separate article'. Just because one page dictates something does not mean this page has to follow suit. I had to learn that from you guys and now you're using it against me. None of this gives any good reasoning for deletion in my opinion, it just looks like an excuse. I have expressed where these names are used and why. linking me to different articles doing it differently doesn't make anything right or wrong, just different and both are accepted. We seem to be in the stalemate of you doing it your way because some pages are too whilst my exact same way is wrong because your pages don't do it. I could throw your language barrier issue back at you by doing the exact same thing you are. [7] here is a page quick listing Japanese figures included in a video game. Under the English name and form are their Kanji names- but not everyone reads Kanji so what's the point? it will also be written on their specific page anyway so it's otherwise irrelevant to the page?. That's your argument in a complete nutshell, irrelevant page usage included. I could say we keep the foreign official name because this page does something similar, even if it's not related to sport in any way. It's in the readers opinion to whether this information Is useful to them but we're not giving them a chance. We're not showcasing 100% correct information by ignoring the other countries making up the sport. We're cutting corners for the sake of nothing and all so because of opinion. That's what you're doing and it is something I have been shouted at for trying to do. This is even not following what we have been doing in previous years which funnily enough is the opposite reason to why the number issue was such a problem; because it was an original consensus used for listing. We're picking and choosing and that's again something I was yelled at by you guys. Hypocrisy, thy name is us. Relatively speaking I could argue that 80% of what's on this page is irrelevant to be honest. I've had enough of this. *Joe Tri10_ 02:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Joetri, perhaps you could concentrate on the merits of the individual arguments, rather than the behaviour of the people making them? You claim that the people in favour of removing the column have not adequately demonstrated their position, but we could turn that around and say exactly the same thing about you simply because we take an opposing position.

I am a little bit confused as to how you think a consensus is formed. You criticise me for keeping the same issue on a subject that has not changed since it was last brought up. Then you criticise others for changing their minds. How do you expect to form a majority if you cannot persuade people to change their minds, and get them to believe that one way forward is better than another, even if they believed that other way was better to begin with? Without the ability to persuade, forming a consensus would amount to people stating their position over and over again until someone relents. Which is exactly what we are doing right now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Joetri, I'll just cherry-pick some points of your argument:

With both columns, not knowing the language is easily fixed by the latter column detailing which race it is in it's English form. That is unnecessary duplication of information, violation of WP:IINFO.

Just because one page dictates something does not mean this page has to follow suit. That may be correct, but I only pulled up two articles because otherwise, I would end up spending hours finding hundreds of examples. Here is another: Gangnam Style calls the singer Psy not Park Jae-sang.

Under the English name and form are their Kanji names- but not everyone reads Kanji so what's the point? My point exactly. Note how the romanised name is written first and then the Kanji name is written. So that means that the Kanji name is of lesser importance. By all means but the Kanji on the individual articles but not here.

We're cutting corners for the sake of nothing and all so because of opinion. That's what you're doing and it is something I have been shouted at for trying to do. I do not, have not, and will never base my arguments on opinions. I can't say that for sure about the others though. But since you are addressing my argument here, your are incorrect. I have said in previous discussions that this is not, and never will be, my priority. My own wiki is. I just want this to come to a sensible, reasoned conclusion. I have my views, and I back them up with clear points which I state. I never use opinion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is us. I will happily admit to being a hypocrite, but writing it as so marks the beginning of a violation of WP:PA. —Gyaro –Maguus— 02:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"That is unnecessary duplication of information, violation of WP:IINFO." I cant find what you're addressing?

"That may be correct, but I only pulled up two articles because otherwise, I would end up spending hours finding hundreds of examples. Here is another: Gangnam Style calls the singer Psy not Park Jae-sang." The page does actually, under writers and producers.

"Under the English name and form are their Kanji names- but not everyone reads Kanji so what's the point" That's of your opinion. I brought up this specific page because I know the people who are writing it as well as the community behind the games. They find it of extreme importance and usefulness. Not to mention that the Kanji is used in area's of the game much like the race titles are used in area's of the world. I know that's a bit of a stretch but where relevance lives, it lives for reason.

"I do not, have not, and will never base my arguments on opinions. I can't say that for sure about the others though. But since you are addressing my argument here, your are incorrect. I have said in previous discussions that this is not, and never will be, my priority. My own wiki is. I just want this to come to a sensible, reasoned conclusion. I have my views, and I back them up with clear points which I state. I never use opinion." Owning a Wikipedia of your own may increase priority of ones opinion without knowing it, making their mind up beforehand because they have already encountered it. It may not be the way you wish to run your page so why would you do so here? I'm not saying you're lying or making up excuses, I'm just saying maybe.

"I will happily admit to being a hypocrite, but writing it as so marks the beginning of a violation of WP:PA." don't start feeding me hyperlinks, I get enough of that from PM. I wasn't attacking you, it was merely an observation. Admitting to ones problems does not make It right either.

Honestly I've had enough of this now anyway, this wasn't even my issue anyway. I'm not talking about this again, you've clearly forced your way and you're certainly going to keep it there so well done as usual. *Joe Tri10_ 02:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, do not remove content while the matter is still under discussion. A I said earlier, A CONSENUS IS NOT A HEAD COUNT. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMEBRS. It's about the arguments. And *Joe Tri10_ Joetri10 has been correct by pointing out that the removal arguments are weaker. I'll cite some of the solid arguments made in favor of keeping the content:

they are relevant. As stated, sponsors do have an effect on events and teams. We give the official names of the teams (unlinked) and don’t mention them anywhere else (and the articles are not the official names either), hence they are secondary information at best. So why are the races any different? They are the names the FIA officially refers to the races as. If you go on the website, it is not the "Australian Grand Prix", but rather, the "2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix". The website is currently advertising tickets for the "Formula 1 Grand Prix de Monaco 2014", not the "Monaco Grand Prix". Hence, these titles are important. To summarise, the information is well-sourced (if that even matters), is very much relevant and important (or at least, considered to be by both the FIA and the people who run F1, and those who organise the races), and keeping the information holds in-article consistency with the drivers table and holds consistency with previous seasons.

and

Because on a fundamental level I disagree with their removal, I say this: the FIA, F1, and the events themselves refer to the races with the official name. You do not see, anywhere, the shorter forms. Imagine is someone sees "Eni Magyar Nagydíj". To the untrained eye, that is gobbledygook. I see it as "Eni Hungarian Grand Prix" because I know what it translates into, but many will not. As long as they know to come here, they will then find out. There is more. I agree, sponsorships do not affect the other races. Yet, on basically all football season articles, the sponsors and kit manufacturers of teams are mentioned. They do not affect the other teams. Not only that, but on this very article, we have the official names of the teams. How does Williams' Martini sponsorship affect Marussia, or Pirelli, or Renault, or even Lewis Hamilton? Why do the football articles include those and why do we include these, if they only really affect the teams involved? Either we keep both the race titles and official team names, or we remove them both.

This last one clearly undermines the "people won't understand it" argument. In fact not listing the full titles, in local language where that is the official titles, just will prevent people understanding their meanings. Now when someone sees Magyar Nagydij, they can look it up in this encyclopedia. And that, clearly oblivious to some users, is what Wikipedia still is. And one of it is principal purposes is education. Tvx1 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You have one small problem: you are declaring arguments to be weak simply because you disagree with them. You did it all through the Sirotkin and table order episodes, and now you are doing it here. Don't like the way a consensus has been formed? That's easily fixed - just declare it null and void because you do not like it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No I don't. That's your style. I make my declaration based on arguments and counter-arguments. You unilaterally and indisputably declare a consensus not taking even remotely into account other people's opinions because you care about only one thing: yourself. At the point there is no clear consensus. Neither for removal nor for retaining. There is no consensus. Furthermore, might I alert you to the fact that during the Sirotkin dispute I actually agreed with you. Tvx1 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) TVX, we are all aware that consensus is about the quality of the discussion and not about numbers, but you seem to be of the opinion (again) that your arguments are more important than anyone else's. It doesn't work like that. "The removal arguments are weaker" – says who? Says someone who's against removal. That carries no weight. Ultimately, the numbers and the consensus of opinion are in favour of removing the column.

