Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Order of Toro Rosso drivers

I thought we usually sorted drivers by car number? So shouldn't Gasly be before Kvyat? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, we have always order them on the rounds column. Drivers who replaced one another are grouped and ordered vertically in chronological order. See this discussion which you contributed to. You even signaled your agreement with the principle.Tvx1 13:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I totally remembered the outcome of that discussion wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As well as your own contributions to it, apparently.Tvx1 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion because Palmer is out at Renault. It's expected that Sainz will take his place, allowing Gasly and Kvyat to race in Austin. Assuming that all of this plays out this way, how do we represent it in the table? The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–17
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

Or:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
10	Pierre Gasly	17

The first version is tidier, but the second is more accurate because Gasly replaced Kvyat in Malaysia and Japan, and Sainz in Austin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The bottom version is what we always tend to do.Tvx1 12:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — is it? I can't remember the last time something like this happened. I do it a lot on WRC articles, but that's because of the way points are awarded and it isn't a concern here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally find the first version cleaner and easier to understand as it keeps everything in its own column, whereas the latter is just splitting the same driver into two columns, making it - in my opinion: harder to follow. Abdotorg (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s why we have the rounds column. It shows clearly who replaced whom and where. Prisonermonkeys, see Benetton in 1994.Tvx1 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — thanks. It's obviously a pretty rare occurrance, so 1994 slipped my memory. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It actually applied to two teams that year, it happened at Lotus as well. Also, HRT in 2011 has sprung to my mind.Tvx1 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — you're right. They completely slipped my mind. But I tend to tune out once it becomes obvious that Hamilton or Vettel is going to win the title, which is probably why I forgot. I can't stand either of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I find the 1994 and 2011 examples quite weak, because back then, a replacement driver would take over a car with a certain race number, which is not the case anymore. Just something to think about. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, they still replace a particular driver and the effect on the rounds column is still the same. And we have always given priority to that column instead of the numbers.Tvx1 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys, you are rushing a bit. We need to wait till Gasly will be confirmed for Austin. There is still a big possibility that he will do Super Formula finale. [1] Corvus tristis (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that, without the race numbers, this is just confusing to laymen readers of the article. No one who knows little about Formula 1 will understand why Gasly is listed twice. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the round column serves to explain the information and the order of it. I actually think that listing Gasly just once creates more confusion. As you can see in the above example that leaves both the number column and the rounds column in some unexplained random mumble jumble. The first row has Kvyat entered in rounds 1-14 and 17. Fair enough. But what happened in round 15 and 16? Ah, The second row then has Gasly who apparently replaced him for those rounds, but wait! It has Gasly for round 17 as well, where Kvyat was entered and didn't have to be replaced? What's the point of that? Maybe the third row helps? No, that one just has Sainz from rounds 1-16. But where's round 17? I guess he was replaced and his replacement is underneath. No wait? There is no fourth row?? Who replaced him then? Was it maybe Gasly??? Or Kvyat????. The second table gives a much much clearer picture of who replaced whom and where.Tvx1 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I know it seems redundant to include Gasly twice, but it's a by-product of organising drivers based on the rounds they were entered in. It's more important that we indicate which round(s) they contested than it is to have a "neat" table. Editing decisions should prioritise content, not article aesthetics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — do you actually read Wikipedia articles before you edit them, or do you just charge in? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you read links which I provide in the edit summary or you just to lazy for this? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I read the links. But it's not my responsibility to fix your half-arsed edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hooray! It only took you four attempts to get it right. Perhaps in future a little more attention to detail in your editing would go a long way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My "half-arsed edits" are edits at least unlike your barbaric biased actions. Like when you removed information about Palou without a reason. You have a responsibility not to add inaccurate information, which you have done two times. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have rushed into an article and repeatedly insisted on making changes without thinking about how those changes affected the article, like you did with Correa. How about you stop and think about what you're doing before you do it? That way we wouldn't be in this mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably you should try to think about your actions. And if you bothered to read WP:IMPERFECT, nobody asks for perfection. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you revert edit only because you don't like wording, than change it instead of pushing undo link. It was not that hard to add that Correa "is an American driver". But you always want only escalation with editors and not to collaborate for the common cause of Wikipedia, so you are reverting. It seems that you are cleary WP:NOTHERE. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Too err may be human, but to make the same mistake twice is stupid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was a stupid mistake from your side to add incorrect information twice that Gasly confirmed for Austin. You are not hopeless. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to you. You made the mistake of not reading the article and thinking about how your changes might affect it with Correa. That's fine. But then you did it again with Gasly, which was just stupid. Sure, I could have made the changes for you, but then you wouldn't have learned from your mistake. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was an irony, wise guy. I have read all the articles in which I have left an edit. So, I don't need your "lessons", which provides only disruption and false information. It is a way more stupid to provide data which is opposite to the facts. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"I have read all the articles in which I have left an edit."

So why did you leave text in the article saying Gasly would replace Sainz?

"It is a way more stupid to provide data which is opposite to the facts."

There was no source in the article to justify the removal of Gasly. Gasly had previously been announced by the team, so removing him meant making a change to the article that required a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Because I haven't paid enough attention for this (at least I can recognize my mistakes, you should try to recognize your mistakes sometime). But if you noticed that I missed this text in the first place, it makes your actions nonconstructive, and your desire to "teach a lesson" isn't an excuse for your disruptive editing. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, where you can "teach" editors which you don't like. Where is your WP:GOODFAITH, which you have required from me sometime ago? I have provided a source in the edit summary. I'm not obliged to put the source in an article every time I made an edit, especially when I am removing outdated and incorrect information. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Any change to an article that adds or removes content requires a source. You claimed that there was a change: that Gasly had been announced prematurely. Thus, you need to provide a source in the article. Putting it in the edit summary is not good enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If content is incorrect I don't have to put a source for removal. WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You restored the unverifiable material as the source (that claimed that Gasly will race at Austin) became outdated. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about your original claim. You cannot remove established content from a stable article without a source. The inclusion of Gasly replacing Sainz was based on this source from Autosport, which had the team announcing Gasly and Kvyat for the Austin race. Your edits removed Gasly, contradicting this source and without offering a valid source in the article to support the removal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that is plainly ridiculous. There is no policy or guideline that dictates us including a source in an article to support content that is no there in the article. Corvus tristis has cited the relevant policies and you should read WP:VERIFY as well. The source they provided in the edit summary is more than enough. It's crystall clear with its revelation that Toro Rosso's Austin announcement was premature. There should never have been such a childish discussion about such a simple issue.Tvx1 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, we had a valid source (which is still in the article as source #59) stating that Gasly would race. Even if it was premature of STR to announce it, that doesn't invalidate the source. Corvus tristis removed that content, but did not provide an alternate source. So we had a source claiming Gasly would race, but the article contradicted it and provided no alternative evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That source should have been removed in the first place since Toro Rosso themselves contradicted it.Tvx1 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that source was used to confirm Kvyat, which wasn't a contentious claim. So either the source needed to be replaced with one confirming Kvyat, but not Gasly, or a new source stating Gasly would not race needed yo be added. You cannot remove content without a source when said removal leaves the article contradicting the sources. Corvus tristis got it wrong. He raced in and removed Gasly from the table when he should have removed Gasly from the table and from the text and provided an alternate source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditorAU — this edit doesn't really work. Sure, it's relevant right now, but what is the article going to look like in a week from now? Wikipedia is not news; it's an encyclopaedia. The trick is to keep one eye on what's relevant right now, and one eye on what the article will look like a year from now, and balance the two out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In 7 days or less, we'll know for sure who's driving in the US. I think we should not mention in article, as it'll become irrelevant very quickly as Prisonermonkeys has said. Let's just wait til they arrive in the US and we find who's actually racing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And we have to remember what we're writing about here—the 2017 championship. So what's the most important detail here: that Gasly will not race in Austin, or that he is off competing in the Super Formula finale? It's true that we set up some context to each driver, but we don't document everything that they do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as the 2017 championships is concerned, what he does during the Austin weekend is irrelevant and should not be mentioned here. That information belongs in his biography. What is relevant here is who Toro Rosso do enter for the USGP and what result they achieve.Tvx1 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

According to ESPN, Hartley is replacing Gasly – not Sainz – for the USGP, and is therefore in Kvyat's original car, whereas Kvyat is now effectively in Sainz's car. Should the table therefore be amended to reflect this? Such as:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
39	Brendon Hartley	17
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	17

deaþe/gecweald (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, the F1 website confirms this too. The way to tell is that the car previously driven by Sainz had the yellow T-cam, which Kvyat is now driving. The one originally driven by Kvyat and then Gasly and now Hartley has the black T-cam. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure they can switch those T-cams if they wish to do so.Tvx1 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's reading a bit too much into the T-cam casings. The T-cams are used purely for identification (and their significance has faded with the advent of super-sized numbers and three-letter codes); there is no regulation dictating which driver carries which colour within a team. It's about as significant as which side of the garage a driver is set up in. I think we would also need to do a lot of work to explain the change in the article for something that is purely cosmetic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Hartley has a 25-place grid penalty for exceeding his quota of power unit components, even though it's his first race. He gets the penalty because the power units are assigned to the car, not the driver. Sainz used the components up and now the change has been introduced, so the car that was #55 gets the penalty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, according to the FIA's own documents, the power unit components used by Sainz have been allocated to Kvyat for this race. Sainz was penalised in Japan for using a 6th MGU-H, 5th ICE and 5th TC. The allocations announced at the beginning of the USGP weekend show Kvyat as having already used 6 MGU-Hs, whereas Hartley was on his 5th. (Hartley's 25 place penalty included 5 places for taking his 6th MGU-H.) Therefore, as far as the FIA are concerned, Hartley has inherited Gasly's (previously Kvyat's) car, and Kvyat has inherited Sainz's. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — please read this discussion. The consensus is to arrange the table based om the rounds column, not the number column. It has been that way since personal numbers were introduced in 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a hidden comment present in the tables since 2015: "As per the consensus established following the change in the number system, teams will now be arranged in the table ALPHABETICALLY by constructor, with the drivers in each team arranged NUMERICALLY." The consensus you mentioned seems to be in direct contradiction with the consensus mentioned in this comment. cherkash (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That comment has been copy-pasted into future articles for years. I for one completely forgot that it was there. Nevertheless, a new consensus has been formed: alphabetically by constructor, then based on rounds, then numerically by driver number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to the thread showing how this new consensus has been formed? cherkash (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a link in the second comment in this section. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tidied up the prose in the article. It's very complex at the moment (and it's about to get even moreso—Hartley replaced Gasly who replaced Kvyat; now Toro Rosso have confirmed Gasly and Hartley for Mexico, which means one driver technically moves to the other car, the ex-Sainz car), and detailing all of the changes is going to overwhelm the section. I've managed to cut 600kB from the article simplifying it to say that Toro Rosso rotated Kvyat, Gasly and Hartley between seats. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on muddying the waters and making it more difficult to find out what actually happened? See for comparison my latest edit where I made it clear who replaced whom. Your actions don't make any sense to me: on one hand, you insist on senseless details like two separate rows for Kvyat in the table (out of which you surmise the readers will have to deduce who replaced whom in what car) where on the other hand you refuse to actually spell out all these details in the prose below the table. cherkash (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a complex issue and discussing it would rely too much on minutae that distracts from the main point of the article. Like I said, Hartley replaced Gasly who replaced Kvyat, and now Toro Rosso have confirmed Gasly and Hartley for Mexico, which means one driver technically moves to the other car. What's the more important point here: that Toro Rosso rotated their drivers between cars across the last six races, or that we detail precisely which drivers contested which rounds? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out: I've read that 2015 discussion Joseph2302. Seems it ended without much conclusion, and the arguments used towards the end of the discussion were on cosmetic grounds (like re-sorting, and spanned-rows splitting) which are not too strong to decide how to present the primary info.

