Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix

Entry list

I know that creating the article a month out is a little premature, but there are a few things that I would like to do differently this year and I feel that this is the opportune moment to experiment with them.

First, I feel that there is a prolific over-use of flagicons throughout WP:MOTOR and related WikiProjects. While I understand the case for including them—particularly in championship articles—at times it can get carried away. At its very worst, it looks like this. Kalle Rovanperä won fifteen stages, but does the article really need fifteen flagicons? Members of the World Rally WikiProject felt that the answer was no, and so starting in 2019, we tried something new: use a single flagicon in the entry list, but otherwise leave them out of other tables. I think this is something that we can carry over to F1 articles and put a flagicon in the entry list, but leave them out of the qualifying, race and points standings articles.

Secondly, it's a chance to address a curious little oddity. Articles like Ferrari SF71H contain links to every single race article, but those articles do not contain links to the cars unless they are specifically mentioned in the prose—they rarely are, and if they are, only a select few of chassis are mentioned. This gives us the chance to link to the chassis in the article.

Finally, there is the question of what counts as "participating in a Grand Prix". We have always regarded it as driving in a session, so that includes FP1 drivers and race drivers who get replaced during a weekend (such as Felipe Massa being sick in Hungary a few years ago and Paul di Resta filling in). They do get mentioned in the prose, but it's usually only an acknowledgement that they drove. Here we can build it into the structure of an article a little more consistently and cohesively.

It might seem a little bit odd to have the entry list leading into the results tables, but if the article is written properly, there should be a fairly lengthy prose account of a Grand Prix weekend between them. Unfortunately, articles tend to wind up a little on the minimalist side; 2018 German Grand Prix is a prime example of this. That's one of the things that I want to focus on this year: actually making substantial articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Making an article substantial does not equate to bloating it with tables. If the sole motivation of suddenly adding such a large table to a F1 Grand Prix article is to be able to remove flags from later tables that is a very poor motivation. Moreover, no entry list for this GP has been published yet. In fact, no-one has been entered at all. This entry list is thus speculative and should be removed anyway. Rally is also a very poor comparison here. Firstly, the people entering different rallies vary much much more than for F1 GP's, where entries are primarily season bound, secondly, F1 doesn't not have nowhere near the same amount of sessions/stages during a weekend, so the "fifteen flagicons per person" concern is just misplaced. We have even gotten F1 articles to Feature Article states in the format we have always used, so really the problems raised just don't exist. Look at 2005 United States Grand Prix or 2014 Japanese Grand Prix for examples of substantial articles top class F1 GP article without the need for additional large tables. If you look at these articles, so you see that even with some repetition it's perfectly possible to write substantial articles under the current system without flag icons being a problem. In those article they are not distracting nor emphasizing unduly.Tvx1 13:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:. For starters the discussion for weather we should include an entry list in Grand Prix articles is something which sould be discussed at WT:F1, that concerns the whole wikiproject not just this article. Secondly I agree with Tvx1, it is too early to include an entry list for this grand prix, there hasn't been one released, it should not be in the article untill after the one has been released and even then I don't see the benefit for including it, the classification tables for quali and the race are sufficent for this. SSSB (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"We have even gotten F1 articles to Feature Article states in the format we have always used, so really the problems raised just don't exist."

That does not mean that we should keep doing something that is not necessarily the best thing to do. The articles for the two races you cite—Indy 2005 and Suzuka 2014—document extraordinary events, but I'm thinking about how to improve the articles for ordinary races. Too many race reports rely on on expository paragraph and results tables and little else.

"I don't see the benefit for including it, the classification tables for quali and the race are sufficent for this."

If an article is written properly, it should have prose recounting the events of the Grand Prix. In that case, you're relying on the results tables to act as a reference for who was competing. The problem is that it comes after the prose when something is needed beforehand. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, you're relying on the results tables to act as a reference for who was competing.

But you won't need it as reference, if the statement "Hamilton overtook Bottas" comes up it is obvious that Hamilton and Bottas are competing and the rest of the competitors are irrelevant in that statement, you will only need an entry table for reference if you put something like "Car number 44 took the lead" or "The 2 Mercedes collided at turn 1", however it would be simpler to simply write "The 2 Mercedes of Hamilton and Bottas collided at turn 1" rather than include an entrants table. Prose is better than tables and so we should keep the number of tables to a minimum. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The two I mentioned are just two out of many. 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix are examples of articles which don't document extraordinary events but ordinary races and have reached Featured Article status without an entry lists. And there are many more Good Articles alike. If find it quite strange that you claim something that we are doing something which "is not the best thing to do" when our doing has resulted in such article reach the best Wikipedia quality status. The shortcomings of some of the 2018 articles is not the lack of an entry list. And if the order of introduction of content had been a problem if would have come up during the GA and FA nominations. A large, limited use, table is not the answer. Especially not a speculative one.Tvx1 11:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"if the statement "Hamilton overtook Bottas" comes up it is obvious that Hamilton and Bottas are competing and the rest of the competitors are irrelevant in that statement"

But who are Hamilton and Bottas? You cannot assume that the reader has prior knowledge of the subject. An entry list is preferable to lengthy expository paragraphs detailing who is racing.