Removing foreign language race titles will patently not prevent people understanding their meanings, because the English race title is still there. You two don't seem to understand that we are constructing an encyclopedia in English, and that we are not obliged to be inclusive of people who don't read English, or to "embrace separate cultures". Having things in English is not "ignoring other countries" – it's what we are supposed to do. Furthermore, foreign race titles are not as relevant as English ones, especially outside the race articles themselves. Otherwise we'd have translations all over the place. It is in fact policy to favour English-language sources over foreign language ones, and articles must reflect that. I see Joetri didn't respond to my questioning of his total dismissal of all the usual reliable sources that we use. That kind of thing is what loses you the argument. I really would like to know how foreign language race titles ever got into the season articles. At a glance, neither the French, German nor Spanish season articles list foreign language race titles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I did actually. I said although I appear to be discounting British media of some account, you are doing it also. I brought up multiple sources that use this and even a few written for the British. You have yours also and you're using power of numbers to justify it. Re-iterating something said previously, just because something is written differently then somewhere else does not make it right or wrong, it's just a different way. In this format we are simply using both but then you just found a way to justify your reasoning so what else am I to say? *Joe Tri10_ 15:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would we dismiss all our usual, established reliable sources and scrabble around for others? As I and others have said, we don't need two ways to say the same thing, especially if one is in a foreign language. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We use these sources primarily because they are (often more) reliable. In this case however reliability is irrelevant. It's more a case of accuracy if the site finds reason to. As you said yourself, they are not obliged to use the official titles and yes I understand neither are we but that doesn't justify our case. We should do as much as we can to improve the page's usefulness and accuracy. Of course you're going to argue about said point and that comes down to opinion which you said previous you do not have one. So what's your problem? Other page's are irrelevant, clutter is abundant everywhere, No where does it say this Wikipedia cannot feature foreign languages. *Joe Tri10_ 16:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do indeed argue that point, in that I don't think the official race titles are useful to this article. I'd go as far as to say they're practically decorative here. I don't recall saying I had no opinion on this. My problem is primarily clutter, and just because it's everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce it – this is not information relevant to the progress of the season, is already shown in English and is far, far better positioned in the race articles (generic and race reports). Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TVX, that looks dangerously close to a personal attack, and it does your argument no good whatsoever. I suggest retracting it. PM's declaration of a consensus was clearly not unilateral, because five editors have expressed agreement with the notion of removing the column. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you would do your research more adequately you could make arguments that actually make sense. The reliable ENGLISH sources on which this table is based actually do contain some race titles in their local languages where necessary. Indeed we are not obliged to include content in another language that English, but, contrary to what some people seem to believe, we are not forbidden to do so either. Having things in English is not "ignoring other countries" but solely having things in English is. But what makes this argument even more silly is that right now we actually have them in both English and in the language used officially. Tvx1 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus christ such long paragraphs. StandNThrow (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you accuse someone of making no sense, then introduce utter contradictory gibberish like your last two sentences. Did you even read them before posting? If it's silly to have both English and the local language (which you inexplicably seem to be calling the "official language" – rubbish) , then let's get rid of one of them, no? Looks like we're done here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in your little edit war you have going on there, you keep reintroducing these non-Latin characters that nobody whatsoever wants to keep. Could you at least edit war to a version you actually want, rather than something everybody wants to get rid of? I can post this comment in Chinese characters if it helps you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So it is rubbish to state that countries have official languages? In this case particular I was referring to the language used in the official titles. I have been a proponent of using Roman characters all along. That's why I posted this headline in the first place but it was twisted into another debate to remove the race titles entirely. How do you wan't me to transliterate in to Roman characters when you we even haven't a remote agreement on the correct transliterations. If you really want to know this is what I have found so far:

Russian Grand Prix: Gran-pri Rossii Formuly 1 sezona 2014 goda
Japanese Grand Prix: 2014 fōmyura 1 nippon guranpuri
Chinese Grand Prix: 2014 fangchengshi ruiyin Zhongguo daijiangsai

I'm still working on the Arabic ones. Tvx1 (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've found the Arabic ones as well.

Bahrain Grand Prix: ~~alfwrmwla 1 sbaq alja'ezh 2014 alkbra ltyran alkhlyj albahryn~~ tedaker sebaq ja'ezh alebheryen alekbera letyeran alekhelyej lelfewremwela wan 2014
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: ~~2014 alfwrmwla 1 sbaq alja'ezh alathad lltyran abwzby alkbra~~ sebaq ja'ezh alathad lelteyran alekbera lelfewremwela 1 2014 fey abewzeby

So If that is what you want I'll be happy to change them in the article.

If that column must stay (even for the time being), we cannot have that. I refuse to have things like "alfwrmwla" and "abwzby" on the article, because it quite frankly is gobbledygook. Just take what is here for now. But the column must go. I have given enough reasons. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

May I at least refute my own quoted arguments above?
the information is well-sourced (if that even matters) Well, it doesn't actually matter, so that should be ignored.
is very much relevant and important (or at least, considered to be by both the FIA and the people who run F1, and those who organise the races) I completely take this one back. As an official name, its usage is bound to the organisers who run the event. No one else is bound to it, including us.
keeping the information holds in-article consistency with the drivers table and holds consistency with previous seasons. I don't think this really matters anymore. I have, in the past, thrown the consistency argument around mindlessly. And with the new driver's table, it really is not a relevant point anymore.
Because on a fundamental level I disagree with their removal, I say this: Surely this makes the whole of the second quote less valid as an argument? I'm arguing because I disagreed at the time.
the FIA, F1, and the events themselves refer to the races with the official name. See above.
You do not see, anywhere, the shorter forms. That sentence is only correct with reference to the addition of the words "2014 Formula 1" into each race title.
Imagine is someone sees "Eni Magyar Nagydíj". To the untrained eye, that is gobbledygook. I see it as "Eni Hungarian Grand Prix" because I know what it translates into, but many will not. So this is actually a very bad point for the inclusion of the race title column.
As long as they know to come here, they will then find out. Well, this is just plain wrong.
I agree, sponsorships do not affect the other races. Yet, on basically all football season articles, the sponsors and kit manufacturers of teams are mentioned. Joetri's arguments have proved this to not an arguable point.
Either we keep both the race titles and official team names, or we remove them both. Extreme point worth ignoring. —Gyaro –Maguus— 11:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I will add that the entrants column in the drivers table needs to be kept because historically, entrants have not always been the manufacturers. So they ought to stay. The same does not apply to the race title column. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 The United States does not have an official language, indeed it is frequently a wedge issue that Republicans try to squeeze Democrats on because of the huge number of Spanish speakers who vote Democrat in the US. And Canada famously has two. So if you are arguing that official languages should be used, that is an arguement fraught with double standards and you should step away from it. --Falcadore (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the countries "official" languages, I'm referring to the languages used in the official title, which I have already pointed out before. Tvx1 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TVX, could you make two posts in a row that don't contradict each other? You ask me if it's rubbish that countries have official languages, then you you say you're not referring to countries' official languages. If you are indeed referring to the language in the official race title, that is what we are saying is not relevant to this article. It's just the local language of the event, and belongs in the race articles. The column needs to be removed. We're clearly not going to have garbage like "alfwrmwla 1 sbaq alja'ezh alathad lltyran abwzby alkbra" which is just somebody's phonic transcription of Arabic. Someone who only understands Arabic would not be able to read that. That kind of thing makes the table a total laughing stock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore's point is a good one. Some countries have several official languages, like Belgium, so maybe we should have three official race titles, one for each official language. Let's have a look what they do on the podium at Spa... [8] Oh wait, it's in English. Just get rid of the column already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I made my point very clear several times. What I'm referring to in this particular case is the language of the official title. Some countries have multiple official languages, yes. But they have only one official race title. It's no just the local title it's the official title used worldwide. The English title is only used in English speaking countries. And calling another language "garbage" doesn't show much respect. Tvx1 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All the titles are in Latin script. If the native language is in Latin script, in most situations, the official race title uses that language (Belgium, being split between Dutch and French, decides to not favour either language). If not, English is used. If you must have that column, it must follow what is written on the calendar on the F1 website to the letter, otherwise you are not writing down the official race title. Take, for example, the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. According to the race's own website, in English it is the "2014 Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" (in all caps). But, if you look at it in Arabic, what you find is not what currently is on the article (I can't highlight the text, so I can't copy it over). But I found this image of the podium in 2012. Look, it says "... Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix". In English, not Arabic. Of course, we don't actually need the race title column because these issues. Please tell me, what does having the race title actually add? I don't think it adds anything. —Gyaro –Maguus— 15:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't enter the native languages. I have always been fine with the official titles per the official sources, which is how we did it for the last ten years. It was another user who changed them and demanded that they be kept in that state. Tvx1 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So where is that user? And why are you persistently reverting to his version when you apparently don't even favour it? On your previous point, as I said, what you posted is not a language but a phonic transcription of one, and it's garbage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to find the user and bring him to the discussion. Words failed to find me however when I found out the user who made the edits was in-fact Prisonermonkeys... [9] *sigh* *Joe Tri10_ 15:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. PM? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change them back yet, because I normally don't make major changes to an article without reaching an agreement on the talk page, but after I reviewed the debate and noticed that PM is the ONLY user demanding them to be put in the local languages (although for some reason PM missed the Malaysian Grand Prix) I decided to be bold and changed them back to the official titles. Tvx1 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV every POV has a right for self definition. So we either use local names for everyone or for noone. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Hey, I just saw that someone had done it for the Russian Grand Prix, and applied it to all of them. The only reason why I skipped Malaysia is because it is part of the title sponsorship deal - Petronas is actually known as Petronas Malaysia. It was not necessarily something I agreed with, but did it for consistency. Nevertheless, my position still stands: get rid of the column. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Elk Salmon, we're not using local names for some and not for others. We're using official names for all of them. One rule applied to all of them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 31 March 2014‎ (UTC+4)