The question in my mind really boils down to what is the "primary" row in the table: is it 1) an instance of a driver participating in the championship under a unique car number + team combination (this combined definition should cater to both pre- and post-2014 systems), or 2) an instance of a driver driving a particular "car" as defined recently by the continuity of counting engine components, etc., but which is not well-defined prior to a couple years back (as multiple cars were used by the same drivers in a given season, without such sequence being tracked in any special way before the limitations on the number of units used were introduced). So I think we should address this question as this will define eventually in a logical way how we build up these tables every season. cherkash (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Seems it ended without much conclusion"

And yet editors agree that a consensus was born out if it. At WT:F1, you're in the process of arguing that there is a clear consensus, even if one user disagrees with it—but here, you're arguing that an established consensus is weak and that as the lone dissenting voice, it doesn't apply. So which is it going to be? You cannot have it both ways.

"So I think we should address this question as this will define eventually in a logical way how we build up these tables every season."

That question has already been addressed. The rounds column takes priority over numbers (unless drivers contest the same rounds), and we use it in such a way that we show who replaced whom. I think you're placing far too much emphasis on Toro Rosso's current driver swaps, but this is precisely what the consensus was designed to address. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar to what has been shown a few times in the past, you are bending the truth here Prisonermonkeys. Your selective interpretation of events is pretty misleading.

• For once, what do you even mean by the "lone dissenting voice"? You like to throw things around which make no sense, and which are being taken out of context.
• Second, that discussion was illuminating, but my commentary above applies: from having read it, I couldn't see much consensus being formed. It even ended with the last comment being "... Therefore it's a no go" which applied to an editor's opinion about a minor formatting issue; and just because no one contradicted it, and presumably people just moved on to better things, it's claimed there was a consensus formed.
• Third, even if the editors who participated back then do generally agree there was a consensus (and it's an "if"), there is enough reason to re-visit it now in view of the recent situation and the question that was raised how to best deal with it.
• Reading it carefully, it was you who claimed "it's a bad idea to edit based on obscure hypothetical situations" and here we are, dealing with what could back then be considered an "obscure hypothetical situation" on the basis of discussion in which you explicitly refused to discuss what to do in such hypothetical situations. It's a bad idea to form generic prescriptions while refusing to deal with hypotheticals, but then try to apply those generic prescription to "obscure hypothetical situations" that eventually arise. Do you see why?
• Also, There were blatant misrepresentations of the commonality (or a lack of) of certain prior editing decisions. E.g., it was claimed "This has been the way it's been done for every year since F1 started, listing all the drivers of 1 of the team's car, followed by all the drivers of the team's other car". This is an example of a nonsensical statement: until fairly recently, there was no such thing as a car continuity across the races. Meaning, there was no entity called "a team's car" which was tracked from one GP to the next. The teams were free to field whatever actual physical cars they seemed fit, without any repercussions or any limits imposed on these cars' configurations, on how extensively they were re-built, or even a quantity of such cars used throughout the season. There could even be cars swapped between the drivers in the same GP event, there could be main cars replaced with spare cars, etc. There was an at-times vague idea of an entry (having been allocated a certain entry number for a given GP), but even that had absolutely no continuity across the races for the first couple decades of F1. So even if there's a perception of a consensus that has been built back in 2015 when the discussion took place, it was partially based on very shaky ground.

As I said, I believe it makes sense to re-visit that discussion – or rather, specifically how we deal with a) the current situation in Toro Rosso and its presentation in the table and b) how Kvyat's participations are represented in the table. cherkash (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"what do you even mean by the "lone dissenting voice"?"

You.

"it's claimed there was a consensus formed."

What do you think a consensus looks like? A statement in bold that says "All involved editors are in agreement, which means we have a consensus and that consensus is [...]"? I've never seen a consensus formed like that. And there is an entire form of consensus that can be established through the natural process of editing.

"So even if there's a perception of a consensus that has been built back in 2015 when the discussion took place, it was partially based on very shaky ground."

Only if you assume it applies to all articles, which it does not. It applies to articles from 2014 onwards when the numbering system was changed.

"how Kvyat's participations are represented in the table"

Kvyat replaced Sainz in Austin, which is what the table shows. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see all of this before I made my edit; I came to this page looking to confirm all of the drivers who drove for Toro Rosso this year and found it confusing that 5 were listed. Given that a reader shouldn't have to come to the talk page to comprehend the material in the article, and that in the past numbers were assigned to the cars whereas now they are assigned to the drivers, I feel listing Kvyat once makes more sense, and I don't see anything approaching consensus above that indicates otherwise, but revert away if you feel strongly. -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was achieved years ago. A discussion about it is linked somewhere. We don't need to establish a new consensus to reaffirm a new consensus. You are putting way to much emphasis on the numbers. We have always given precedence on the rounds column because that one is the vehicle that gives us best option to display who was entered with which car and where.Tvx1 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can understand where Sketchmoose is coming from, but support the current version of the article. Kvyat did not simply return to Toro Rosso in Austin and normal service resumed—he returned to the team to replace Sainz. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand this approach in previous years, when each team had 2 car numbers, regardless of who was driving said car, and in this circumstance it made sense to have the same driver appearing twice in the same team. However, given the drivers have a single number, regardless of which car they drive. It seems a bit pointless having the same driver appear twice in a single team's section - surely the note would suffice to let the reader know he has in fact driven 2 cars. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1: so two more editors (Sketchmoose and Wikipediaeditperson) have just raised essentially the same concern I have with the current version of the page – Kvyat's two entries in the table are misleading and serve no purpose in explaining clearly what's going on. The table's primary purpose is to show drivers and teams that participate in the championship (along with some other details: car/driver numbers, engines, etc.), but not necessarily the virtual idea of "cars" as used by the FIA to track the use of engine components as has been done only in the last couple years. So it makes no sense to list Kvyat twice. If there is an insistence on having table reflect the "car" in the latter sense (for FIA tracking purposes), this information has to be added to the table and explained explicitly – without it the hidden/assumed information like this is not clear to a reader and it's more confusing than illuminating. So it's just a bad presentation. cherkash (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"So it makes no sense to list Kvyat twice"

Except for the way he took over the car Sainz had been driving, while Hartley in his original car, took a grid penalty. Therefore, Kvyat avoided a penalty, but listing him once implies something different to what actually happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The list is not a list of cars, it is a list of Teams and Drivers, therefore given Kvyat hasn't moved teams, nor has any of his driver information changed (he hasn't changed his number, his nationality, his name etc.), surely he should only appear only once, supported by a note explaining that he has in fact driven 2 "cars". Also, as Cherkash has mentioned, the "cars" are just a virtual idea to keep track of engine components - drivers change chassis, engines etc. regularly, so they aren't really driving the same "car" all season. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure they drive the same cars. The change of power unit components, gearboxes, survival cells etc is subject to strict regulations. They can't do that at will. Anyway, not listing Kvyat twice does more bad than good. I have already explained before how that would leave the rounds column in an illogical mess.Tvx1 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at this table for the first time, and it is not remotely clear why Kvyat is listed twice. Tables do need to be clear and easy to understand at a glance, and if you have to look it up on the talk page, it is not reader friendly. It's going to need to be changed, and the simplest way is just listing Kvyat once. Older articles (i.e 2010 with Yakamoto) can list a driver twice because they track car numbers, but now F1 has changed to driver numbers there is no visual aid demonstrating that someone drove two cars.

I do not believe there is a consensus, as this is the first time a driver has used both cars within a team since 2014, and the linked discussions have not dealt directly with the matter. QueenCake (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How much effort does it actually take to read the rounds column?? And the linked discussion have actually directly mentioned such a situation.Tvx1 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I have to say that a lot of this feels like a response to Toro Rosso's driver merry-go-round which I think we can all agree is very unusual. I for one would be very hesitant about making changes with the potential to completely alter how we structure a table based on an isolated incident. The current solution might not be perfect (but better than the proposed alternative), but sometimes you just have to go with an awkward solution. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The complication is created by the real-life situation, not by us.Tvx1 20:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that Hartley has chosen 28 as his race number from Mexico onwards, haven't added yet as I wasn't sure whether this required another row, as is the case with Kvyat driving Sainz's car in the USA. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb2007 — yes it would. Hartley raced at #39 in Austin and #28 in Mexico. We might not need an entirely new row depending on which car he drives. It may look something like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18

But only if he is driving the same car as he did in Austin. Either way, a new row is needed because Gasly and Hartley drove the same car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 With regards to my comment above, I was not saying they just swap cars at will, but almost every driver will have at least 1 chassis change per season, and this in conjunction with the engine changes mean that few if any components will be on the car at the end of the season as at the start, and thus the competitor is driving a completely different car. This is why I don't see the reason for putting Kvyat on twice, simply because he drove a different "car", despite the fact that "cars" are merely a mechanism used by the FIA to track changes with regards to Gearboxes and Engines. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In Hartley's situation, I understand the need for a new row, given he has changed number, but this didn't happen with Kvyat, so surely a new row for him is just adding confusion - If Hartley drives the same car as Austin, and therefore Gasly drives Sainz's (Kvyat in Austin) car, given Hartley has changed number, there will be 7 rows in TR for 4 drivers. It seems a bit ludicrous to me. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And that's Toro Rosso's fault, not ours. They have created this situation which is equally ludicrous with 5 or 7 rows. Again see the rounds column.Tvx1 22:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can blame Toro Rosso for our failure to provide the information about their drivers in a clear and concise manner. I have seen the rounds column, and I don't understand the problem with having it say "1-14, 17" for Kvyat, and this information being supported by a note explaining that he drove 2 different "cars". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso have just announced that Gasly and Hartley will see out the season, which means the "tidy" version of the table would look like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

Sure, it minimises the number of rows, but you've got to stop and think about it to figure it out. Conversely, the other version looks like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	17
10	Pierre Gasly	18–20