"And if the order of introduction of content had been a problem if would have come up during the GA and FA nominations."

Again, this has nothing to do with GA and FA nominations. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think Wikipedia invented wikilinks?? Another huge table doesn't solve that. Looking at that in the same vain it tells them, Bottas and Hamilton are just "some drivers who were entered for this race." We don't need to provide a full background for every driver in an article on an individual races. If readers were really troubled in the way you claim, we would have heard some complaints by now in the fifteen years Wikipedia has been publishing race reports. This is just a solution looking for a problem.Tvx1 12:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

To expand on Tvx1's comment, an entry table doesn't give any relevant information which cannot be mentioned briefly in prose, the entry table would only give their car number, completely irrelevant unless you're watching, their team irrelevant in regards to the statement you quoted back at me and their nationality which is irrelevant unless your looking at nation stats and definitely irrelevant in the example you quoted at me as are the exact name of the car model and the engine they are using, if the team was relevant it can easily be put into the prose as has been done for the past 997 race reports in less than 5 words, if the reader wants more information they can simply click on the wikilink. As far as I can tell there is no added benefit for a entries table, any test drivers can be mentioned in the race report under the practice heading in 1 sentence and if any withdraws it can also be included in the race report in an appropriate place. Prose is preferable over endless tables. SSSB (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:

"the entry table would only give their car number"

The entry list in the article also gives chassis names, power unit names and entrant names. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: if you took the care to go beyond the first sentence and read my entire reply you would know that I addressed all of that and I reached the conclusion that all that information is either blatantly obvious if mentioned (driver name (in the statement "Hamilton overtook Bottas" it is obvious Hamilton and Bottas are competing(as discussed above))), or, more often, than not irrelevant, on the rare occasion where it is relevant you could (as I mention above) include it in the prose in around 5 words. If we go back to the potential statement "Hamilton overtook Bottas for the lead" the car number, chassis name, power unit name and the entrant names are irrelevant and very rarely are they relevant, the team name is only relevant in the race report if there are team orders at play or two drivers from the same team crash into each other, this doesn't happen often enough to warrant an entry table. I can't think of a single example where the chassis or power unit name would be relevant in a race report. I have said it before and I will say it again, prose is preferable over tables, especially if the table contains huge amounts of info irrelevant to the race. SSSB (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I think an entry list is an excellent idea, and something that has previously been sadly lacking. It means readers can see at a glance who competed in the race. Then, if they are still interested, they can read an account of the race highlights. Then, finally they can review the results. It seems like an ideal structure to me. If the tables appear too dominat, either, or all, can be default-collapsed. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No not really, not every one on an entry always competes in the race. Drivers can fail to qualify or start for numerous reasons. The results tables give a much better glance on who actually competed. Scrolling down is really not much of an effort. Moreover, most race articles aren't terribly long, so readers can see the results tables often straight away. Entry lists are overkill here in a sport where entries are primarily season-bound.Tvx1 12:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:

"No not really, not every one on an entry always competes in the race."

In the past, you have repeatedly insisted that being on an entry list is condidered enough to have taken part in a Grand Prix. Pascal Wehrlein is listed as having taken part in the 2017 Australian Grand Prix even though he sat the entire event out, simply because he was entered. You can't have it both ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, Tvx1 is not trying to have it both ways, just because being on an entry list is enough to haven taken part in a grand prix that still doesn't quantify having an entry table in Grand Prix articles. Furthermore taking part in a Grand Prix is different to competing in the race. SSSB (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And if/when there are drivers who take part in the Grand Prix, but not the race, the entry list table would include them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But an entry table is not necessary for this, 1 sentence will suffice, for example "Pascal Wehrlein was entered for the Grand Prix but withdrew before the weekend started being replaced at sauber by Antonio Giovinazzi." or "Lando Norris took part in the first practice session taking the place of Alonso at Mclaren." An entries table is not necessary to convey that information. Prose is preferable over tables. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, we should remove the entry table from the 2019 championship article and explain it all in prose.