No, we are debating whether or not to keep the official titles at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So there is an official name - 2014 FORMULA 1 ГРАН-ПРИ РОССИИ [10]. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So now there are two "official" names for the Russian race – "2014 FORMULA 1 ГРАН-ПРИ РОССИИ" and "2014 FORMULA 1 RUSSIAN GRAND PRIX" (F1.com). I say tomato, you say помидор, let's call the whole thing off. This is beyond ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. What function does the race title column serve except to recognise the official race names? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The English title is only used in English speaking countries. And this is the English speaking Wikipedia, not the Sirotkin Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

~~expansion~~ We can talk about minute details of technical correctness, but the first priority is always to have an easily accessible/readable encyclopedia in English. Wikipedia has its own language specific versions of itself, and other languages belong there. Placing them here gets in the way of easy readability and that has to trump various forms of "officialness" in my opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, we're not going to agree here. Both parties have their points and arguments and whilst we feel each apposing parties points are weaker, we're in a stalemate nonetheless. We have sorted the initial point of this topic way back yonder when TVX1 started this which was the language issue. We have fixed that now so just leave it already. we have always had both columns in recent articles and it has never caused this much fuss I can imagine so why bother now. We're not starting a revolution here afterall. *Joe Tri10_ 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the language used in the table and the issue of the relevance of the "race title" column are two completely separate issues. Solving one does not solve the other. If keeping the column exclusively in English only weakens the argument for keeping the column, then that is just something you will need to address. Attempting to declare the issue resolved now comes across as little more than an attempt to shut any further debate down because the argument you are making is now weaker. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

*Joe Tri10_ did not say that both issues have been resolved, but that we've reached a stalemate regarding the column removal debate. And in that case WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. Joetri10 is quite right to state that there has never been, even remotely, such a fuss about this column in the ten years they have been on the articles. Tvx1 (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because no-one has questioned their place until now. The argument that "we have always done it that way" holds no water, because consensus can change over time.

All I have seen from the two of you in the past few hours is stalling tactics. You have made no attempt to address points that have been raised, have provided no new arguments of your own, and are now trying to declare a consensus.

But please, prove me wrong. Answer this question, the question that we have been asking you for a week without answer: what does the race title column add to the article that no other part of the article can provide? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to declare a consensus by any means. Joetri10 and me are trying to point out that there is no consenus for either side of the argument. Do not accuse me of things I do not do. I don't know where you get the guts to request the full protection of the page on the basis of the claim that other users are edit-warring while it was you who made four reverts in the space of a couple of hours yesterday. And the claim that we are showing repetitive behavior in doing this is quite bemusing as well, since you have been involved in numerous edit wars over the past few months. Tvx1 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there is ongoing discussion and people are edit-warring over it (admittedly, both sides are guilty). Full protection means that we can attempt to come to a consensus. But answer the question he asked! By avoiding answering, which I'm sure you are doing intentionally, you are implying that you don't actually have an answer. —Gyaro –Maguus— 11:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We've told you why it holds relevance several times and you have dismissed it time and time again. I think I can speak for us both when I say we're getting a little tired of this now. *Joe Tri10_ 13:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So, to answer the question, let me give you some of the presented arguments:

Sponsors are needed to make things happen, that is one of the their main purposes and that is certainly not speculation. As TVX1 stated that you obviously (but not surprisingly) ignored, it is also speculation to state that they also may not. If you wish to delete repeated information, replace the middle man by instead taking out the 'Grand Prix' section and adding hyperlinks to that listed under 'race title'. The bottom line is that the (sponsor) inclusion in the title is just as important as having Martini, Vodafone or any other sponsor in the name of the race outfits name. The official race title's mishandling in other pages I feel is what's causing your issue also. Grand prix titles are often used as the generic default of discussion sake when talking about a certain race; it's simply easier. That however does not make it the correct format to use officially which is why many (if not all) other websites list these races under their official given name first. So in a nutshelled example: if one were to discuss Williams, you'd generically speak of "Williams" without adding Martini or even in cases much like if one would say 'Ferrari' instead of 'Scuderia Ferrari' even though the latter would officially be the correct name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is a database of up to date fully detailed references and facts. Though each article features information about itself, that which represents branched articles must accurately represent and source each branching article. It is of course unnecessary to detail every part of the formula 1 season within one article because each separate article details that however accurately listing to such should not be lazily handled just because the information may be present elsewhete. So as I said above, if a repeat of information bothers you this much (now?) than replace that which describes less than what describes more. Hyperlink the race titles and bin the 'Grand Prix' section. If you are still going to argue that having sponsors mentioned is irrelevant information than this is unresolvable. I am seriously not going to go into more detaile about this.
— [[User:*Joe Tri10_]]

And to repeat my own arguments, giving those titles gives the random English-speaking user the opportunity to look up the meaning of this titles in an encyclopedia. That is what Wikipedia is and one of its primary purposes remains education. And that's what we're doing with having them. Educating.

Regarding Bretonbanquet's argument that other wikipedia's don't have them either. Well, actually Italian, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese and Russian wikipedia, just to name a few, do have them. So there clearly is no universal consensus in the wider Wikipedia community wether or not to have them.

We could ask the question the other way round as well. Why are these titles so controversial that some consider it necessary to incite a dispute so fierce that the page gets put under full protection for the third time in three months? What do we lose by having them? Do we lose more than we gain by having them? Who are we hurting by having them? Please answer me this, because I really fail to understand what's so controversial about them?