It might look clumsy and redundant in places, but it makes the driver changes easier to follow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really make the driver changes any easier to follow, because you are simply splitting the TR drivers into 2 imaginary rows which signify the 2 TR "cars", but there is no attempt to convey this information to the reader. Essentially you have put the table below, without the "car" column, and this doesn't make sense to the reader if the "car" column isn't present, but the "car" column can't be present either, as the "cars" don't actually exist in the form of "Car 1 and 2". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Car	No.	Name	Rounds
Car 1	26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
	10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
	39	Brendon Hartley	17
	28		18–20
Car 2	55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
	26	Daniil Kvyat	17
	10	Pierre Gasly	18–20

It does make the driver changes easier to follow. It provides a clear chronology of the driver changes in the rounds column. Remove the repeated names and you end with Hartley put at some random place with his 17 and 18, leaving our readers having to guess who he replaced. I really don't understand why some people are so offended by having the same name twice. If the different rows create so much confusion, I'd consider adopting a style with much less lines like the one we used in 2014 and 2015. Something like this:

Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3 33	Daniel Ricciardo Max Verstappen	1–18 1–18	—
Renault Sport Formula One Team	Renault	27	Nico Hülkenberg	1–18	46	Sergey Sirotkin
		30 55	Jolyon Palmer Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16 17–18
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	9	Marcus Ericsson	1–18	37	Charles Leclerc
		36 94	Antonio Giovinazzi Pascal Wehrlein	1–2 1, 3–18
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso	26 10 28	Daniil Kvyat Pierre Gasly Brendon Hartley	1–14 15–16 17–18	38	Sean Gelael
		55 26 10	Carlos Sainz Jr. Daniil Kvyat Pierre Gasly	1–16 17 18
Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	18	Lance Stroll	1–18	—
		19 40	Felipe Massa Paul di Resta	1–18 11

That way, the driver groupings are much clearerTvx1 13:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, to address your reply to me, the rounds column did not explain why Kvyat is listed twice. It presented that Kvyat entered the USGP but did not indicate why this was different from his previous races.

I think that you and Prisonermonkeys should consider what you are trying to achieve, and how best to do it in a way that is clear to readers with minimal knowledge of the sport. I don't think it is necessary to present every piece of information in the table, particularly when we start to torture the table to do so. Adding an extra column to address one incident adds complexity - we have ten columns already - having drivers listed across multiple rows is unclear for the aforementioned novice reader. As of writing the driver row now has seven entries for four drivers, which is rather ridiculous. The situation is complex enough to merit leaving it out of the table, and explaining it succinctly in prose.

Someone has now added notes to the table, which I suggest to be used with a simplified table as follows:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

-QueenCake (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, with QueenCake - this format makes the most sense. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it leaves the whole thing in an illogical mess. Brendon Hartley ends randomly put somewhere in that list of drivers and there is no way to know who he replaced. And absolutely nobody is actually suggesting adding an extra column. I don't know where that idea comes from.Tvx1 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with that. It's not clear who replaced Sainz in that version and the reader has to stop of puzzle out who was actually driving in the final rounds. Reducing the entries to four lines seems to be a purely aesthetic choice, and editing decisions should not be based solely on aesthetics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 It is not difficult to work out who Hartley replaced, you can simply read the note. Also, you said no-one was suggesting adding an extra column - your current approach requires the invention of a virtual column ("cars"), which I showed above as a real column in order to demonstrate how the current table design relies on a column that doesn't exist, and is not explained to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1 you do know who he replaced, by reading the text below the table. And if it is necessary, you can add a note as demonstrated. A table is more of a visual medium than prose, and greater concern needs to be placed on how it is presented. Aesthetics is important when it effects readability. I argue that which driver replaced which is not that important in the context of the season, that it is more user friendly to not represent the change visually and explain it in prose, than it is to keep the table as it is now and leave readers wondering why Kvyat is listed twice and Alonso once. QueenCake (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"A table is more of a visual medium than prose, and a greater concern needs to be placed on how it is presented."

Which is exactly what the current table does. It is a visual representation—the reader can clearly see who replaced whom and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The current representation is far from clear. The list of Toro Rosso drivers have been split into 2 separate rows to represent their 2 "cars", without any separation between the 2 rows, and no attempt to convey this information to the reader. The simple approach is to show the reader which races each driver took place in, and then they can read the notes if they wish to find out which driver they replaced, or which imaginary "car" they drove. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Wikipediaeditperson. It's not clear at all, not to anyone who doesn't already know what the table is trying to do. I think enough users have argued the point now that the concern cannot just be written off, and if a number of us are confused, many more readers are as well. QueenCake (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already put a proposal up here that seperates the groups of drivers more clearly.Tvx1 17:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, you said "I have already put a proposal up here" - I feel that QueenCake's proposal was the one that led to the least confusion. However, clearly you are suggesting we can only choose one of your proposals as the route forward, and this appears to be common place in F1 related edits, where decisions are made by yourself and Prisonermonkeys and you expect the other editors to simply follow your lead, even when there are valid proposals to the contrary. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one prioritising form over function. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is that? I just mentioned my proposal in reply to your complaint about there not being enough separation between rows. I made that proposal when you raised that concern for the first time and I mentioned it again because I am under the impression it hasn't really be looked at. And QueenCake's proposal doesn't work because of multiple reasons. It leaves the drivers in an unordered random mess. In that version the drivers aren't ordered in any way. Not by number, not by driver name, not by rounds entered. I really cannot see how on earth that would make things easier to understand for our lay reader. Moreover, footnotes should supplement content, not replace it.Tvx1 20:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, in the worst-case scenario, we're going to wind up with something like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Co-drivers	Rounds
Citroën	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	7	Kris Meeke	Paul Nagle	1–7, 9–11
					Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger	8
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	12
					Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	13
				8	Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	1, 3, 11
					Craig Breen	Scott Martin	2, 4–8, 10, 12–13
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	9
				9	Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	4, 6, 8
					Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger	7, 10
					Craig Breen	Scott Martin	9
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	11
					Kris Meeke	Paul Nagle	12–13

And yes, this is an actual table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

At least there is a valid reason, which is presented to the reader, as to why the table has so many rows - the car numbers do not change, so the drivers were using a different car number. This is not the case in the F1 table, so there is not the same necessity for additional rows. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 - Queencake's proposal is certainly easier to understand, as the fact is Toro Rosso is simply an F1 team with 2 cars at each round - there is no reason to distinguish between the 2 "cars", as this has no relevance other than the fact that the FIA use it to determine grid penalties for engine components etc. Admittedly, this could be ordered in a different way, such as by rounds entered, but the key aspect of Queencake's proposal was to remove the repetition of driver names, and I certainly believe this does make it clearer to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with removing the repetition is that it scrambles the rounds column up. Take round 17 for example—did Kvyat replace Sainz or Gasly? It's unclear at best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I still fail to understand why listing a name twice has to be such a drama for some.Tvx1 00:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — having re-read the recent discussion, I cannot explain it either except, apparently, that any repeated information is bad. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason why it is "such a drama", is because several editors, who are aware of the real life situation and information (who replaced who when), have found the table confusing, hence why we came here to find out exactly what the table was showing. If we were confused, then surely several more readers are also confused, especially those who are less knowledgeable of F1 and have come to the page without the prior knowledge of who replaced who when. QueenCake's approach made the most sense, as it provided the information clearly and concisely to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with QueenCake's proposal, and would like to add that I find it clear that Hartley was using Kyvat's original car as he is listed under Kvyat and Gasly and not under Sainz, as he would be if he was using Sainz's car (and therefore it can be deduced that Kyvat must have been using Sainz's original car). However, I would like to bring up the change Prisonermonkeys made to Alonso's entry, splitting it up into two rows, one before and one after Button's entry. This makes no sense as Alonso was using the same car both before and after Monaco, contradicting the format is used for the 2014-16 seasons, for example when Vandoorne replaced Alonso in Bahrain in 2016. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't put the drivers in an order in my table. It was principally a demonstration of putting the four drivers in four. If anyone wants to change the order, feel free. QueenCake (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"I would like to bring up the change Prisonermonkeys made to Alonso's entry, splitting it up into two rows, one before and one after Button's entry. This makes no sense as Alonso was using the same car both before and after Monaco"

I was simply addressing a concern that someone else had raised—that Alonso's situation was handled differently to STR's.

"contradicting the format is used for the 2014-16 seasons, for example when Vandoorne replaced Alonso in Bahrain in 2016."

We're not bound to keep using that style if a new, preferred version emerges. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that QueenCake made a comment on a casual viewer not understanding why Kyvat could be listed twice while Alonso was only listed once, but I took that more as a remark questioning why Kvyat was listed twice and Alonso only listed once considering QueenCake's proposal for the order of Toro Rosso drivers (QueenCake is in a better position to comment on this than myself though, as they made this comment). The situation remains however that no clear consensus has emerged for the order of Toro Rosso drivers and that no editor has clearly supported having Alonso listed twice, so I do not understand why that edit was made. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an idea, albeit a slightly crazy one (and one that might need to go to WT:F1): what if we change what the rounds column means? At the moment, we use it to list all of the rounds a driver contested, but what if we change it to be the total number of races they were entered into? Paul di Resta's column says "11", but since the entry table is positioned before the calendar, it's not clear whether that means he entered round 11 or 11 rounds. He only entered a single round, so changing it to "1" would be equally accurate. This would bring the best of both worlds: it would limit the number of rows for Toro Rosso, but still allow us to prioritise the rounds column:

No.	Name	Rounds
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	16
26	Daniil Kvyat	15
10	Pierre Gasly	5
28	Brendon Hartley	3
39		1

I don't think that's too confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is a possible solution, but one thing I fear is that we once again need to refer to the viewpoint of the casual reader - those who have read the F1 articles in the past will expect the rounds column to be set out as they are and may be confused to find all of the drivers have only entered 1 round, but I'm sure it wouldn't take too much working out.

Do you have any oppositions to QueenCake's proposal, if it were to be ordered in a different way, such as by rounds? I personally still feel this is the best proposal so far. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediaeditperson — I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's a short-term concern. I expect that within a year, it would be widely accepted, especially if it were applied project-wide. Until then, a Tooltip explaining the new function of the rounds column (and an invisible note in the table to deter changes) should be enough to inform the casual reader. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour as it provides less information that the current format. The current format tells the reader who the drivers were at each individual round, whereas this version does not. Regarding the "di Resta issue", I agree that if that was the only entry in the column it would be ambiguous, but I think the other entries in the column make it obvious to the reader that the column contains round numbers, not number of rounds. (Readers might wonder why Williams had three drivers for round 11, but that's a separate question). DH85868993 (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — is that really the function of the entry list, though? The results matrix is far more able to break the individual entries down. If we treat the rounds column as the number of rounds entered, we get the best of both worlds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumping back in to say I agree with QueenCake's proposal; the table is not meant to show all possible information; it is a list of teams and drivers, not of cars (which as pointed out above is something of a Ship of Theseus anyway), and the table without repeats is most effective at providing the information it is intended to provide. -Sketchmoose (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any objections towards the below format? - It is QueenCake's proposal, but the drivers are ordered based upon the first round they took part in this season.