Prose is certainly preferable over tables, but when you need to pass a lot of information along quickly—such as the driver, entrant, number, chassis and engine—tables are more appropriate because the required prose would be lengthy and dense and distract from the subject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the entry list from race to race across a season stays mostly the same, with the exception of test drivers, because of this it is not necessary to list all the participants of every grand prix as its stated in the article for the season and it rarely changes, then a single sentence at the beginning of the race report can inform the reader that there was a one off replacement driver, as stated in the above examples. SSSB (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC). You've won me over. SSSB (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

However, I think the placement is wrong, the entry list doesn't belong in the race report, it should either be before the race report, i.e. the first header, or it should be at the beginning of the classifications section. SSSB (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — the report is the prose-based section of the article. Ideally it should look like this (where each new indent represents a new subsection):

1. Report

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Championship standings prior to the race (not applicable here)

1.1.2 Entry list

1.1.3 Tyres

1.1.4 Drag Reduction System

1.1.5 Pre-race controversy / anything else (as needed)

1.1.5 Support categories

1.2 Free Practice

1.2.1 Post-practice (eg penalties)

1.3 Qualifying

1.3.1 Q1

1.3.2 Q2

1.3.3 Q3

1.3.4 Post-qualifying (eg penalties)

1.4 Race

1.4.1 Pre-race (if applicable)

1.4.2 2019 Australian Grand Prix

1.4.3 Post-race

1.4.4 Championship standings after the race

2. Classification

2.1 Free Practice

2.2 Qualifying

2.3 Race

2.4 Championship standings

I do feel like we need a summary table—just the top times for each driver in session—for Free Practice. We treat Free Practice as part of a Grand Prix everywhere else. I know people say "you can't read anything into the times" and that's true, but it seems weird to omit it given the significane we give it elsewhere.

I know the "support categories" section will be controversial because they're not part of the Grand Prix, but without the Grand Prix those events (especially Formula 2 and Formula 3) won't exist. The FIA is definitely trying to forge closer ties between the three categories. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree, first off I don't think practice and support races are notable unless they impact the outcome of competive sessions, i.e. In monaco when VER's crash in FP3 prevented him from quali or if a support race somehow delays a F1 session, and besides an F2/F3 race can run without F1 (and has done so in the past) and the FIA forging closer ties is irrelevant, as for practice times, they are irrelevant, they have no bearing on the weekend or any future weekend, it is simply that practice, this has been discussed before and the consensus against including practice times was clear, but that is for another discussion.

I don't feel that the entry list belongs in the place where you suggested, the entry list doesn't belong with the report as it doesn't report on the grand prix, it simply list the entrants, it belongs in the race report section about as much as the quali, race and practise classification does, I think the entry table belongs at the begining of the classification section. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of putting the entry list at the start of the article is to provide all of the competitors up-front so the reader gets all of that information first. Putting it with the results tables is the same as moving the entry list from the championship article with the results matrices.

You have to enter the Grand Prix before you can take part, so it makes sense to list the entries before we detail what they did during the weekend. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case it should appear before the race report section as seen in the season articles, i.e.

1 Entry list

2 Race report

If we put it into race report then it would make sense to put the classification tables in the race report too,

2 Race report

2.1 Practise

2.2 Quali

2.2.1 Classification

2.3 Race

2.3.1 Classification

SSSB (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The race report is part of the wider report. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, so what does that mean? That statement "The race report is part of the wider report." doesn't justify anything. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — it means that the race report should not be separate to the background section. The background section provides context to the race, so it's all part of the same report. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: you misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that the race report and background should be seperated, I am questioning weather the entry table should be in the background section, let me rewrite my 2 suggests in a clearer way:

either

1 Entry list

2 Race report

2.1 Background

2.2 Practise

2.3 Quali

2.4 Race

3 Classification

3.1 Quali

3.2 Race

3.3 Championship after race

or,

1 Race report

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Entry list

^1.2 Practise

1.3 Quali

1.3.1 Classification

1.4 Race

1.4.1 Classification

1.5 Post race championship standings

It does not make sense to put the entry table in the race report but not any classification tables, either all the classification and entry tables should be in the race report (and therefore no classification section) or the entry table should precede the race report, I am in favour of the second putting all the classification tables in the race report especially considering the written race report needs some context from the quali classification (and for the second option the race report heading becomes null so I put a line through it.) Here i've only done the main ones so you get the general idea.SSSB (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — to be honest, I don't care. I'm done with Formula 1. Whatever hope pre-season testing offered was snuffed out when Mercedes were a second faster than everyone else without even trying. I'm sick of staying up to riduculous hours to watch a race when I know the result 15 minutes into FP1. I'm sick of having to listen to the endless platitudes for British drivers from the commentators, and I'm sick of David Croft sounding like he's having an orgasm when Hamilton wins. And I'm sick of everyone pretending that this is the pinnacle of motorsport when in reality whoever has the healthiest bank balance wins. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, watch Channel 4, I do, the commentators are better, you don't have to pay a small fortune and you can get up at a normal time, okay its only highlights but if its so predictable it doesn't really matter. SSSB (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — I'm Australian so all we get is the world feed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, unlucky, you have to deal with their awful commentary. SSSB (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM.Tvx1 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding flags, entry lists and stuff..