And finally I would like to point that most of the users who voted for removal under this headline have done so on the basis that we could only keep them when some of them are written in their local script, an issue which has now been resolved. Tvx1 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Then summarise this reasoning and we'll look at it from here. —Gyaro –Maguus— 14:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that even the Russian Wikipedia gives the "Официальное название" ("Official name") of Russian GP in English ("Grand Prix of Russia"), but people here insisted on having the GP's official name Cyrillic (I am not sure what is the current consensus regarding that, the discussion above is too long to read). But at least personally to me it seemed there was not going to be consensus on having the column in English only, so I opted for supporting its removal rather than having it in as a mix of mutually incompatible alphabets, that is incomprehensbile to all but the few polyglots among us who happen to be proficient in the Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Japanese and Latin writing systems simultaneously. --hydrox (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a few points I'd like to raise. First, I recall several times in the past few years where the idea of removing the column was raised, but as it was not the centre of the debate no action was ever taken. It is incorrect to assume people here were happy with their retention based solely on the fact they've existed for this long. Had this been quietly removed in the past I doubt anyone here would be calling to re-include them.

Second, directed at Tvx1 here, you must justify the inclusion of content, not the other way around. Also, arguments such as "Who are we hurting by having them?", What do we lose by having them? and Do we lose more than we gain by having them? are all arguments to avoid.

Third, not specifically directed at anyone, comes from WP:Consensus: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." As much as the ideal is to come to a consensus that satisfies everyone, at the same time a minority of editors cannot prevent changes to an article through intransigence. QueenCake (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with your second point there. It is removal of content that has been proposed and therefore it is removal that has to be justified and not the other way round. Regarding the arguments you cited. I only brought those arguments in response to an similar argument for removal by another user.

Having said that, I think it is in everybody's interest if we make a new heading, and since this is an issue that affects multiple season's pages and not only this one, maybe on the WikiProject's Talk page where someone who is neutral on the matter summarizes the arguments for and against removal so that we can have a clear look on the current situation of the debate and have are more clear discussion so that we can finally resolve the matter. Tvx1 (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no burden in a consensus discussion, it's just about gaining a consensus one way or the other. We can take it to the WP talk page of course, but it is disingenuous to claim that a consensus has not already been built here. There are only two editors wishing to retain the column. If necessary, I will go to ANRfC to knock this on the head. We will not be dragging this on for weeks because one or more parties don't know what a consensus is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But you lot are not putting fourth strong enough reasons for deletion. That's our problem, that's always been our problem. The only hope we have of a 3rd party coming fourth is so they could logically think about it and give us an actual decent reason and that's if they find any. *Joe Tri10_ 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. We don't think there are any strong reasons being given to keep it. The thing about ANRfC is that somebody unconnected with the project comes and decides whether or not there's a consensus. It can take a while, but it beats this futile time-wasting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you keep relying on this argument of "you have not made a strong case". The problem is that this is entirely subjective, and you are using it to avoid making a case of your own. There are half a dozen different points that we have made, and every single time we bring a new one up, it gets greeted with the same response. Some are naturally stronger than others, so I find it strange that they should all be seen as equally-weak. Given that you have avoided answering direct questions, attempted to declare a stalemate and have wrongly interpreted BURDEN, this comes across as another stalling tactic. I get the distinct impression that you have decided what you want the outcome to be, and are now twisting your own arguments to fit that end.

Even if those half a dozen arguments are as individually weak as you claim them to be (which they are not, as we have the numbers to form a consensus on the back of them), take a holistic view of the matter and consider all of them together. We have half a dozen reasons to remove that column. Your argument to date consists of "they are official", "we have a source" and "we have always done it this way". And as we have demonstrated (and which you have not acknowledged, except to write off as another weak argument), these are not reasons.

Right now, there too much of a culture of "I do not like this argument, so I will just call it weak or unproven, and I will not have to think about it again" from people trying to get their way. I do not know where it came from, but it stops now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained all of that PM multiple times, I'm not repeating myself again. *Joe Tri10_ 21:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So you expect us to prove our case further when challenged on it, but you do not have that obligation if you are questioned further? And then you have the power to declare a consensus invalid because an argument is unproven?

Sorry, but this is *exactly* what I am talking about when I say you have decided what the outcome will be in advance, and then twist your arguments to fit it. I get the distinct impression that it does not matter what argument we come up with, as you will simply write it off as weak.

But here is the catch: those in favour of removing the column have the numbers to form a consensus. We have three in favour and two opposed, and while I am not 100% certain which way User:Falcadore and User:QueenCake are leaning, I feel that they are leaning towards removing it as well (they may correct me if I am wrong). We have a potential situation here where five people are in agreement, so what gives you the right to say "no, it is weak, and no consensus is formed"?

But I am not going to ask you to repeat your arguments. They have been asked an answered. I am going to ask the same thing of you that you have been asking of us: come up with something new. Because even if no consensus has been formed right now, it is quite obvious that we are close to one. Delay and stall all you like, but you will not be able to stop it. And once implemented, you will be expected to observe it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Informative and educational (Something an encyclopedia is supposed to do), officially and politically accurate and consistent with the FIA and multiple (Yes, not all, I know) F1 related sites including the official site and Pirelli. A format used all around the world in the countries that make up Formula 1. There is no correct language to use when addressing correct language however we should appreciate, understand and include the decision from the FIA. It's inclusion is that of opinion in terms of relevance which is something no one can quick fix. I'm sorry I can't think of anything else Pm, I guess I failed as human being, if only I was Einstein. I'm certain Tvx1 has some better positive points also.

Honestly Pm, it's not me not answering you because out of stalling, it's just that you irritate the f**k out of me and I'm tired of it. Sorry. *Joe Tri10_ 22:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to be consistent with official sites and we don't have to be politically correct. Just accurate. Just because certain sites use certain formats doesn't mean we have to use said formats. Also, I should note that the FIA calendar doesn't include sponsors or the official names. Just pointing that out. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We also don't have to include content just because it's true and verifiable. It also has to be relevant to the article and that is a matter for consensus. Race titles are totally relevant to race articles, but not to season articles. In my opinion.

Joetri, go easy on the ad hominem stuff. Both you and TVX are a bit prone to getting personal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's also User:Hydrox and User:StandNThrow, neither of whom seem particularly keen to keep the column. It would be handy to know exactly where they stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why I suggested someone neutral summarizes the arguments for and against under a new heading, allowing us to take a fresh look at it and achieve a conclusion no matter for which side it is. Continuously throwing "your arguments are weaker" at each other isn't going to lead anywhere. Prisonermonkeys, I've pointed out earlier that consensus is not a vote, yet you go on to claim consensus on the basis of a head count. And I like to stress as well that it is not a rule that each discussion has to end in a consensus for either side of the argument. Sometimes there simply is no consensus. Tvx1 (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

By that token, if one or two editors hold out for ever, there's never a consensus. This is why I say you don't know what a consensus is. You're quoting an essay, which holds no power over anything. Sure, a simple head count is not the way to achieve consensus, particularly when it's a very close thing. But if a lengthy debate becomes something near a ratio of 3:1, it's very hard to claim no consensus. I've been involved in discussions much more finely-balanced than this, which are still closed (by a neutral party) for one side or the other. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire point of a consensus is to satisfy everyone. Where that is not possible, we need to satisfy as many people as possible as fully as possible. This is one of those times, because it is a case of either keeping the column or removing it. There is no real middle ground the way there was with the numbering issue. While Tvx is correct in saying that consensus is not a vote, Breton is equally correct in pointing out that this creates a loophole where a minority can prevent a consensus from forming.

These are some of the arguments that have been put forward in favour of removing the column. I believe most of them are individually strong enough to form a consensus, but every last one has been written off as weak or unproven. I would dearly like some explanations as to exactly why they are so poor, particularly with regards to how they are so weak when combined:

The FIA, the sport's governing body, does not recognise them as the official race names.
The majority of our most reliable, supplementary sources, do not use those titles as race names.
Individual race report articles are not named according to these titles. In fact, the formal titles of the races are only treated as an additional note within those articles.
This being the English-language Wikipedia, the emphasis should be on articles written in English, making the local names unnecessary.
The contents of the race title column are redundant. The only unique information that they contain is the names of the sponsors, and the importance of those sponsors to the individual races has not been demonstrated. Likewise, the importance of those sponsors to the season as a whole has not been demonstrated.