No.	Name	Rounds
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's a mess. Especially the Kvyat note. Notes should be used to explain supplementary information (like why Hartley used two numbers). It should not be used to explain the layout of the table. If it is used to explain the layout of the table, that tells you it's a poorly-ordered table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

While I have no issue with this variation on QueenCake's proposal, I (slightly) prefer the original for the reasons I have previously outlined, although both would be significantly better than the seven-row format currently in use. Contrary to Prisonermonkeys view, I do think that the use of notes is helpful, and could be applied to whatever format is decided. I also support keeping the rounds column as it currently is, as it not only provides more information than Prisonermonkeys's proposal, but is also in standard use among a variety of different motorsport series (not just F1), so to change it all would be impractical for an issue affecting a single season of a single series, as they should be kept uniform for better understanding. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

We are free to make changes to articles within the scope of WP:F1 as we see fit regardless of what other projects do if those changes suit out needs.

Furthermore, I'm not disputing the usefulness of notes—I'm just pointing out that they are for supplementary details and should not be used to explain the format of the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that the rounds column could be changed just on articles related to WP:F1 (F1 season articles). My point was that doing so would make it unnecessarily confusing to readers of motorsports season articles in general. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I still think it would be a short-term problem. Give it a little time and it would be accepted just fine. And WP:MOTOR might even get on-board with it before long. I for one plan on expanding it to WRC articles (with a few other big changes). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in with all of the other users voicing dissatisfaction with the current bizarre table. I am no stranger to Wikipedia or F1, and I've really struggled to make sense of it myself without pausing for a long while to consider the significance of splitting Kvyat into two but not Alonso, and so on. Ordering the drivers by "car" entities without giving any sort of clear indicator that this is what's happening seems too unintuitive and over the top to me. I'm fond of the improved proposals of Tvx1 and Wikipediaeditperson, with a preference for Tvx1's, although for coherency's sake I would add a separator between Ricciardo and Max and other unchanged lineups too. Waysiders (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Waysiders I agree that Tvx1's table makes more sense than the table currently in the article, but I still find it to have been overconfused by providing information that is not necessary for this table. By explaining who replaced who etc., you are needing to invent fictitious "cars" that somehow belong to the original driver, and this isn't the case - the "cars" are merely used by the FIA to keep track of engine components and don't actually exist as real life objects. Therefore, I struggle to understand the reasoning behind seperating each team into 2 "cars" - this is a table of 'Teams and Drivers', not 'Teams, Drivers and "Cars"'. The table should merely show that said driver drove for said team at said race, supplemented by notes for those wishing to find out more information about who replaced who. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Like many other editors participating in this discussion, the recent changes in the table, and the extra rows, have been very confusing to me. So I'll echo other editors' opinions and will say that the QueenCake's/Wikipediaeditperson's proposal makes most sense to me as well. In order to do anything else, we can't assume the reader would somehow naturally have the notion of what the "cars" are (for the purpose of the FIA's tracking of engine components) and we would need to make this idea of the "car" explicit in the table (via a column or otherwise). But as mentioned a few times in this discussion, this "car" tracking is a minor technical feature of what's happening in the championship. And it's not even a real thing. Since this table's idea is to convey teams/drivers/car numbers changes throughout the season, it's hardly justifiable to encumber this table with extra rows (repeating the drivers) or columns (introducing the fictitious FIA "cars").

So I support simplifying the table and adding extra information in the notes. In fact, with respect to Kvyat's and Gasly's using two different "cars" (in the FIA sense), this may not even deserve a note to the table – and could be explained in the "Mid-season changes" as it has been in a recent version of the page (e.g. like this) before Prisonermonkeys made this change (Oh, and the justification from their edit summary? "...lest it becomes a mess". So this change led to the loss of the very details they vehemently advocate keeping in this table (which is not even designed for it in the first place). And somehow it's less of a mess?)

So as an aside, looking at all this advocacy of keeping the table cumbersome while simplifying the article prose, I'm getting honestly confused about the definition of the terms "logical" and "illogical" that some editors use extensively here (in the context of this discussion this mostly refers to Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys), and about the inconsistency of their arguments and actions: how is it logical to get rid of the very-simple-to-understand details of the FIA "cars" when they are presented in prose, while at the same time insisting that the confusing non-self-explanatory structure of the table that's purported to convey the same details should be kept? cherkash (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with those prose edits is that they spent a hell of a long time explaining minutae to the point where the focus had completely shifted away from the 2017 championship.

As for your preferred table, it prioritises a minimum number of entries over clarity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys - "prioritises a minimum number of entries over clarity", please may I ask what "clarity" is referring to? The only thing the table currently makes clear to the reader is who drives which "car", which as mentioned several times above is not a real object.

Following your approach, I don't see why we don't also separate the rows based on the rounds at which each driver used each of their different engine components, chassis, gearboxes etc., for the sake of "clarity". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As soon as you start dividing the table into "car 1" and "car 2", you're going to get a flurry of drive-by edits rearranging the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand? - Who was mentioning splitting the table into "car 1" and "car 2" - that is what has currently been done, but I don't think there has been a suggestion to split it as you said. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment was supposed to go somewhere else. To answer your question about power unit components, we don't include them because they don't affect the entries. You're either entered in a round or you're not entered. It doesn't matter which components you're using because even if you break McLaren's record for grid place penalties, you're still entered in the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"we don't include them because they don't affect the entries" exactly, that is the same with regards to replacement drivers - if you view the FIA's current '2017 F1 Entry List', it makes no mention of who replaced who, or which "car" is being driven, it is just who is racing for which team - surely this should be the same on the article.

Also, clearly the FIA do not treat Kvyat's and Gasly's changes of "car" as a new entry, as that would mean that Toro Rosso would exceed the maximum number of drivers for a season, which is 4, so I don't see why we need to differentiate between the drivers in this way if the FIA don't and as you have explained, this table is based on the FIA's approach to team and driver entries. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We're under no obligation to do exactly what the FIA do because the FIA do it. After all, entry lists are not always consistent. If Hamilton is listed before Bottas, is that because #44 comes before #77? If so, what does it mean if Räikkönen is listed before Vettel in the same entry list? Mercedes have gone numerically, but Ferrari have gone alphabetically. We are free to represent content as we see fit to meet the needs of the article and the readers. The current form clearly shows who replaced which drivers and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that something shouldn't be done simply on the basis that it is the way in which the FIA does it, I think that the fact that the FIA does not include the car used by a driver on their entry list should highlight the lack of importance of the matter. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So your solution is to jumble the entry list up for the sake of having a minimal number of rows in the table? When Kvyat was recalled to the team, it was to take over from Sainz. That is reflected in the table. You cannot argue that the FIA's handling of the situation renders the distinction unimportant, then promote a version of the article that completely disregards the tram's structure. Kvyat did not simply take Sainz's car—he got Sainz's engine allocation, engineers and everything that Sainz left behind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are failing to understand that what looks like a sensible solution to you is in fact incredibly muddled and irrational to almost everyone else. An intent to reflect the car change in the table does not work if no one can figure out what the table is trying to say.

Fundamentally, the point raised by Wikipediaeditperson and Cherkash is something I had realised when thinking about this problem. It is, quite simply, not very important to demonstrate which car which driver drove each weekend. The table is meant to display the teams and drivers, what chassis and engine they used and what events they entered. That is more than enough information for one table, and covers the essentials. This information is comparatively trivial, and can be included with notes, in the prose, or simply ignored on this article and covered only on the one for the race. This is an article to summarise the season as a whole, not every single detail. QueenCake (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys

"we don't include them because they don't affect the entries."

"We're under no obligation to do exactly what the FIA do because the FIA do it"

Please can you be more consistent with your comments, instead of opposing my opinion on the basis it isn't how the FIA decides entries, and then opposing another comment on the basis we don't have to do what the FIA does with regards to entries.

QueenCake I agree, it appears that Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 are consumed in their own opinions, and fail to notice/understand the confusion of other editors and readers who are not aware of the relatively complicated approach to ordering the table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediaeditperson — my comments are not contradictory at all. The team and driver table is based on the entry lists that are published in the week before a Grand Prix. Power unit usage and penalties have no bearing on the entry list, which is why we don't include them in the table.

As for my second comment, it relates to the content of the entry lists. The entry lists are written in a particular style, but the team and driver table does not recreate that style exactly. Rather, we identify the content that is most relevant to the article and present it as we see fit because we and the FIA are writing for different audiences with different purposes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys your comments are rather contradictory - as you say, "The team and driver table is based on the entry lists", and as you have said before the 'Teams and Drivers' table does not need to include things such as engine components, gearbox usages etc., as they aren't present on the FIA's entry lists. However, you do choose to split the teams into 2 categories for each "car", which once again is not defined on the FIA F1 2017 entry list and is merely used to keep track of engine components etc., which you have already pointed out should have no place in the table. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, when Kvyat was recalled for Austin, he was specifically recalled to replace Sainz. He did not resume his original position with the team. Given that he was immediately released before Mexico, he was treated as a replacement driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, Prisonermonkeys. This table is supposed to simply show teams and drivers (and their numbers) – not the drivers' roles within the team. So the roles you are talking about – e.g. a "replacement driver" for Kvyat – is another bit of fiction, and it has no bearing on what this table is intended to show, namely, participations. cherkash (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And you think that the best way to show participations is to make it as confusing as possible for the sake of minimising the number of rows in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys "best way to show participations is to make it as confusing as possible" - As has been mentioned before, just because you don't find the current table confusing and/or you do find the new table confusing, it doesn't mean everyone else is of the same viewpoint, and if you read the comments of other editors, you will find that it is in fact the current table that is causing the most confusion among editors and therefore likely also among readers. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys It's not that the goal is to minimize the number of rows – but rather this "minimization" is a simple consequence of having one row per driver+team+number combination (as more than one row per each such entry is unnecessary as it leads to confusion). cherkash (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is getting rather frustrating, as we appear to be going around in circles, with those opposing any change merely regurgitating that we "just want to minimise the number of rows". If we continue like this, absolutely no progress will be made, and surely the fact that more editors have expressed an opposition to the current layout than those supporting justifies us making an edit to the page and making it clearer to the reader? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Individual cars haven't mattered since 2013 when we had distinct numbers. This is effectively saying that there were two Russian drivers named Daniil Kvyat who used the same number and there were two French drivers named Pierre Gasly who also used the same number. I don't understand why this is even a discussion. WikiEditorAU (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That depends on what you consider "progress". Those advocating a change clearly do not want to accept anything but a change and therefore only consider a change as constituting "progress". I see it differently. I steel do not see how QueenCake's proposal constitutes any improvement. It would still leave the drivers an a random, illogical mess. The biggest problem I have is that the proposal for a change is only and only aimed at this unique situation and does not take a wider look at how it affects past situations and how it might affect future situations. I on the other hand have shown my good faith and have made a proposal which tweaks the current information in way that makes it much clearer. However, since the change proposers only care about their own preference, despite accusing me of doing exactly that, they all-but ignored that and have even completely ignored the fact that others weighed in to state their preference for my proposal. Why it is so shocking for some to find a name here twice that it has to create such a drama here is still beyond me. I simply cannot understand why the presence of two extra rows in a table which would otherwise still count 39 rows is such a problem. We really should have a higher regard of our users and should stop assuming there simply no way they could understand a name appearing twice. For the few who are confused, there are footnotes and prose supplementing the content to explain it further.Tvx1 12:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have shown their displeasure towards the current format, and very few have supported it. I do not see why there is still opposition towards remmoving the duplicate rows, as they currently serve no purpose and have merely lead to confusion by several editors and therefore this is probably true for several readers too.