Can we keep it the same way as we had it last year and maybe you can get a public opinion on wp:f1 talk page? Once a consensus has been reached we can then edit the pages... It does not make much sense for the entry list to have flags next to names but the qualifying to not.. But then again, F1 never really showed the drivers' nationality in the broadcast.. I'm getting confused here as well. Can we just keep it the old way until you fellas come to a conclusion? Admanny (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Admanny: We came to a conclusion as you can see above, as for WT:F1, I advertised this discussion there, we reached a conclusion here, you are welcome to reopen the discussion (here or WT:F1) but until you can overturn the consensus with a new one it should stay as is. SSSB (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"It does not make much sense for the entry list to have flags next to names but the qualifying to not."

It makes perfect sense. The drivers do not represent nationalities the way Olympic athletes or national sporting teams do. Ideally, I would remove all flagicons from the article, but some people feel that there is merit in including them. If so, then they only need to be mentioned once, which is one of the things that the entry list does. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Official document by FIA has always showed the flags next to the drivers. Why not from this season?--79.52.96.245 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to perfectly recreate those documents. Besides, we already show the flags elsewhere in the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Driver nationality flags

So if we need to insist on having an entry table, can we please have the driver nationality flags included in the qualifying and race results tables as well? I understand that it has been stated that F1 drivers don't represent their country the same way Olympic athletes represent their countries, but that's not entirely true as FIA drivers hold a racing licence from a particular country and so F1 drivers do in actual fact represent a country. Also, nationality stats are counted on many sites including here on Wikipedia, so I'd find it easier to read if flags are included on all result tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoFourFour (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"So if we need to insist on having an entry table, can we please have the driver nationality flags included in the qualifying and race results tables as well?"

There is absolutely no reason to do that. The reader only needs to be informed of a driver's nationality once.

"FIA drivers hold a racing licence from a particular country and so F1 drivers do in actual fact represent a country."

Not in the sporting sense of representing a nation. There is no prize offered to the nation with the best-performing drivers. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no prize given to the best nation at the Olympics either, only the individuals, so what is your point? Whilst I agree that having an entry list can be useful, providing full team names and that, it rarely shows anything more, the exception being in cases like Hungary 2017 when Massa was initially entered but was forced to withdraw and so di Resta substitued. Please, as something whose autism really likes having the flags by the name at all times, can we reinstate the flags?

To whoever put the flags back on, thank you very much. Please can we go forward having the format like this then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoFourFour (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@EchoFourFour: If the flags are in the entry table then there is no reason for them to be anywhere else, and you not liking it is irrelevant per WP:IDONTLIKE SSSB (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Then delete the entry table so they wont be there. You cant remove flags just because you dont like them for some reason. Read the rule you linked above. Alex (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex95-Ukraine:, I'm nor removing them because I don't like it i'm removving becuase they are redundent. They need only be mentioned once. SSSB (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1)They can be mentioned as many times as needed. 2)If you think they should be mentioned once then remove them from entry list table . Noone will look at that table anyway... Alex (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"They can be mentioned as many times as needed."

I'm glad we agree on something. They only need to be mentioned once. The only time where there would need to be multiple flags is if a driver changes nationality at some time during a weekend. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And why they NEED to be mentioned only once? Cause you told that? Also If they need to be mentioned once, as per you, then that once need to be in qualifying and race results tables cause that tables are more necessary. But I dont think there is a reason to remove them from entry list table. Can just keep them in all tables. Also I'm surprised that you still didn't removed flags from tables in main article, cause all flags are used much more then once there. Alex (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• And i see one more person who want to add flags (that who just added them). So It's already 4vs2. Maybe you two just agree that you are not right here and we end this? Alex (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It makes no logical sense to keep mentioning a drivers nationality at every opportunity, and there are only 4 editors in this thread 2 for and 2 against, contributors in other threads don't count towards finding a consensus on this issue. Why should that once be in results tables, in a results table a drivers nationality should only be mentioned if the country in question gets a reward or if a drivers nationality affects the result, I can see no reason why a results table should include nationalities and until you do we are going to keep going round in circles. Further include flagicons reduces readability as mentioned in WP:MOSFLAG. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1)There is perfect logical sense in having a flag in every table near the driver cause it's better for reader like that. If it wont then maybe it wont be in official F1 graphics, right? And how is editors in this thread matters? Everyone's opinion counts. One guy added the flags back recently so his opinion also counts. He doesnt have an obligation to follow talk pages. So it's 4vs2 already and probably this is not the end. 2) Driver represents country. They even play national anthem after the race. You cant say that flag means nothing in F1. And what do you mean by "driver nationality affects the result"? How you even imagine that? 3) Including flagicons in tables IMPROVES readability, i dont understand at all how someone can think otherwise. Alex (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"it's 4vs2 already"

Consensus is not a vote. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"They even play national anthem after the race."