And there are probably a few more that I have forgotten. Nevertheless, I would like those in favour of keeping the column to explain to me how all of the above is a weak and/or unproven argument when taken as a whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The FIA, the sport's governing body, does not recognise them as the official race names
— User:Prisonermonkeys

Fair enough, The FIA doesn't use these titles on their calender. But that doesn't mean they don't recognize them at all.

The majority of our most reliable, supplementary sources, do not use those titles as race names
— User:Prisonermonkeys

True, but we have multiple sources that do use them and we have both of the versions of the titles which are used in the sources in the article. So we are giving each side its due weight.

Individual race report articles are not named according to these titles. In fact, the formal titles of the races are only treated as an additional note within those articles.
— User:Prisonermonkeys

We cannot use the official titles because of WP:COMMONNAME, which only applies to article titles. But more importantly, article titles are subject to different guidelines and policies than article content, which we have pointed out to you repeatedly, and as a result that argument is irrelevant.

This being the English-language Wikipedia, the emphasis should be on articles written in English, making the local names unnecessary
— User:Prisonermonkeys

Even with these race titles, some of which are foreign-language, 99% of the article is written in English. The emphasis is thus most certainly on English. The presence of the few foreign-language titles is informative and educational

The contents of the race title column are redundant. The only unique information that they contain is the names of the sponsors, and the importance of those sponsors to the individual races has not been demonstrated. Likewise, the importance of those sponsors to the season as a whole has not been demonstrated
— User:Prisonermonkeys

This being a deletion argument, the merits of that should be proven and thus the unimportance of the sponsors should be proven, which you have refused to do so far. Furthermore they give the official names as well, some of which are in foreign-language, the inclusion of which is informative and educational.

You say "informative", but it sounds a lot like WP:TRIVIA. Informative of what? What does the local language have to do with the season as a whole?

And you say "educational", but I do not think people read this article in the interests of learning a new language. If the article is to be educational, then surely the priority should be on educating readers about the sport.

Finally, I have not demonstrated the answer about the sponsors because I am the one asking the question. Joetri said that sponsors are essential to a race being run, and that without sponsors, the race could not go ahead. I asked him to substantiate that. Now you are asking me to do it for you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since my name was raised, yes I am fully in support of removing the column. I only agreed with Tvx initially on the issue of using non-latin characters, not keeping the column. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Furthermore, from reading through the debate again I noticed there was some agreement that having both the Race Title and Grand Prix columns was redundant, but it should be the Grand Prix column that is removed. I'll show why that won't work:

Round	Race title	Circuit	Date
8	Formula 1 Großer Preis von Österreich 2014	Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	22 June
10	Formula 1 Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland 2014	Hockenheimring, Hockenheim	20 July
11	Formula 1 Pirelli Magyar Nagydíj 2014	Hungaroring, Budapest	27 July

With only the foreign title in place, how would you expect most readers to know what Grand Prix is actually taking place? Are we to make our readers guess based upon the flag in the circuit column? We all know that Grands Prix do not always take place in the country they are named after, and that there are occasionally multiple races in one country a year, so this one would simply be maddeningly unhelpful.

In addition, every race article includes the formal race title, ie. The 2014 Australian Grand Prix (formally known as the 2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix) so to answer the argument that this is informative and educational I would point out that you can already come across this information. It is however, together with plenty of other information about individual races, unneeded on the season article. QueenCake (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Round	Race title	Circuit	Date
8	Formula 1 Großer Preis von Österreich 2014	Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	22 June
10	Formula 1 Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland 2014	Hockenheimring, Hockenheim	20 July
11	Formula 1 Pirelli Magyar Nagydíj 2014	Hungaroring, Budapest	27 July

This? *Joe Tri10_ 22:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't have a foreign-language link to an English-language Wikipedia article and make the reader click on it in order to understand what the hell it is he's reading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

--Falcadore (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So I propose this logical, sensible, mobile-friendly design that shows the name of the race in English and tells the reader which race it is without the need to use Google Translate or to click away from the article. Here is a sample:

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
8	Austrian Grand Prix	Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	22 June
10	German Grand Prix	Hockenheimring, Hockenheim	20 July
11	Hungarian Grand Prix	Hungaroring, Budapest	27 July

Note how it gives the reader all the information they'll actually need. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"You can't have a foreign-language link to an English-language Wikipedia article and make the reader click on it in order to understand what the hell it is he's reading" And why not?

Also you don't even need to click on the links, you just need to hover over it. Now you're just being difficult. On the topic of being mobile friendly though, how about we create two different columns so they don't need to click on anything? Oh wait. *Joe Tri10_ 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm holding back my first response to this. Are you seriously asking that first question? We're supposed to be making this clear and accessible, not forcing readers to jump through hoops in bloody foreign languages. I don't even really know why I'm bothering to answer that question. Secondly, not every user gets hover tooltips, so they are not to be assumed or relied upon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Joetri facepalm. That was a silly question. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. We should try and reduce the amount of foreign language bits to an absolute minimum. The race title column adds nothing, except a bit of obnoxiousity for the reader who isn't septlingual. Hover tooltips are kinda pointless on mobiles, and when I said "mobile-friendly" I was referring to the non-breaking spaces you can't see and the "Nat." column you can (explanation of everything is here). The official name of the race doesn't help you understand the season. —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed Joetri's proposal has "Formula 1 Pirelli Magyar Nagydij 2014" link to "Hungarian Grand Prix". In addition to the language issue, we cannot use it because the title has "2014" in it. Thus, the reader would expect the link to take them to "2014 Hungarian Grand Prix" (currently a redirect) and not "Hungarian Grand Prix". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other arguments that anyone wants to make, for either side of the debate? I think that just about every major argument that can be made has been made, and so it is time to decide. Do we keep the column, or do we delete it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My position is well-known: delete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia? OH and there's me thinking we were on the Russian Wikipedia. You're right though, best we alienate all foreign languages from this page as it's getting chock-a-block with them!

As for the space breaking stuff, all I did was edit your chart to feature the hyperlinks so don't start pointing fingers at me.

So bottom line is: we cant Hyperlink the foreign names because people shouldn't have to click everywhere yet we cant have both columns that explains the latter anyway because it's irrelevant to the page as a whole and plus it creates clutter, even though these specific titles are repeated in about 3 other charts anyway. In-fact funny enough, one of the tables feature them next to the countries flag and it would only take people to put 2+2 together to realize what the names representing giving them a somewhat educational and insightful input, something an encyclopedia is supposed to do. But I'm sure 'People shouldn't need to do that' right?. Your way or the high way yeh? Ok guys

Careful there PM, it almost sounded like you wanted a vote (again) *Joe Tri10_ 03:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a vote. I simply wanted people to re-state their positions in light of the most recent arguments, particularly now that we have some sample tables to consider. And I would like people to do it so we can see what the general position is.

As for your most-recent arguments, I am afraid I do not understand the first. It seems to be a case of "we should include them because even though we do not need them, we would not have them otherwise"

I also find the suggestion that pages like "Brazilian Grand Prix" should be linked through "Gran Premio do Brasil" instead of "Brazilian Grand Prix" to be a poor one, because the article is titled "Brazilian Grand Prix", and not "Gran Premio do Brasil". It sounds like making an edit for the sake of it, rather than because it meets the needs of the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing them here will take away their educational and informative purpose. Having them here allows the random English-only speaking reader to look up the meaning of this foreign language titles they will find on offial documents, programs and even their Grand Prix tickets. Having them on only the specific articles creates the necessity for that same random reader to already know their meaning to know where to search what their meaning actually is, thus actually takes away the opportunity to look-up their meanings. Tvx1 (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is it written that it is our job to inform and educate readers about other languages? It isn't. If I want to learn about the Hungarian language, then I will go to Hungarian language. This is the article for the 2014 Formula 1 season, and so if we are to be informing and educating readers about something, then it should be the 2014 Formula 1 season. To draw attention to the local name serves no purpose other than to point out the local name, and since its presence alone is more likely to confuse than inform, it is effectively WP:TRIVIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Joetri: The page has to be able to say the same things when in normal view and in a view there are no hyperlinks, images or tooltips. You are assuming that the user will know or to click or hover over the link. This is not something that can be guaranteed, hence we cannot do it. As for the Russian article, note that they have car launch dates and testing results. So are we going to follow that too? No, so why is that column so special? Heck, one of the reasons it is probably they is because the western world uses Latin script instead of Cyrillic. As for you argument of putting 2+2 together, think about it. Do we really want to force our readers to have to work something out when we could just tell them it instead?