Also, before Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys attempt to, once again, suggest again that my opposition stems from "making the table look better" or "reducing the number of rows", this is not the case - it is merely that as I mentioned before, the duplicate rows serve no real purpose and just lead to confusion. Admittedly the table may appear more aesthetically pleasing without the additional rows, but this is not my reasoning behind why I feel the rows should be removed. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I should probably add here that I still appreciate the Tvx1 proposal, but I was persuaded by the counterarguments of Wikipediaeditperson and cherkash above that the fictional "cars" may be a little too peripheral to document in an overview table. I do feel the information is necessary to understand the championship, however, and I'm concerned that it might be difficult to portray so clearly in a series of footnotes. For that reason, I still figure Tvx1's is the more intuitive version in the end, but for the purposes of finding a consensus on the two options, I'm happy to support either one. Waysiders (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"I do feel the information is necessary to understand the championship" - I have to disagree with this, because looking at it from a simplistic viewpoint, Toro Rosso has the capacity to provide a seat for 2 racers at each session, and they effectively "share" the 2 "cars", team personnel etc. and therefore the assignment of the 2 "cars" is more of an internal decision by Toro Rosso, and doesn't directly affect the championship. Therefore, the only information that needs to be presented to the reader is, 'driver A vaccated his seat at race X, and was replaced by driver B from that race onwards (or between Race X and race Y).'

Had I felt that seperating the table into 2 "cars" was necessary to understand the championship, I would have no opposition to the current layout, but I feel that there is no purpose served by duplicating the rows, and seperating them based on "cars". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Save that there actually was an impact on the championship. Hartley received a grid penalty because of the exact car he was assigned. That directly affected his first race and his result there. And the information that you mention above is the exact information we show. When a driver vacated which seat and who replaced them in that seat.Tvx1 19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In a situation where there is a grid penalty, the aspect that directly causes the penalty and therefore affects the championship is the fact that the driver has changed his engine, gearbox etc. Admittedly, the "cars" do affect the driver's engine and gearbox allocation, but if the table doesn't include usage of engines and gearboxes, there should be no reason to provide the secondary information ("cars").

It has been mentioned above that the reason why the usage of engine components isn't included in the table is due to the fact that they do not effect entries. Given that the "cars" are merely a fictional object, used by the FIA to keep track of engine and gearbox allocation, the "cars" cannot have any more of an impact on entries than the usage of engine components and gearboxes and thus, like these aforementioned engine and gearbox components, the "cars" have no place in the 'Teams and Drivers' table. 07:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs)

We have reliable sources supporting who was hired to replace whom where. All our content is supported by sources and supplement by footnotes where confusion might theoretically arise. Surely if reliable sources deem it worth reporting that information, it is worth mentioning it in this article.Tvx1 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, in the form of footnotes, but not by seperating the table based upon non-existant "cars". Without wishing to go round in circles, the table should provide a list of 'Teams and Drivers', i.e. which driver drove for which team at which rounds. When a driver changes "car", they do not change their name, nationality, number, team or any other information that would require a new row, they simply change "car", which once again I would like to explain does not actually exist in reality. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this talk section now has more characters than the entire season article on which it is about. And there is not only no consensus, but no progress towards consensus seems to have been made. It's been over two days since the last reply, and the format in use right now seems to have very little support. I understand that everyone has there opinions on which format would be best, as I certainly do (I prefer QueenCake's proposal personally), but I suggest we compromise and go with a format that reduces confusion while maintaining the concept of individual "cars". To me, Tvx1's proposal of using a line to separate the two cars in a team seems to fulfill this compromise. Again, this is not my favorite proposed format, but I find it at least less confusing than the format currently in use, and as such, I will support its use and ask that other editors will as well. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree that Tvx1's proposal makes more sense than the current one and I fully understand what is being conveyed in this version, but the only reason why this makes sense to me is because I know that the article is differentiating the 2 "cars". However, we cannot expect the regular reader to visit the talk page, and therefore we cannot expect them to know that the article differentiates between the 2 "cars", so I cannot support this version, as it is going to be just as confusing to the regular reader, given there is no information in the article stating that the teams in the table are split into their 2 "cars" nor is there anything to define what exactly "cars" are. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You really should have a higher assumption of the cognitive skills of our regular reader. Anyway, the content is supplemented with footnotes which gives more explanation for those who are not entirely sure.Tvx1 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate my points about what is and isn't important for this table, and the need for proper clarity, not just what some people think is clarity because they designed it. I generally prefer something based on the concept I drew up, though any improvement over the live table is better. QueenCake (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And if it's as legitimate a concern as you make it out to be, it could be applied equally to the version with only four rows. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, please answer this question. Secondly, if it is so difficult to comprehend, why haven't we seen a flurry of editors changing it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with QueenCake. From my point of view it appears that those supporting the current table (Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys) are failing to view the table from an outside viewpoint and are instead merely concerned with their own viewpoint, which of course is going to be swayed, as they were involved in deciding how it should be laid out initially and therefore the table will be designed around what they feel is "clear". I appreciate that they had the best intentions and tried to clearly present the information to the reader, but given the opposition to the current table, I think it is safe to say that this table has not achieved the goal of being "clear".

Tvx1 and Prisonermonkeys, surely we should be trying to improve the article? Many editors have agreed that QueenCake's proposal is clearer and therefore is an improvement on the lack of clarity in the current table, so surely this should be a starting point for the new table? I therefore ask that you please work collaboratively with the rest of us to try to make this table as good as possible, instead of stubbornly disagreeing with all proposals that are not your own proposals, as it currently appears that you are of the viewpoint that your proposals are the best regardless of the opinions of others. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not asking us to work collaboratively. You're not asking anything at all. You're telling us to give up. So don't be patronising about it. You cannot reject a proposal from someone on such questionable grounds as you did and then tell that same person to work collaboratively with you. They just showed that willingness to work collaboratively with you, only for you to shoot the idea down on principle and then criticise them for not being collaborative—the very thing that you have just done. You won't get anywhere with double standards like that. Go ahead and ask what happened to the last person who said "you should work with other editors" but meant "you should do what I tell you to".

It looks like the only way this is going to be resolved is at DRN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not failing to see the outside viewpoint at all. In fact, some outside viewpoint has appeared in favour of my proposal. You, on the other hand have made an assumption of what the outside viewpoint is and have since refused to acknowledge there might be another viewpoint. Prisonermonkeys has made a very fait point. If this table is so confusing to our lay reader, than why isn't it constantly edit by those drive-readers? As I said before, you really should have a higher regard of our lay reader. Accusation of bad faith are not getting this discussion anywhere. I'm not disagreeing to anything because it isn't my proposal. In fact the current format of listing names twice if they drive in different seats throughout the season existed long before I arrived on Wikipedia. I disagree with the removal of the repeated names because I genuinely think that that leaves our readers with an utterly confusing table. I results in a mess. To put in your own words, just because you don't find a table confusing and/or you don't find a different table confusing, it doesn't mean everyone else is of the same viewpoint.Tvx1 12:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is that in order to work collaboratively, it will require give and take on both sides, and generally this should involve going forward with the most popular proposals, and then suggesting further improvements on these, once again going forward with the most popular proposals. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask us to move forward with the most popular proposals, and therefore surely we should use QueenCake's proposal as a starting point, and then everyone can voice their opinions as to how this could be improved. Surely this is the most reasonable route forward? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We're just going around in circles. This needs to be taken to DRN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I totally agree. Sadly, it appears that the editors have split into 2 opposing "sides", which shouldn't happen when editing, as you would expect us all to be working towards a common goal and therefore being on a single side, working collaboratively together. Unfortunately though, I believe, as you say, DRN is the only option. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, give and take on both sides. Well, I have proposed a compromise, which even received some outside support, while you on the other hand have stuck to your (aka Queencake's) preferred version an have kept demanding that will be used. That's not how Wikipedia works. I therefore strongly object to using that version as a starting point since that does not demonstrate any giving on your part at all. You should practice what you preach.Tvx1 21:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, please consider revising your latest argument – as now it hinges entirely on what you perceive as other editors' behavior and not on the merits of the case.

The discussion on merits should really revolve around two options that were mulled over in this long thread: we either drop the idea of the virtual/FIA "cars" from the table altogether, or we make the "cars" explicit (via proper table headings, separator lines, etc.); if the latter option is chosen, the case would probably need to be made on why it's noteworthy enough to be included in the table (or indeed in this season-overview article at all), instead of individual race reports. cherkash (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The more that I have thought about it, the more I like Tvx1's proposal. All it is doing is making the what's already implied by the order of the table apparent. In QueenCake's proposal, we can already see that Hartley replaced Gasly, and that he in turn replaced Kvyat based on their placement before Sainz in the table. From this you could work out the rest, so the information is all there if you understand the ordering of the table. By separating the drivers into "cars", all this information is maintained, but the drivers are now listed in chronological order by round in a clear format. If anything, this makes the table simpler to follow, and I don't think even the most casual F1 fan will get confused, as each team has two actual cars in a race, so it shouldn't be a leap for anyone to subdivide a team into two based on the idea of cars, even if they don't understand that it represents the transfer of engine components and tyre compound allocations and not necessarily the physical chassis itself. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the Toro Rosso situation is unusual in that they rotated four drivers between the cars and that drivers did not necessarily drive the same car between rounds. The last thing we want to do is implement a change that will have detrimental consequences for other articles. If we cannot find a perfect solution—one that does not impact other articles—we should settle for an imperfect solution here to prevent problems arising in other articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That has been one my biggest concerns during the entire discussion. The proposed change is aimed exclusively at the Toro Rosso situation. It does not take the greater picture into account.Tvx1 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, you haven't offered a compromise, you just offered your table, but styled slightly differently. QueenCake provided a table that provided all of the information necessary in the 'Teams and Drivers' table, but they also said that this was just a proposal, and could be styled and or rearranged as wanted.