That is irrelevant.

"official F1 graphics"

Also irrelevant, the drivers nationality is mentioned in the article the above does not add to your arguement.

"And how is editors in this thread matters? Everyone's opinion counts. One guy added the flags back recently so his opinion also counts."

I agree that his opinion counts, but if he wants his opinion to count towards your 4v2 consensus he needs to state his opinion here, you can't assume peoples opinions based on edit histories.

"Including flagicons in tables IMPROVES readability, i dont understand at all how someone can think otherwise."

per WP:MOSFLAG, please read what we link to you. SSSB (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Yeah, consensus is not a vote. Consensus = your opinion, right? And seems like everything, except you opinion, is irrelevant. 2) He doesnt have to write in talk pages. He clearly showed his opinion with that edit. 3) Yeah, I've read that article and it states "They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players". Alex (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Yeah, I've read that article and it states "They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players""

but we have mentioned their nationality once in the entry table, no need to do it again. SSSB (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex95-Ukraine:, our opinion is just as valid as yours and you can't claim to have a consensus after a matter of hours, its you'r problem for not weighing in on the initial discussion, there was a consensus, stop ignoring it. SSSB (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Then dont mention it in that table, I already told that but you didnt reply anything. Also the consensus was about including entry table in the article. I'm OK with that despite not seeing any reason for including it. But there never was a consensus for removing flags. You removed them just because you wanted to do it descite flags was there for 997 races. Alex (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It being there in 997 other articles is not a valid argument (see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:WAX) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice, and this is you whole reply? Ok, i remove flags from entry table, and add them back to results table. So they wont be in both places, AS YOU WANTED. Alex (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex95-Ukraine: No, it makes sense for them to be in the entry table, you yourself said "They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players"", it doesn't make sense to also put them in the results tables. SSSB (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it that hard to read everything i wrote on the 1st try? There actually never was a consensus for removing flags. Consensus was only for addding entry table to the article. Alex (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a consensus to remove the flagicons, that is why the entries table was proposed and added. SSSB (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Entries was added so that race article would link to the car article cause car articles are linked to race article. Also why you dont understand that its stupid not to have flags there? Example: i opened article about rally mexico, there is wrc 2 table, where there is a driver Ole Christian Veiby. I want to know his nationality. And you know what? His nationality doesnt stated ANYWHERE in that article cause he is not in entry list for that race. Why I have to open his article instead of having flag next to his name in results table??? Alex (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your example doesn't apply here because we have an entry table so you can find out nationalities, or you could click the wikilink, read the first couple of sentences (nationality is almost always mentioned in the lead) and then you can go back, this is why wikilinks exist. SSSB (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The user doesnt know any driver nationalities. But he wants to know driver nationalities for drivers who scored points. Why he has to click 10 wikilinks for checking each driver nationality or check nationality one by one by comparing entry list and results table? Alex (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTAT, states that you can't use that argument. SSSB (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What you linked is not connected to our discussion in any way. Actually I see there is nothing to discuss with you cause you dont care about readability of the tables and articles at all and awoiding questions. Alex (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is WP:NOTSTAT says you shouldnt add content (flagicons) for the purpose of stats (seeing the nationality of drivers who scored points). Besides if you want to see that look at the championship standings in 2019 Formula One World Championship. SSSB (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I’m joining this talk in order to strongly advocate for the use of flagicons in all tables on the page (entry list, qualifying, race results, etc.). Before we go into the various sets of rules and laws about the use of flagicons, tables and others, I’m going to talk about my personal experience using Wikipedia. Yes, I know, my experience and what I like are irrelevant because “the rules say so”, but I’m still going to mention them so that everyone can understand the whole of my argument.

When I read Wikipedia articles about F1 and sports in general, one thing I really like to do is to be able to spot immediately my countrymen (or specific nations) and their rankings. When the flagicons are in the table, it’s immediate and very easy. When they are not, I have to actually read all the lines to find my countrymen and it’s annoying. I don’t mind reading, mind you, but I love the clear overview that flagicons give in all tables.

On this issue, both Mclarenfan17 and SSSB use some fallacious arguments, even though they use more intelligible arguments elsewhere (both arguments I'm going to cite come from Talk:2019_Formula_One_World_Championship#Defining_a_race actually referring to this issue):

Mclarenfan17 states: “Those flagicons actually make the article less readable because they interrupt the natural pattern that the eye follows in the English language (left to right, top to bottom)” (08:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)). Less readable? Please. Maybe for kindergarten students who are learning to read, but for regular human beings I honestly don’t see the problem.