To both Joetri and Tvx: removing the columns will take away the educational and informative purpose. But let us be honest, that educational purpose is not what we should be trying to achieve (we educate about F1, not foreign languages) and that informative purpose is not particularly useful (we are trying to inform the masses, not just those who look at official documents or wish to buy tickets. To be honest, those who wish to buy tickets are probably clever enough to work out which race they want anyway).

Re Tvx's last point: that is what redirects are for. —Gyaro –Maguus— 09:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We are educating about formula 1. In particular the controversial part of the table together with the Grand Prix table allow us to educate the English meaning of this season's race titles. We are not educating these languages in general by any means. I don't know why you even claim that. Right now we are being informative for everyone. Removing the column would cause us to be informative to everyone expect those who come across these titles and only understand English. That would severely limit our target audience. Tvx1 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that, as far as readers of the English wikipedia are concerned, the race titles are far more well known in English than they are in any other language, that is what we are required to provide. As far as we are concerned, readers do only understand English; we are not here to provide a foreign language service for our articles, or parts thereof. That's what other language Wikipedias are for. Incidentally, we do not have a "target audience" – we are not a blog, or an F1 website. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

...allow us to educate the English meaning of this season's race titles. I have no idea what you are on about there. This is not a valid point, as it is simply not true.
I don't know why you even claim that. I claim that because I cannot understand why else you would claim the column is educational.
Removing the column would cause us to be informative to everyone except those who come across these titles and only understand English. (typo corrected) That is not a valid point. People coming here won't want that information, so they'll probably care little about it.
That would severely limit our target audience. You are deluded if you think people will think "oh, this article sucks, I'm not going here again" if the race title column is removed. Sure, I doubt everyone will be happy with the idea, but let us be honest, it is not going to do anything to the article's popularity. Also, as Breton says, we don't have a proper target audience except those who wish to be informed about the goings on the season. The average reader probably doesn't care that the Abu Dhabi GP is sponsored by Etihad Airways, or that "Österreich" might mean "Austria". What if they do? Well, that person might search for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article or the Austria article, but they won't think "oh, I wonder what 'Hungarian Grand Prix' is in Hungarian? Which article could serve me well? Oh, the 2014 Formula One season article, of course!", but rather "the Hungarian Grand Prix article will probably tell me!". You are fighting a losing battle. So the information is not important. —Gyaro –Maguus— 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned, readers do only understand English; we are not here to provide a foreign language service for our articles, or parts thereof.
— User:Bretonbanquet

Indeed. That's why this column is useful. If allows our readers who "only speak English" to find out what this foreign language in some of the race titles means in English. But please do tell me, how on earth this same English-only speaking reader is supposed to find out what the meaning of Magyar Nagydij is in English on the Hungarian Wikipedia. Or how he/she can find out on the German Wikipedia what Großer Preis von Österreich means in English.

...allow us to educate the English meaning of this season's race titles. I have no idea what you are on about there. This is not a valid point, as it is simply not true.
I don't know why you even claim that. I claim that because I cannot understand why else you would claim the column is educational.
— User:GyaroMaguus

It's completely true. It allows us to educate random readers what the English meaning of the non-English race titles is. Not the other way round.

Removing the column would cause us to be informative to everyone except those who come across these titles and only understand English. (typo corrected) That is not a valid point. People coming here won't want that information, so they'll probably care little about it.
— User:GyaroMaguus

Sure, some people like you don't need that information because they already know. But again there will be people who don't and they can find that information here. And those people do exist. Hence why the race titles have been here without to much complaint for ten years now.

That would severely limit our target audience. You are deluded if you think people will think "oh, this article sucks, I'm not going here again" if the race title column is removed. Sure, I doubt everyone will be happy with the idea, but let us be honest, it is not going to do anything to the article's popularity. Also, as Breton says, we don't have a proper target audience except those who wish to be informed about the goings on the season. The average reader probably doesn't care that the Abu Dhabi GP is sponsored by Etihad Airways, or that "Österreich" might mean "Austria". What if they do? Well, that person might search for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article or the Austria article, but they won't think "oh, I wonder what 'Hungarian Grand Prix' is in Hungarian? Which article could serve me well? Oh, the 2014 Formula One season article, of course!", but rather "the Hungarian Grand Prix article will probably tell me!". You are fighting a losing battle. So the information is not important.
— User:GyaroMaguus

Indeed. There is no specific target audience. Our target audience is everyone. By removing the column we are creating a specific target audience by excluding an important number of readers. And you've given an example which is completely the opposite of what I'm talking about. Just imagine a random reader coming across "Magyar Nagydij" in an English source. Now that user might wonder what in earth "Magyar Nagydij" could mean. Now that same user notices that it's written in a source concerning the 2014 Formula One season. Well, might as well look it up on Wikipedia's 2014 season article. They should give the answer. Tvx1 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How long have you been here? Sign your posts! To the point, why would an English reader need to "find out" what the race titles mean in English? That's a perfectly ridiculous statement. You said, "But please do tell me, how on earth this same English-only speaking reader is supposed to find out what the meaning of Magyar Nagydij is in English on the Hungarian Wikipedia." What? Are you actually suggesting that someone who only reads English might look at the Hungarian Wikipedia? I have to say, with all due respect, some of the arguments coming from you and Joetri are utterly absurd. We are not "excluding" anyone by only writing in English. Your last scenario is as tenuous an argument as I've ever seen on a discussion page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, I reply more directly.

You appear to have misunderstood Breton. Also, with the way your target audience people are, I'm surprised that they would think to use the Hungarian WP in that situation. Also see 3/4 below.
So... we are not educating languages, but we are educating bits of other languages. Can't have both, but that is what you appear to be arguing.
& 4. Firstly, redirects. Magyar Nagydíj redirects to... Hungarian Grand Prix. Secondly, I believe it to be WP policy that we don't just put up information as per your example (I do not know the policy, but I'm sure someone can supply it). We are not meant to supply information "in case someone is curious and they will come to this more general article". We are an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not do that. Thirdly, we should not be writing the article with a target audience in mind. The following is the steps on judgment of content on WP:
1. Is it relevant? If not, we remove, even if sourced.
2. Is it sourced well? If not, we find a source; if unsourced, we remove.
3. Is it correct? If not, we remove, even if sourced.

Please note two things: target audience is not considered, and that your column fails step one. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To the point, why would an English reader need to "find out" what the race titles mean in English?
— User:Bretonbanquet

None of our concern. We concentrate on giving them the opportunity to do so, whatever their motivation might be.

Are you actually suggesting that someone who only reads English might look at the Hungarian Wikipedia?
— User:Bretonbanquet

No, you are by wanting to remove the column and leaving them with that as an alternative. And I quote you directly:

We are not here to provide a foreign language service for our articles, that's what other language Wikipedias are for.
— User:Bretonbanquet

That's, in part, where my answer was pertaining to. And i've already clarified that we're providing an English language service with the columns. Tvx1 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So... we are not educating languages, but we are educating bits of other languages. Can't have both, but that is what you appear to be arguing.
— User:GyaroMaguus

Neither of those. We're educating English

& 4. Firstly, redirects. Magyar Nagydíj redirects to... Hungarian Grand Prix.
— User:GyaroMaguus

I've already tried that. It leads me to a list of search results. It doesn't redirect me to Hungarian Grand Prix

Thirdly, we should not be writing the article with a target audience in mind.
— User:GyaroMaguus

I don't do that. You do. I write it with everyone in mind. You are only concerned with those who are well aware of Formula One, who do know a lot about Grands Prix and who are already aware of race titles and their meanings. That's fine for the Formula 1 Wiki, which you lead, but Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia so the expectation that readers should be familiar with Formula One does not exist. The assumption is that reader knows little if anything about F1.