FactualCollector7d1, the trouble with seperating the drivers based on "cars" is that there is no definition of what a "car" is. As has been pointed out above, the car that a driver uses at Abu Dhabi likely shares few or possibly no components to the car at Australia. If we can decide on a defined rule for what we will define as a "car" and we can present this to the reader just before the table, I am more than willing to accept the proposal of splitting the table into 2 different "cars", but as it is currently, I feel QueenCake's proposal makes more sense, as it is not open to interpretation. Admittedly, it may not provide all of the information, but the information it does provide is clear, and the 'Teams and Drivers' table doesn't necessarily need to provide every piece of information, and QueenCake's proposal could be put into the current table and this would provide the most important information - Team/Constructor/Power Unit names, Team nationalities, Chassis names, Driver names, Driver Numbers, Driver Nationalities, Rounds competed in, as well as tyres and Free practice drivers. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "compromise", what exactly do you have in mind? Because @Tvx1's proposal looks and sounds like a compromise to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys, from my point of view, a comprimise would involve everyone putting forward their proposals, and then from these, we go forward with the most popular. After this, we can all suggest further improvements to this, once again going forward with the most popular, thereby allowing us to have something that incorporates everyone's point of view.

We got some way towards this, with QueenCake and Tvx1 putting forward their proposals, then everyone stated their opinions on them, and more were in favour of QueenCake's proposal than Tvx1's proposal. This doesn't mean QueenCake's proposal is perfect, but surely this should be a starting point, and then we can discuss how we could further improve on this and this will likely involve incorporating some aspects of Tvx1's proposal, such as sorting it based upon the Rounds column, as I suggested. However, as things stand, it appears that the editors are split into 2 sides, one in support of Tvx1's proposal and the other in support of QueenCake's proposal. As I have said, neither proposal is perfect and unless we all converge in support of 1 proposal and focus on making that the best it possibly can be, we will be forced to choose between 2 imperfect tables to use in the article. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what Tvx1 did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

They didn't, as it didn't incorporate any aspects of QueenCake's proposal and was based mainly on the original proposal, which has proved to be less popular than QueenCake's proposal, and therefore wasn't converging towards the most popular proposal, but was instead diverging very slightly from the less popular proposal. The trouble is, we cannot improve on the most popular proposal (QueenCake's proposal) unless those supporting Tvx1's proposal can come forward with reasons why they don't support QueenCake's proposal and therefore we can discuss ways to improve on QueenCake's proposal, instead of what is currently happening, where there appears to be a confrontation between the 2 sides instead of a convergence of ideas. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I incorporated your concerns that the grouping of the cars/seats aren't clear enough currently. That's enough to consider it a compromise. It's in any case more than you have done. You have just supported a proposal and have kept repeating your arguments. Moreover, you keep acting like the other side's arguments don't exist even though with at this point 5 persons in favor of QueenCake's proposal and 4 in favor of mine one can hardly call one the clearly more popular. I have clearly given my reasons why I disagree with the proposed change a long time ago and even recalled them multiple times. But most importantly, I think that you're thinking way to much into this. There simply isn't any perfect solution for this unusual situation.Tvx1 00:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson the issue with your version of QueenCake's proposal is that it does not look at the bigger picture. Whatever is decided upon here needs to be consistent with the formatting of other instances in which more than two drivers took part in a season. For example to maintain consistency with your proposed change, Stoffel Vandoorne should be placed below Jenson Button on the 2016 FIA Formula One World Championship page. But in this case, wouldn't it make more sense to have Vandoorne under Alonso considering that's who he replaced? This type of scenario with three drivers is much more likely to occur than a situation with four drivers, so shouldn't priority be given to it? Tvx1's proposal maintains this ordering in a three driver scenario while providing a chronological ordering in this specific case. As Wikipediaeditperson, has pointed out, perhaps the idea for dividing the drivers shouldn't be considered or called a car, as parts often change from one weekend to another. Perhaps it could be defined as, and subsequently referred to as somthing along the lines of "an entry for the allotment of Power Unit components, gearboxes, and tyres" instead? Alternatively we could just think of it as a linear replacement of drivers, using the terms "original" and "replacement" drivers as the FIA does concerning this matter. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I understand your objections to QueenCake's proposal, but I still feel we are trying to convey something that isn't necessary to be conveyed through the 'Teams and Drivers' table.

I would personally go forward with QueenCake's proposal, but sorted by number, thereby removing any confusion of who replaced who, as the Rounds column no longer takes priority. Alongside this, could we not consider a table similar to the 'World Drivers' Championship Standings', but instead of showing results it is separated into the 20 "cars"/"power unit allocation" or whatever we choose to call it, and it uses the boxes to show who drove which car for which rounds, possibly even including practice drivers. I feel this would be a better visual representation and would allow the 'Teams and Drivers' table to do its basic job, without trying to convey further information that doesn't need to be included in this table.

Also, one thing I fear with my proposal above and Tvx1's proposal is whether it is sustainable - the sources explaining who replaced who do not come from the official FIA website, and therefore if there is another 'double replacement' this information may not be as easy to come by, and then what would we do in a situation where we don't know who replaced who? The only piece of official information we have is the FIA's '2017 F1 Entry List', and this doesn't distinguish between "cars", so surely if we use this as our source for the 'Teams and Drivers' table we cannot go wrong, given this is a consistent source. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If you sort by number, the table completely loses its integrity. That's why we sort by round in the event of a driver change—the numbers are somewhat meaningless since they're largely synonymous with the drivers. The rounds column has far more significance for the championship and that's what the article is all about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Similarly in 2016, sorting by numbers would put Ocon above Haryanto and at Toro Rosso Kvyat above Verstappen. It would become utterly random with order decided by what number someone takes or is allocated. Regarding the sourcing, the FIA published the power unit quota used by each "driver" at the start of each GP. That gives us a very clear picture who replaced whom. Subsequent penalties can give us even more information on the matter.Tvx1 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys and @ Tvx1 clearly no concensus is going to be achieved, as neither of you are willing to move forward with the most popular proposal, and are simply opposing every suggestion we have, yet you don't propose an alternative suggestion, so we are just taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back.

How about QueenCake's proposal, but with the teams sorted alphabetically and the drivers within each team sorted by numbers.

If you still want to provide information about power unit allocation, then couldn't we use a table like this;

"Power Unit and Gearbox allocation"	Driver	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS
Toro Rosso "Car 1"	Driver 1
	Driver 3
Toro Rosso "Car 2"	Driver 2
	Driver 3
	Driver 4		TD		TD

Of course, this is just a representation and could be styled and/or worded completely differently, but I was thinking this is a better way to visually present the information to the reader, instead of trying to visually represent it through the 'Teams and Drivers' table. What do you think? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is excessively complicated. The entry table is for entries. Power unit and gearbox allocations do not affect them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the point we have been trying to make, yet you and Tvx1 have insisted that the "cars" must be represented in the 'Teams and Drivers' table. This was a compromise, which allowed for you to have your "cars" represented in a table, yet for us to still retain QueenCake's proposal. I don't understand why you would want to separate the team into 2 categories unless you wanted to in some way represent the "cars"/"Power unit and Gearbox allocation". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you would want to ignore that division. Your preferred version implies Kvyat returned to the team in the sane place he left off when he clearly didn't.

What happened to that DRN? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys I'm totally confused by what exactly you intend the 'Teams and Drivers' table to show. On one hand you are attempting to suggest we should seperate each team into 2 sections (1 section for each "Power unit and Gearbox allocation", which we have referred to as "cars" for the majority of this discussion). Then on the other hand you are suggesting this should be ignored, as it doesn't affect entries.

I agree the usage of "cars"/"Power units and Gearbox allocation" plays a key part in the championship, but as you have said, it doesn't effect entries. Therefore it doesn't have a place in the 'Teams and Drivers' table, which is esentially providing the reader with an "Entry list" for the 2017 F1 season. This doesn't mean that this information could not be represented through a different medium, for example through an additional table, as I suggested.

With regards to the DRN, I believe it was yourself who put forward this proposal, and I was in agreement - I have tried 1 last ditch attempt to achieve a compramise, but as this has failed, unfortunately I believe this is our only option now. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's simple: the table shows entries. Who drove for which team, at what rounds and in which role. If you take part in a Grand Prix, you go in the table. If not, you don't.

Having a separate table for power unit components and gearboxes is completely superfluous (and therefore inappropriate) because the use of those parts does not affect the entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson, from at least my perspective, your proposal of a separate table for power unit/gearbox/tyre allocations isn't really a compromise. While I appreciate your attempt to help resolve this issue, the reason that I have advocated for the inclusion of this allocation information into the main table is because I believe it helps add clarity to the situation of the multiple replacements of drivers and can be applied uniformly in different situations, as I have explained previously. I am not interested in the allocations themselves, rather to what they tell us about the driver situation, making a separate table for them pointless in my opinion. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I understand your viewpoint but as @Prisonermonkeys has said, the allocation of "cars" do not affect entries. I fail to see the relevance of including information in the 'Teams and Drivers' table if it doesn't affect entries. From my point of view, information that would be better included in the table would be a column for Team Principals, but I fully understand why this is not included - it doesn't affect entries.

The 'Teams and Drivers' table has 10 columns, each of which provides important information, and we cannot start adding additional information to this (separating the drivers based on "cars"), because this is not clearly presented to the reader. In order to make it clear to the reader, we would have 2 options - Option 1) To add a new column, which allows us to define each "car" and separate each team into their 2 "cars". However, I doubt this will get any support from editors. Option 2) To add an entirely new table to present this information. However, it appears most editors have their objections to this as well. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, as no progress has been made, on suggestion of @Prisonermonkeys, I have taken this discussion to DRN. I have included all of the users who have taken part in this discussion in the DRN request, so we should all have an opportunity to discuss our viewpoints, and hopefully this will allow us to agree on the best route forward.

The dispute can be found here.Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I find Wikipediaeditperson's recent couple posts clear and logical, and they summarize the possible options we face very well. I would add one more option to this, which is clearly stated both explicitly and implicitly in the long discussion we've had so far. Option 3) Discard the information about "cars" from the table(s) altogether, while leaving it in prose in the "Mid-season changes" section.

Can we focus on these three options? This should provide us a more clear path towards resolution.

Additionally, when you think about these options, please consider that most disagreements so far has been around how to sort the rows in the table, rather than what to include (as differing "what to include" proposals seemed to center around a given editor's desire to justify a specific sorting method implicitly chosen, as is for example the case with attempting to add "cars" to the table).