SSSB states: “if you want to know Hamilton's result go to the entry table, find him (its got the british flag so you should manage) and looks at the results table, its not that hard” (10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)). How does that make sense? I want to see Hamilton’s result, so I first have to find him on the entry list, and then find him in the results? Sorry but this is actually stupid.

Sure, there are rules, laws and guidelines, but there are also actual people reading those articles. The flagicons have been there for decades. I don’t think anyone of the thousands of readers of those articles have had trouble reading the tables “because the flagicons disrupt the English language”. I’m pretty sure if there were a large poll, a large majority of readers would want to keep the flagicons. They’re not present in this talk probably because they don’t want/know how to enter this kind of juridic high levels talks, but to me it’s common sense. (Yes, I know, “common sense is not in the rules”).

So in conclusion, I side with Alex95-Ukraine’s view, and, if we absolutely want to count, it’s now 2 vs 2. I don’t think we need an entry list, but I’m fine with keeping one as long as it’s not an excuse to remove flagicons in the other tables. Patriote95 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"SSSB states: “if you want to know Hamilton's result go to the entry table, find him (its got the british flag so you should manage) and looks at the results table, its not that hard” (10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)). How does that make sense? I want to see Hamilton’s result, so I first have to find him on the entry list, and then find him in the results? Sorry but this is actually stupid."

@Patriot95:The reason that's stupid is because you have taken my comment out of context, that was in refrence to Alex95-Ukraine saying that if he wants to see all of Hamilton's results he for some reason requires the flagicon to locate Hamilton in the article.

"one thing I really like to do is to be able to spot immediately my countrymen (or specific nations) and their rankings"

again Wikipedia is not a stats site, if you want to do this you can go to a stats site like StatsF1, we can't simple include every thing because you like to look at statistics. SSSB (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: 1) Yes but the context in this specific example is you pretending not to understand what Alex95-Ukraine is saying (his argument as a whole). Obviously, neither him nor me are saying it is impossible to find a driver without the flagicons, but that it is undeniably way faster when they are present.

2) I know and use StatsF1, but it doesn't display the nationalities in its stats (only in team/driver bios), for the very simple reason that a nationality is not a "stat". How can you consider a person's (whether a sportsman or else) nationality to be a simple "stat"? Qualifying time is a stat. Weight is a stat. But a nationality isn't. Or, I we really want to remove ALL stats, why bother indicating what team the drivers drive for and their qualy or race times? Kubica being 3 laps behind is a "stat". So we should just list 1 - 20 and the names in order for Wikipedia not to be a stat site... Patriote95 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB, Alex95-Ukraine, Patriote95, EchoFourFour Actually, regarding the flagicons, it was initially started in 2019 Monte Carlo Rally. Removing flagicons was Mclarenfan17's thought (who is that anonymous user). As you can see, his original idea is completely removing flagicons. Of course, we were all strongly opposed (or at least I was), but we eventually decided to use flagicons only in the entry table for a) his colour-blindness, which causes him can't tell from different colours including flagicons (I am sorry to say that, but I am just stating the fact) and b) compromise.

In terms of the F1 page, although I am also leaning toward keeping those flagicons, I still recommend to accept removing flagicons as a compromise and try to get over it, because that's how the entire community works. If the division is still there, then WP:RFC or WP:DRN. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so that’s what it’s all about then… Well, I’m sorry but:

1) A minority of persons having a condition, colour-blindness is this situation, should not set the rule for the vast majority of users who don’t.

2) In WRC articles, flags are present for all the specials, so it could lead to each driver’s flagicon appearing 10 or 20 times. But in F1 articles it is absolutely not the case. In all pre-2019 articles, drivers’ flag were present only twice (qualifying and race results, there were no entry list), with a possible third time only for top 5 drivers/teams in the championship. We’re talking about only 2 flagicons for the majority of drivers. It’s doesn’t seem excessive at all.

3) Maybe Wikipedia could be thinking about some accessible version for colour-blind people which would remove flagicons and other things they have trouble with, but again, not fair to do it in the standard version.

4) Again, I would be highly surprised is the majority of readers were against flagicons in the tables.