## Is it relevant? If not, we remove, even if sourced.
## Is it sourced well? If not, we find a source; if unsourced, we remove.
## Is it correct? If not, we remove, even if sourced.
— User:GyaroMaguus

As I far as I can see it passes al three of these titles. It's not irrelevant just because you claim so. They are the names of the 2014 Grands Prix. Therefore they are very much relevant. Tvx1 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should give English speakers an opportunity to find out what the race titles are in English. I'm afraid that is nonsense. Are you saying that if someone finds "Magyar Nagydij" somewhere out in another source, he's going to come to this article and expect to find out what it means? Why on earth would he do that? If he came to this Wikipedia at all, he'd type "Magyar Nagydij" into the search engine and go straight to the point. Furthermore, why would he go to the Hungarian Wikipedia? If he knew to go there, he'd already know that "Magyar Nagydij" was Hungarian and his question is answered. Is this really the strength of your argument? I reiterate my claim that there is a consensus here to remove the column, and that the arguments for retention are extremely weak. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Magyar Nagydij" does redirect to Hungarian Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I made that redirect about 10 mins ago. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Now it does indeed. But it didn't when I tried a few days ago. But that's only one of them. It doesn't redirect to the correct articles for Gran Premio de Espana, Grande Premio do Brasil, Großer Preis von Österreich either. And than there is Gran Premio d'Italia which leads to an existing article on entirely unrelated matter. And I only mentioned those for this season only. Tvx1 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I'm more than happy to follow Bretonbanquet's earlier proposal and request closure of this debate. We do have a consensus to remove the column, even if two editors continually try to deny that. QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So what, have the arguments given by the users opposing the removal now become irrelevant, or what? Tvx1 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not irrelevant, no – we have given three weeks' consideration to them, which is a considerable length of time. But ultimately, we feel the discussion has ended in a consensus to remove the column. You win some, you lose some. We can either just close this ourselves and move on, or go through the long and tedious ANRFC process. The result will be the same, I am sure of that. By the way, do you honestly think that anyone will come to this site and do a search for Großer Preis von Österreich? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you see that consensus. In the past few hours I've been able to overthrow the arguments brought in favor of removal with quite some ease. Those who brought those arguments will deny that obviously. Just because there are three users agreeing with each other repeating the same arguments over and over again that doesn't mean there is a consensus. And to answer your final question. Like me and, ironically enough, you yourself have proven, there's not much alternative is there. The German Wikipedia won't help as you pointed out. Since I keep every reader in mind I'd prefer to cover any possibilities.

On a side note: I have found that Grand Prix de Suisse (or Großer Preis der Schweiz), Gran Premio di San Marino, Grande Premio de Portugal and Gran Premio de Argentina don't get you to the point either. Face it, the redirect alternative causes more problems than it solves. Tvx1 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

With ease? Yeah, because your arguments have been very, very, very, poor. You are contradicting yourself to a degree I've never seen before. We don't have to follow any other Wikipedia. We might as well ignore them. And we write stuff that is relevant and accurate, not what the odd user wants. The article is not meant to be a source of general information, as you appear to wish it to be; rather, a source of specific information. We do not have to keep every reader in mind. I know that sounds wrong, but encyclopedias are not written for the reader's ease of accessibility. Google is the way you find your general information. We display specific information. The column is excess and is not required. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, GyaroMaguus, that's where you're completely wrong. Wikipedia is not a specific purpose wikipedia. Your wiki may be used in that way. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. We do not assume any pre-existing knowledge of any reader. Falcadore acknowledges that as well and has in fact done so very recently in the discussion regarding double points you can find below. The column might not be absolutely required for the article, but that doesn't mean it cannot exist at all. Myself, *Joe Tri10_ and you yourself at the onset, although you have changed allegiance now, have clearly pointed out what it adds to the article. Tvx1 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You misinterpreted. The articles are the specific bits. On the whole, yes, the encyclopedia is general bit each article is a source of specific information. I completely take back all I said. It serves no useful purpose in the article. I've had enough of this discussion though. —Gyaro –Maguus— 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) You've overthrown nothing, TVX, as your latest arguments are barely coherent, showing a critical lack of understanding of the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Three users? There are at least five. Me, PM, GM, QC and Falcadore. Not everyone has the energy to keep on with this farcical discussion, but that does not make their arguments invalid.

Oddly enough, the German Wikipedia helps perfectly – type in Großer Preis von Österreich over there (as any sane person would, rather than here) and it takes you straight to the relevant page. I really can't understand why you think there might be foreign language redirects for English language articles. Wikipedia simply does not do that as a matter of course. There would be billions of them. If you don't believe me, try at the help desk. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as I predicted, complete denial

Three users? There are at least five. Me, PM, GM, QC and Falcadore.
— User:Bretonbanquet

I'm well aware that there are couple of additional users who have voted "I agree" but only PM, GM and yourself have brought well thought argument which myself and *Joe Tri10_ have countered.

Oddly enough, the German Wikipedia helps perfectly – type in Großer Preis von Österreich over there (as any sane person would, rather than here) and it takes you straight to the relevant page.
— User:Bretonbanquet

I know that, but I don't see anywhere on that article mentioned that Großer Preis von Österreich means Austrian Grand Prix in English (why would it, it's German Wikipedia after all) which it's what both columns here allow the random user to find out.

I really can't understand why you think there might be foreign language redirects for English language articles.
— User:Bretonbanquet

I didn't suggest that. —Gyaro –Maguus— did. GM suggested that the information that I pointed out can be found with the help of these columns can be just as easily found thanks to these redirects.

Having easily countered yet another set of arguments, I would like to point out that I get the feeling this isn't going to lead anywhere because the three of you are not willing to be convinced of the opposite. You're not open to the concept of being convinced of the usefulness of the column. You've decided beforehand that the consensus is going to be remove (Ironically enough, something you've accused me and Joetri of) and are not willing to allow this page to exist with the column intact by any means. I, on the other hand, I can assure you am very willing to be convinced of removal if some good, uncounterable arguments could be provided. There's however one thing I do agree upon with User:Bretonbanquet, it's probably the best option for all of us that we initiate a RFC, because than someone neutral will determine the outcome hopefully judged on the merits of the arguments and not solely on the numbers. Tvx1 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You've "easily countered another set of arguments"? And you dismiss QueenCake's contributions as nothing more than "I agree"? That astounds me. This is pointless. The ANRFC (specifically not an RFC) can't be opened until 9 April, at best. Until then, I suggest providing a clear precis of the arguments under a subheading so that the poor bastard who has to trawl through this crap can get a handle on it. We will be waiting for months otherwise, and that is not an exaggeration. Nobody will fancy doing it because it's an utterly ludicrous discussion with lengthy posts which make no sense whatsoever. I am assuming you will edit-war if the column is removed, so that is not an option – maybe you could confirm that for us, TVX. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot really claim to have "countered" or "overthrown" arguments, as it is purely subjective. You find our arguments to be weak, but what is stopping us from claiming that your counter-arguments are also weak?

Right now, this whole "educational and informative" argument is satisfying a need that is of a very low priority, if it is a priority at all. To me, it is trivia; it is essentially saying "this is the Austrian Grand Prix, and just in case you are interested, this is what Austrians call it".

We have demonstrated that only some official sources uses those titles, while others do not. We have demonstrated that most of our secondary sources do not use those titles. We have demonstrated that there is no precedent for the unnecessary use of foreign languages, and that Wikipedia actively discourages it.

Right now, your entire argument hinges on the supposed educational and informative value of the foreign language titles. But I will tell you this: I am an English teacher. If I set The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as a text for my students, I will tell them to read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I will tell them that it was originally written in Swedish by a Swede. But I will not give them the Swedish title. That is only used in the Swedish publications, and even if one was available to them, they would not be able to read it. I do not see much difference here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think ANRfC is necessary. We have the numbers for a consensus, and those numbers are stronger than they have ever been. I think we could reasonably declare a consensus, and if certain people choose to edit-war their preferred version of the table back in (something they have a history of doing), we can go to 3RR about it. They can deny the consensus exists, of course, but it is hard to argue against the numbers. ANRfC is little more than a formality, and given the aggressive tactics and deliberate stalling that those editors have resorted to in order to get their way, it is a courtesy that they do not deserve.