So another way to resolve the current impasse may be to explicitly discuss the sorting rules. cherkash (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have brought up the reasons for closure of the DRN request at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Closing of Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers (the length of this link serves as a good indication of just how far down the rabbit hole we are with this), as from my perspective the claim that the request was abandoned is inaccurate as Wikipediaeditperson did indeed inform every editor involved in the dispute on their talkpage. If the request remains closed, does anyone have any input as to how we shall move forward with this? FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've managed to get the DRN request re-opened. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? Multiple participants, including the filer, have stated they do not believe that DRN is the right venue to find a solution to the issue.Tvx1 11:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Tvx1, multiple editors have expressed displeasure towards the DRN, hence why I also changed my opinion - in my opinion there is little point getting into a further debate as to whether we should solve this via DRN, RFC or another method, as it is simply diverting away from the original matter and standing in the way of us reaching a resolution. Surely, as suggested by the DRN volunteer, RFC may be a better way for this debate to be sorted conclusively. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So can we focus on finding a solution agreeable to most editors? Consider my previous comment at zero indent above (the one that starts with "I find"). cherkash (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If other editors don't want to go ahead with DRN, then I am fine with abandoning the matter. I just assumed there was still broad support for it due to the number of editors who originally wanted it on this talk page (some of whom hadn't commented on the DRN discussion) and the fact that it was indeed filed in the first place. Cherkash, as you say, the disagreement stems more from how the table is sorted than what information to include, so I don't think including additional information in the mid-season changes section will help resolve this. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think including additional information in the mid-season changes section will help resolve this.

Quite contrary, including this info in the mid-season changes section will help us not lose some salient features of driver changes, while at the same time relieving the table of the pressure to have to contain this information in it.

If we agree that the main purpose of the table is to contain only "entries" (an "entry" defined as a unique number/driver/team combination), and to give every entry a single row (which based on this discussion, would make logical sense to most editors and is what has been used in every season since 1950), then it's just a matter of how to sort those "entries".

Do we agree on this definition of an entry and that the table should contain every such entry only once? (with the rest of the columns filled accordingly, and the sorting order to be discussed next) cherkash (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No.Tvx1 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea that an entry should only ever be listed once is one of the key issues in this debate. Several editors, myself included, disagree with this idea. To answer your question, no. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how an entry could have any other definition than that put forward by Cherkash. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Cherkash's definition of entry, I just disagree that such an entry should only ever be listed once on the table as I think that doing so results in a lack of clarity regarding the order in which drivers were replaced. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I understand this, but as has already been pointed out by Cherkash, in all of the F1 World Championship articles, every "entry" (as defined by @Cherkash) has only been listed once. The 'Teams and Drivers' table is simply there to show a list of "entries" - not all of the information needs to be present in this table, and information that you feel needs to be included in the article to improve clarity could easily be placed in the 'Mid-season Changes', as suggested by @Cherkash. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The disagreeing editors (Tvx1 and FactualCollector7d1): could you please explain why the combination of the single-row-per-entry table with an accompanying text in the mid-season changes section – as proposed – wouldn't be satisfactory? Please elaborate from the perspective beyond just your personal taste (if at all possible) and explain from the perspective of an uninvolved reader. cherkash (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I have given my reasons why I think removing the duplicate names makes the table more difficult to understand more than enough times throughout this discussion. Unfortunately it appears that FactualCollector7d1 is the only one who has read my comments. This is getting really tiresome. Moreover the claim that "in all of the F1 World Championship articles, every "entry" has only been listed once is" incorrect. I have also given multiple examples where names appear more than once with the same team.Tvx1 17:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1, that is a little hypocritical suggesting we don't read your comments when you clearly do not read ours. You said, "where names appear more than once with the same team", yet this was not Cherkash's definition of an entry. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

How can you claim I didn't read your comments? I read them and directly replied to most of them. I even made a proposal that attempts that addresses the lack of clarity you complain about but without the loss of information your proposal results in. The fact that a request was made today to state why we think your proposal isn't satisfactory is clearcut evidence you didn't read a lot of my comments. Because I have stated my reasons multiple time a long time ago.Tvx1 20:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1, you claimed the same about me (not reading comments), which was also untrue. However, the reason why I assumed you hadn't read the previous comments, was because you didn't know Cherkash's definition of an "entry". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason I've asked for your justifications again, Tvx1 – you responded with a simple "no" and this is clearly lacking at this point: this discussion is very long and some editor's opinions changed in the course of it. Could you please clearly give your reasons here again? cherkash (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but from my perspective a single-row-per-entry table is bound to have compromise. Either it is not in chronological order by round but maintains the listing of the replacement driver is directly under the driver that they replaced in the first instance, as is the case with the proposal by QueenCake, or lists the drivers in chronological order by round, forgoing the listing of a driver under the driver they replaced? I think it is important to list a driver under the driver they replaced as it allows the viewer to better follow the changes of entries within the season, and also provides continuity with other instances of more straightforward driver replacement. If you don't understand what I mean by this, I recommend reading this discussion from 2015. Being able to list a entry more than once, as in Tvx1's proposal, allows for both of these parameters to be met, allowing readers with even a basic understanding of F1 to not only be able to easily understand both the ordering of the table (as it is chronological by round), and the succession of entries, through the placement of a replacement driver under that of the original driver. It would also allow for a uniform approach regardless of the number of drivers a team employs per season, making the tables easier to follow. I think that even readers who don't understand parts allocations would be able to easily understand it on the basis that it is just listing what driver replaced who. It also more closely resembles the format used between 1974 and 2013, making it easier for a reader to go between the two formats.

If anyone would like a summary on my current perspective of this dispute as a whole, the summary I wrote for the DRN can be found here. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I totally understand where you're coming from. My opposition is that the table with repeated names doesn't really have any correlation with the articles of pre-2014. The only reason why a driver was ever repeated prior to 2014, was because they either changed number or team, which I am in no way opposed to. However, Kvyat and Gasly didn't change team nor number. Take this table below, from 2012:

Lotus F1 Team	Lotus-Renault	E20	Renault RS27-2012	P	9	Kimi Räikkönen	All	—
					10	Romain Grosjean	1–12, 14–20
						Jérôme d'Ambrosio	13

If you see Grosjean's row, his rounds column says, '1-12, 14-20'. He didn't change number or team between rounds 12 and 14, just like Kvyat/Gasly. If we were to follow @Tvx1's approach, this table would have another row created for Grosjean's 2nd appearance, and then placing this below d'Ambroiso. However, this was clearly not the approach chosen in these earlier articles, so I don't see why we should change our approach now? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Grosjean would still only be listed once as he remained in the same car (#10). It's not a lot different to how Alonso would remain only listed once this season under Tvx1's proposal, as he remained on the same allocation of parts both before and after his absence to go to Indy. I'm not sure where you got the misconception that anyone is suggesting that an entry would be listed multiple times for this kind of replacement situation, but nobody is proposing that. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, as far as I can understand, a "car" has always been defined by a combonation of 2 factors - team and number. Take this as another example, from 2002;

KL Minardi Asiatech	Minardi-Asiatech	PS02	Asiatech AT02	M	22	Alex Yoong	1–12, 15–17
						Anthony Davidson	13–14
					23	Mark Webber	All

As I understand it, in 2002, the FIA did not impose the same restrictions on engines, gearboxes etc., so this could not reasonably be used to define a "car". However, Alex Yoong was still listed only once. This leads me to conclude that the way "cars" have always been defined in the F1 articles, is based upon the combination of number and team. Therefore, a new row should only be necessary if there is a change of driver, or a change of "car" (which is defined by a change of team or number). Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A radical idea: do we really need the numbers column? Since 2014, the numbers have become synonymous with the drivers, so I would argue that they don't actually contribute anything to the articles. If we get rid of them, we can arrange the table alphabetically by team, then alphabetically by driver, which may in turn help resolve the issue. Because right now the table arrangement hinges on the existence of an invisible discriminator—the split between cars—which all of the proposals have been unable to work around. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys, I think the number column is necessary, for situations like Hartley's where he changed to his permanent number. I still believe QueenCake's proposal or similar is the most suitable, because as I have shown, it suits the precedent set in F1 articles from the 1974 season onwards. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Even in the case of Hartley using two numbers, the number itself is fairly meaningless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys, I appreciate that, but the precedent set in the F1 articles shows that a new row is needed if 1 of 2 things happen;

1) A driver drives for another team, and/or;

2) A driver uses a different NUMBER.

Removing the number column is a very big change compared to all articles post-1974, so I think a change like this would need its own discussion. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm only talking about removing the column from 2014 onwards. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We're still going around in circles at this point. Even when we're aware that we're going around in circles. At this point, we need to remember that a) Toro Rosso's merry-go-nowhere of driver swaps is incredibly unusual and b) the 2017 championship is over. With each passing day, finding a solution to this problem becomes less and less of a priority. We've wasted dozens of hours going nowhere fast, so how much more time do we want to expend on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to bring us back to the basic question that is not clearly addressed yet by most editors in this discussion: we should really be debating what the definition of an "entry" in the table should be: the two candidates for this definition are 1) a unique number/driver/team combination, and 2) a unique number/driver/team/"car" combination. cherkash (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash, as I have shown above with a couple of different examples, I see no evidence that "cars" have ever played a part in the definition of an entry on post 1974 F1 articles. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, Wikipediaeditperson. But other editors seem to imply this is a candidate definition they are leaning towards. So let's keep discussing these options explicitly (instead of, like Prisonermonkeys said "going around in circles" due to avoiding the main issue) – this was the point of my latest comment. cherkash (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A team enters two drivers into each race. That's it really, and I argue that is the raison d'etre of the table. "Cars" play no role in it. QueenCake (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of responses to the contrary, am I correct in understanding that we are now all in agreement that "cars" have no relevance to entries nor to the 'Teams and Drivers' table? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Where on earth do you get that? Why do you think that no repsonse on your umpteenth request to repeat our exact same opinion for the umpteenth time equates agreeing with you? People just get tired of repeating the exact same thing over an over again because some asks to do so. That doesn't mean the previous times it has been stated have become invalid.Tvx1 18:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1, that wasn't aimed at you, I made that comment as Prisonermonkeys and FactualCollector7d1 were originally commenting with regards to "cars" being relevant when determining an entry, yet since I gave an example from 2002, this debate faded and I was wondering whether this was due to them being in agreement with myself, QueenCake and cherkash. Obviously you also have a viewpoint on this, so please could you answer this question;