5) Conclusion, I am personally against the removing of drivers’ flagicons compromise, and would like to see them in both qualifying and race results as well at top 5 rankings as it’s the case in all other GP articles. Patriote95 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We should keep the discussion ope for at least another 36 hours to allow other editors to contribute, however if no one else posts against flagicons I would be willing to accept that I am out gunned and I will accept the result, but like I said another 36 hours at least. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
But let me make a few things clear, I am not saying we should remove of all flagicons only the flagicons in the results tables. SSSB (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB I'm fine with keeping open the discussion for 36 hours to allow everyone to participate. Right now, I'm noting that 4 people have sided with keeping the flagicons in the result tables in this talk (Alex95-Ukraine, Unnamelessness, EchoFourFour and myself), and it's fair to assume at least 3 others (Mbdxecw2, MilfordBoy1991 and RicoRodriguezLMO) are on this side as well, per their edits on the article page. 2 are against. Patriote95 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that on the 2019 season page, we have flagicons on the entry table, on the Grand Prix results table for polesitters, fastest lap setters and winners, and then again on the standings table. So are you gonna delete the flagicons over there? At least be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoFourFour (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to put my opinion – that I'm strongly in favour of keeping the flags in all of the tables, just has always been the case in previous seasons. I find it much easier to see the driver I'm looking for when the flag is present, whereas it is necessary to read down the entire list when the flags are not there. Sure, it's only saving a second or two, but doing this repeatedly soon becomes an unnecessary annoyance. With the flags present everything is clear at a glance.

For a couple of days I'd been looking at this article and wondering why the flags were missing, but then I found this discussion. I wonder how many others think likewise but don't know where to look. Also, as a final extra point, I'd like to say that having the flags just makes the table look better and more complete to my eye. Knight of the Square Table (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I've always thought that too, the table without flags looks rather monotonous. Also, a lot of people seem to feel rather passionate about having the flagicons included and it's only a minor thing so why is it such a problem for the 2 users who don't want them reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoFourFour (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of WP:MOSFLAG, which states that flags should not be used for decoration. If they are to be included, then once is enough. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They arent used for decoration. They are used to represent the nationality of drivers. And once is not enough just because you said that. There is no rule that they can be used only once. And, as you can see, there is a consensus for using them in results table. Still only you two want to remove them. Alex (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"They arent used for decoration."

They are after the first use.

"They are used to represent the nationality of drivers."

Which only needs to be done once.

"And once is not enough just because you said that."

Do you honestly think someone is going to forget a driver's nationality between the entry list and the clasaification table? If the answer is yes, then I'd say that person has bigger problems.

"there is a consensus for using them in results table"

Which I find strange because a whole host of inactive editors and editors who have rarely edited Formula 1 articles suddenly joined the discussion after you did and made the same basic argument. It feels like canvassing to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

1-2) No, they arent decoration even after first use. And it doesnt stated anywhere that they have to be used only once. You can even go and check articles about UEFA Champions League, tennis articles and many others where flags used MUCH more then once per article. 3) Do you honestly think someone is going to read entry list table? People will just immidiatelly go to results in 99% cases. And as for you question, the answer is yes, i cant remember all 20 nationalities after watching a table. If you can, I'm happy for you, but most people cant. 4) Why it's strange for you? Noone (including me) knew that you are going to remove flags cause people dont check talk pages. Now you removed them, they saw it in article so they tried to figure out why that happened and came to the talk page. You started the discusion of removing flags by the example from wrc where there was 15 flags for 1 driver in 1 table. I agree, that there is no real need for that (but I dont have any problems with 15 flags), so the flags had to be removed only from special stages table (also little off topic, but i think that Itinerary and Special stages tables can be just merged), but there is no reason to remove them from results table. 5) And how do you think I canvassed them to come here? And also for me its VERY strange that you even thought that people will like this change. 6) Also I saw above someone has written about your color-blindness. I feel sorry for you, but if you dont see colours that doesnt mean that article should be made unreadable for other 99,9% users, who can see colours, by removing everything colourfull (like flags and surface type indication for rally). Alex (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"You can even go and check articles about UEFA Champions League, tennis articles and many others where flags used MUCH more then once per article."

And that's a decision for editors of those articles to make. Nothing that they do has any bearing on what we do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why we need to change a system that isn't broken and has worked perfectly well for the last 69 seasons worth of Grands Prix, not to mention every other international formula race that we have made event articles for. The entry list doesn't do anything except make the article look pretty, and if you want to see an entry list go to the season article. We tried introducing practice results a few years ago and that fell flat for the same reason. I oppose the change. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I still find it mighty unfair that almost everyone who has posted here wants the flags, but because two users don't want them, nobody gets them. Come on lads, just give over, you're being selfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoFourFour (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@EchoFourFour: if you'd actually read the above you would know that is exactly what I am doing if there is a consensus and considering this discussion has been open for 36 hours and there being a clear consensus for them so far, Mclarenfan17 will have no choice but to do the same and simply get over it, however these things take time and this will take more time. SSSB (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@EchoFourFour: the results table in this article didn't originally have flags in it, so, as their addition is clearly controversial, you need to achieve a talkpage consensus to add them. That can, typically, take weeks, if not months, with F1 related stuff - so don't be too impatient!