In a perfect world, we would come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone. That, however, is beyond us. It is quite clear that the minority will accept nothing less than the majority yielding to them. Again. This is the third time in about as many months that edits which should have been relatively straightforward to implement have been dragged through the wringer for weeks on end because of a small handful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you want a conclusion that would satisfy everyone yet you show no sign of negotiation Pm. You ask of more than what we can give and you know that, that's how you justify all of this, that's how you operate in all of these discussions. To seriously explain in the most simplistic way possible, the column we are trying to keep only adds information; useful or otherwise is a matter of opinion and opinion does not belong here. You're not even willing to let a neutral party come to give his two cents and instead insistent on having yet another head count (yes, you are). It makes me angry you think you can talk the way you do about this all things considered. I applaud Tvx1 for staying sane. *Joe Tri10_ 02:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "opinion does not matter"? Of course it matters. We could add a car release schedule, but we do not. We could add the start time for each race, but we do not. We could add another table showing licence penalty points, but we do not. We could include details of the number of kilometers each team, driver and engine completed in testing, but we do not. All of these could be considered "useful information", but they are not included because editors are of the opinion that they are not important enough for inclusion. Using your logic, anything could be added to the article and nothing would get removed because it is all "useful". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All within context. A lot of that is rather informative actually, if only to compare against previous years and to explain the fall of the Lotus in this early half however we'd need a section dedicated to the pre-season testing and I'm rather confused on why we don't seeing as it's just as relevant to the season as anything. Penalty Points may deserve a quick mention once the year is over if anything significant happens like say if someone acquires enough points to warrant a ban etc. If you take away that which brings the content relevant then of course it would become debatable and if it were to be added without proper means or explanation it will look cluttered. There is a lot we could actually do to bring the season together in a bigger picture without focusing too heavy on the championship alone (Which takes up rather a lot of the page) but I'm sure I will get arguments up the arse again about that. As I said, a lot of what happens on here is dictated on opinion rather than anything else which is increasingly apparent with you Pm as you have questioned every part of this once widely established way of operating. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just a thing. Of course opinion is going to be apart if all things on Wikipedia but there's opinion and there's assumptions. All of this They shouldn't have to They wont know Why is it? What does it should hold no ground when all this does is add information that is completely dictated on opinion. We are just trying to bulk the informative aspects of the page whether you deem it relevant of not and for some reason you guys are arguing like it will confuse someone to death if they read it. *Joe Tri10_ 12:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I wouldn't be accusing people of dragging things on when you've been the main force behind all of the conflict on this page. Just saying. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything in this article is included because it's our opinion to include it. Nothing is mandatory and nothing is forbidden. We can't have an empty page, and we can't include every minute detail about the 2014 season. So we include what is relevant, in our opinion. Most of it we agree upon, some things we don't. We draw the line between providing information crucial to the 2014 season, and deciding that some information might be best placed elsewhere.

This article is like a lead article for all things F1 in 2014. Below this are the race reports, the driver articles, the team articles, the car articles, all the technical stuff. But this article is the more generalised summary of what F1 in 2014 is all about and should not be bloated. With that in mind, any information that is not crucial to the two championships would be better served in another article. We do not include here any information about the cars' gearboxes or exhaust systems; we don't include the teams' technical staff; we don't include drivers' middle names or helmet designs; we don't include race details like reasons for retirement or qualifying positions – all this stuff is important, but it belongs elsewhere where readers will find it if they want to. I believe that official race titles fall into that category. There's no point in trying to include everything here. Obviously any information should be taken on its merits and its inclusion or exclusion is wholly subject to our opinion – everything is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But none of that is remotely equivalent to say, pre-season testing or giving titles. I can agree, everything you gave as an example does belong in their respective articles however partnering the common name and the official name is argumentative. It is as relevant as it's sister and its usage is to expand on the purpose of being. now sure,and yes, on the race's own article it features their official name and that's good but the main area of these arguments are revolving around which name serves a greater purpose and the idea that we must remove something is for some reason very strong and this is where the idea of 'opinion' is playing. Neither side can seem to agree or budge on a stand point but to say we are more in the wrong is untrue as although I've displayed behavior not fit for purpose, Tvx1 has in fact expressed that he is willing to change his view if he his met with much better arguments but that seems to have gotten ignored. It's really rather obvious what this entire discussion is really about, at least on one side. *Joe Tri10_ 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But you understand that that's your point of view and not ours. My opinion is that official race titles are on a par with the other race details which we don't include, and that all of that stuff belongs in the race articles. I assume you mean it's arguable. The official race title is not as relevant as the generic English race title, as those are what the articles themselves are named after. They have to be included as they provide the direct link to the race articles, and to say the official race titles carry the same weight is not mirrored in the article titles.

It's true that neither side seems willing to budge because it's a straight yes or no question. There isn't really any middle ground. You either think it belongs here or you don't. To me, the more I look at it, the more I feel it's odd they are present in this article. While you and TVX have lost your cool on occasion, it's no big deal. But I don't accept that TVX is willing to change his opinion because there's no evidence of it. It hasn't been ignored. He may say, "Come up with a better reason and I might agree with it," but frankly I don't think it's remotely likely. I know you both think the race titles are relevant to the 2014 season, but when pressed on exactly why they are relevant, your reasoning seems very weak to me. We are not advocating deleting this information, just leaving it in its more relevant place, i.e. the race articles. There just seems to be a total lack of recognition that on this simple 50/50 question of inclusion/exclusion, the weight of opinion is quite squarely for exclusion. I'm not sure what you think this discussion is "really about". Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that we have the numbers for a consensus. The majority of editors are in favour of removing the column. And while I appreciate the way some users are open to changing their minds if they can be persuaded to do so, no-one is such an ultimate authority that their support is needed to form a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that we have pointed out repeatedly that consensus is not about numbers. It's about the merits of the arguments. Yet you keep giving priority to a simple "adding-up of the votes". This is exactly why I suggested to get an outside, neutral opinion on this matter. We have multiple options at our disposal to achieve that. Third Opinion, Request for Comment or even Request for Closure. However, you seem to be so confident that your consensus, based solely on head-count, will be endorsed, that you are reluctant to even consider these options. And explain to me, if the consensus is so obvious and indisputable as you claim it to be, why would the full protection of the page have been extended for another 2 days. Tvx1 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

TVX, at what stage do you think it does become about numbers? Hypothetically, a ratio of 3:1, 5:1, 10:1? Or is it always about the "merit of the argument"? Because I'm wondering if you only consider a unanimous discussion to be a consensus. You know of course that you don't need anyone's permission to ask for a third opinion or a RfC, so do it. Lastly, you don't think anyone out there but us is reading this stuff, do you? The admin just sees an ongoing argument and extends the protection, which will now extend into the race weekend. Round of applause. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out to you, you can deliberately prevent a consensus from being formed by denying the arguments have merit, regardless of the actual merit - which you are clearly doing. I suspect that if we go to ANRfC, and the result comes back in favour if removing the column, you would still deny it. You have not made an actual argument for some time; instead, all you do is stall. Ideally, everyone would agree on everything, but when that is not possible, we have to satisfy the needs of as many people as possible as much as possible. The current direction that the opinion is going does just that.

A request for closure is not an option. The majority opinion is in favour of one course of action, but a request for closure would end the discussion and settle the issue in favour of the minority.

As for the protection being extended, someone has obviously been watching this conversation, and clearly does not believe some people can refrain from edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As in yourself included I assume. *Joe Tri10_ 21:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"a request for closure would end the discussion and settle the issue in favour of the minority." – How so? I rather suspect the opposite, having had experience of ANRFC. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Confused it with something else. I'm open to it, but I think it is unnecessary. We have enough for a consensus without it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)