Do you feel the definition of an entry should incorporate "cars"? If so, why? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should. Because it's the most efficient way of showing our readers the full accurate chronology of the driver changes during a season. You've just misinterpreted the pre-2014 examples because you're putting way too much emphasis on the numbers. There was never an intention to group by numbers, only by seat.Tvx1 00:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I give up. We have spent more than two months debating this and have achieved nothing. Attempts at finding a solution through the likes of DRN have since proven fruitless. Given the stability of the article—the predicted flurry of drive-by edits never happened—and the very slender chance of this becoming a regular issue that we need to deal with, I suggest that we declare no consensus and walk away. You're welcome to continue discussing it if you wish, but if you haven't found a solution that suits everyone in two months, I have my doubts as to whether you will find it any time soon. I'm out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, Prisonermonkeys, at the very least there appears to be a broad agreement that my proposal constitutes an improvement over what we currently have. Even if no perfect solution is found, we could at least implement that one.Tvx1 01:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding too blunt, I don't care. I'm not a part of this anymore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson the reason I didn't respond to your second example is because I had already given my opinion on the matter and didn't understand the significance of your second example (no one is suggesting that Alex Yoong be listed twice). I understand that this discussion can be hard to follow as it has become so long, but I want to clear up that I do not think that the allocation of components is a part of the entries themselves (which should be defined by the FIA entry lists), but rather I feel that—like Tvx1—they should be included as they provide a better formatting system for the table. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has long been exhausted here. The opinions of the participants are intractable and debate has not produced a consensus. I suggest we just have a vote on it. There's been two broad ideas for the table floated in the discussion, one that simply ignores the car change as insignificant, the other that attempts to include it. We can settle both the argument about entries and the look of the table with a vote, and the one with the most support shall be implemented. Would other editors be happy to settle it in this way? QueenCake (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Which one is "the other that attempts to include it"? (There were two proposals like that as far as I can see: one incorporating into "teams and drivers" table, another into the championship table.) cherkash (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No. I don't think a vote is ever a good way to resolve a problem. Sometimes there are just discussions which end with no consensus. I think we should all accept this is is such a discussion and move away instead of tryin to force something through with means which are at odds with general wikipedia practice.Tvx1 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with QueenCake, a vote is the only way to settle this. I can understand why Tvx1 is opposed to this, as no vote means we continue with the current table, which is basically Tvx1's proposal. However, a vote is the fairest way to resolve this.

@FactualCollector7d1, the significance of the Yoong example is that in 2002, "cars" didn't exist due to a lack of rules regarding engines etc. Therefore, "cars" can play no part in the definition of an entry for this article. If we carry this to the current article, whereby Gasly/Kvyat didn't change number nor team, they should only be listed once, like Yoong. The only opposition to this would be if we somehow involved "cars" in the definition of an entry, but as I have shown, these play no part in earlier articles, so I fail to see why this should change now. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not as much the physical cars. It's the seats. We have always grouped driver through the seat/drive they shared. Pre-2014 that coincidentally matched the numbers, but just because that's not longer the case, it doesn't mean that we should stop grouping them that way. This Toro Rosso example shows once again that grouping drivers by whom they replaced is the most efficient way to provide this information to our reader in a clear way, even if it isn't absolutely perfect. I strongly disagree that a vote is any way a good way to resolve this. We should not search to force through anything that way just for the sake of it.Tvx1 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cherkesh, I was referring to the final teams and driver table Tvx1 produced. And Tvx1, a vote is acceptable as a last resort, which was indeed how the DRN participants suggested ending things. When the two editors who claim no consensus have also advocated keeping the article as is, it is hard to agree with it, particularly when there is actually consensus that the current table is unsuitable - what we lack is consensus on what to replace it with. QueenCake (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the idea of a vote among involved editors is self interested, as it would in all likelihood fall along the lines of this discussion, giving "victory" to the proposal of the editor (QueenCake) who suggested the vote (I am not suggesting that this is an intentional plan by QueenCake, merely that such is the way that it would likely turn out). If I am to support anything resembling a vote, it would need to be somehow put to the WP:F1 community in general, or alternatively that we start an RfC. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, a vote ensures the most popular proposal is chosen. Whether or not this is the proposal that you, QueenCake or myself support is irrelevant, because the most popular proposal obviously meets the requirements of the majority of editors and therefore makes the most sense to take forward. I don't see how suggesting a vote can be "self interested", as it is the only way to give everyone an equal say and is only being used as a last resort, as this discussion has failed to achieve consensus. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What a discussion it was, too. Noting that a consensus does exist to change the table and the prevailing dispute is simply a question of execution, I'd also like to vote in favour of a vote (RfC). Waysiders (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson back at the DRN, both you and QueenCake were in favour of taking this dispute to the RfC. Is there a reason that you now feel that a vote is a better solution? FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No. It will rather result in the least unpopular proposal to be chosen. Even if it still is a bad proposal. See the Brexit referendum as to why I strongly oppose to a pure vote. Something that affects around 68 season article should never left to be decided by the difference of merely one vote. Voting should never be allowed to substitute discussion on wikipedia. This is is nothing but a disguised attempt to force some through for the sake of it.Tvx1 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I am not opposed to RfC, but discussion of this mostly dissapeared after the DRN and things have continued to be delayed and delayed further - a vote gives us a definitive decision, so we can move on from this discussion.

@Tvx1, taking your example of the Brexit vote, it is a decision of having 48% of the population dissapointed or 52% of the population dissapointed, and the fairest route is to have a vote whereby you take the most popular option and have the least people dissapointed and most people happy with the outcome. Anyway, we are not here to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, but the reason why a vote may be necessary, is that nothing has been achieved through dialogue, not because we feel it is the "best" route. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, FactualCollector7d1, my impression of the discussion was that another idea along the lines of Tvx1 idea was prevailing. My idea (you all call it mine, but all I did was show the table without any driver listed twice) wasn't necessarily catching on. I'll support an RFC, a vote, just anything that contains a guillotine to end the discussion, and those of us who "lose" will just deal with and move on. If you wish to start an RFC, please go ahead. QueenCake (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And that's my problem, Wikipediaeditperson. This shouldn't be about winning or losing. We should look to provide information to our readers in the most efficient and clear way as possible even if it isn't perfect. Our goal is to achieve something that actually serves our readers, not something that was just coincidentally least unpopular in December 2017. A bare vote will eventually lead to the least bad option being chosen by the difference of one mere vote even it is still a very bad proposal, just because some people that some change must absolutely be chosen for a change just for the sake of it. That's never a good motivation. I can support a RFC because that looks at the arguments, not the numbers, and an uninvolved person will come and assess the consensus at the end of it. If a RFC is initiated it should be at WT:F1, not here because it affects more than just this article. On a side note, could all of you please stop pinging me here? I regularly visit this talk and I will see when new comments are made. I don't need a red number on top every time I visit Wikipedia.Tvx1 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, we were not suggesting it is about winning or losing - we want the best approach. Everyone taking part in a vote will have their own opinion, based upon what they feel presents the information in the clearest way, and therefore the most popular option will be the clearest to most, and whether you or I share this viewpoint is irrelevant.

I feel this is getting a little tiresome - this debate has gone on long enough, we don't need a further debate to decide how best to settle the original debate. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, on a bit of a side note, but still relevant to this discussion, does anyone know why the "Free Practice Drivers" column is not also separated into 2 rows for each team, based on the "car" that the driver used during their session(s)? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Because we don't list the rounds for the Free Practice drivers. There is no chronology to be presented there. As I have explained above the most popular option isn't synonymous with a good option, it can equally be the least bad. Wikipedia content should never be decided on popularity. It should be determined on accuracy and functionality. A pure vote undermines all of that. And it's suggested on poor motivations. The only aim here is that the ones frustrated with a lack of progress want to enforce a change for the sake of it because they stubbornly refuse that we simply are not achieving a consensus.Tvx1 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, I would argue that if a vote has a suitable majority (60-70%), then it is clear that there is a consensus among most of the editors, with just a few editors objecting. Even so, a vote will make it far easier to achieve consensus, because once we have a chosen option, we can use this as a template to work from to try and incorporate the requirements of ALL editors. The issue is that the current options are so vastly different to one another, that it will be difficult to find a suitable "middle ground", so it makes sense to focus on perfecting one option, and the fairest way of choosing said option is through a vote. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Given it has been more than a week since we last discussed this and no editor has pursued an RFC, are we willing to go ahead with a vote to determine which proposal we should use? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've asked before but gotten no response. What are the options? cherkash (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash, I guess the 2 main options are QueenCake's and Tvx1's, but if you or anyone else has any other options then of course we could choose from them as well. However, I personally don't think a vote necessarily needs to consider these 2 options specifically, as I feel we only need to decide whether or not an "entry" is defined as a driver/team/number/"car" combination or a driver/team/number combination, and then we can discuss proposals that both fit with this decision and provide the information clearly to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this way to phrase the question. As a side note, it should be clear that this notion of "car" is not at all universal in time (i.e. it's only applicable to a few seasons at best). cherkash (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A week without replies does not mean that previous argument become invalid. Just because I don't want my concerns about a vote over and over again at your request does not mean those reservations and thus the problems of a vote cease to exist. The question you are formulating should be used for a RFC, because that's clearly the most preferred option. And the definition of an entry is not something we should decide. That's up to the sport's governing body to decide. But most importantly, that has never been a point of discussion. As FactualCollector7d1 explained here even if the car/seat is not a part of the entry it can still be used to provide a formatting tool. The real question we have been debating over for months is what serves our reader best:Having a list that contains every unique name just once per team ordered in a random manner or providing them with a clear chronology of who replaced whom where resulting in a name occasionally appearing more than once.Tvx1 22:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would start an RFC, but have yet to come up with a statement that can adequately summarise this dispute well remaining short. The best statement that I could come up with would be something along the lines of "Should entries in the Teams and Drivers table of post-2013 season articles be listed more than once to allow for chronological ordering?" But this could cause misconceptions that we are proposing to, say, list Alonso twice this year, both before and after Button, something we're not proposing. I truly believe that an RFC, and not a vote, is the best way forward considering that Wikipedia is not about winning; however a statement that accurately represents this discussion is needed to progress with an RFC. I also think that, given the greater visibility it would provide and that any decision could affect other season articles as well, that the WP:F1 talk page would be a better place that this talk page for an RFC. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I feel a more suitable RFC question would be, "For post-2013 articles, should each unique entry in the 'Teams and Drivers' table be defined as a driver/team/number/'car' combination or as a driver/team/number combination?". Then, we can decide how to order or style the table, once we know exactly which "values" the table will include. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Would everybody be alright with that, providing that 'car' is defined immediately below it? Would adding some context as to how this question arose (from the Toro Rosso situation) also be helpful? As no one has said otherwise, I'm assuming that no one has any objections to placing the RFC at WP:F1. Please, lets come together to help solve this, even if we can't solve this ourselves. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we need an RfC on what RfC wording to use. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@FactualCollector7d1, I feel it is fine to post it at the WP:F1 section, but I fear that adding context about the TR situation may not be helpful - I fear that the way the situation is described could come across as supporting one option, and all editors involved should have a good enough understanding of F1 to know about the TR situation anyway. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson, I understand your concerns about bias. I am just thinking of saying something along the lines of "this question has arisen from the replacement of drivers at Toro Rosso in the latter half of the 2017 campaign", so as to give an example of what type of situation this RFC would apply to. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An RfC has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#RfC_on_the_teams_and_drivers_table_of_post-2013_season_articles. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)