As you are a very new editor (I can see this was your very first edit on Wikipedia) to get a good understanding of what "consensus" means in Wikipedia, it might be worth reading WP:CONSENSUS. In there you'll see that "consensus" in Wikipedia doesn't simply mean the result of a count of how people would like them versus how many people would not, or that the arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever, and that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

To give yourself a better chance of building a quality argument it would also be worth reading MOS:ICONS which says, amongst other things, if: the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. So as they are certainly controversial, it probably wouldn't be considered to be a "quality argument" to say that they should be in the results table of this article because they have been in the result tables of other, similar articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And this all returns to concerns which were already voiced prior to the weekend getting underway. A massive entry list which was added with no apparent reason other than to have an excuse to remove flags from other tables. An actions which appears to be very controversial. I still don't see the need for an entry list. Formula one entries are primarily season-based, not race-based. Nor do I seed the need for removing flags from the results tables. This article in particular has a considerable size and to connect the nationalities to the results one has to constantly move up and down the article. And I still see the value op having those flags in each results table. They are quite simply a handy navigational tool. In the last few years a countryman of mine competed in the sport and it was invaluable to have his flag there to instantly see how he fared in each event. Having to search a full name in mass of blue-colored text is much, much less practical. And the beauty of it all is that these flags are generated through a template which makes sure that even readers using assistive technology have the countries' names read out to them. So I agree with the sentiment that there is no need to change a system that isn't broken and has worked perfectly well for the last 69 seasons worth of Grands Prix. WP:NOTBROKENWP:BROKEN certainly applies here.Tvx1 23:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: you appear to have linked to the wrong place, I think you meant WP:BROKEN. This discussion is not about the entry list it is about flagicons in results tables, I think your link to (what I assume was meant to be} WP:BROKEN has persuaded me to see your point of view regarding the flagicons in results tables. SSSB (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. I meant to link to WP:BROKEN. And while I know this discussion is about the flags, the entry list is related here. The inclusion of the latter is clearly the root cause of this debate. If it hadn't been included we wouldn't be having this discussion here. DeFacto, you're telling untruths here. This edit added the first results table to the article and flags were present in it. They were removed later against long-standing established wikiproject practice. And it very clearly is their absence rather than their presence that is creating controversy.Tvx1 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — answer me this: what does repeating the flagicon add to the article? Because multiple uses clearly violates WP:MOSFLAG. Drivers do not represent nations the way Olympians or national sporting teams do, so there is no need to constantly show the flags. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I and the others have explained before, they are navigational aid. They make it easier to find certain information. And just because they do not represent their nations in the exact same as the olympics it doesn't mean their nationalities are irrelevant. The sports governing body clearly recognizes them as representing their nations by raising their flags and playing the national anthem of the winner. That and the continuous mention of nationalities in the reliable sources is enough justification to include them. We had a large discussion on them over at MOS:FLAGS and it was closed with a clear consensus in favor of including flags in tables like these. All in all I feel you have much to restrictive of what constitutes "representing their nations". A view that is cleary met with only little agreement.Tvx1 01:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, I told no "untruths". Your diff shows the qualifying table, we are talking about the results table. The current consensus for that is the flag-free version. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So can we just get a straight list with two hours of the 36-hour deadline left as to who wants it reverted to what it has been for the last 69 seasons of event articles and who wants it to stay as is:

Original

• @Alex95-Ukraine:
• @EchoFourFour:
• @Holdenman05:
• @Knight of the Square Table:
• @Mbdxecw2:
• @MilfordBoy1991:
• @Patriote95:
• @RicoRodriguezLMO:
• @Tvx1:
• @Unnamelessness:
• @SSSB:
• @Admanny:

New

• @Mclarenfan17:

Please add yourself to this list if I have missed you. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFLAG:

"Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality."

The entry list does exactly that. There is no need to include them in the results tables.

And:

"Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things."

So tell me, why is it that drivers get flags but teams do not? It's a but hard to argue that one is significant but the other is not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05:

1. There is no deadline. These discussions keep going until a consensus is reached. That might mean calling for help and contributions via an RfC, or whatever.
2. What's with the list of user names? WP:CONSENSUS (a Wikipedia policy) is very clear that a consensus is not the result of a vote.

The way to reach a consensus is to try to bring about a common agreement on what should be in the article, which may mean making compromises. A big compromise to the inclusion of flags has already been made by agreeing to add them to the entry table. Adding them to the other tables still a matter of discussion.

What might be more useful than the user count, would be to summarise the "quality" arguments on each side, as WP:CONSENSUS is also very clear that The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. and at the same time, eliminate those that boil down to personal preferences because WP:CONSENSUS also says: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Arguments rooted in Wikipedia guidelines and policies are what are needed.

-- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05:, please read all the comments, not just the most recent because if you had you would know that I had changed sides when {Tvx1 mentioned WP:BROKEN, secondly when I mentioned 36 hours I didn't mean that as a deadline, I was merely indicating that you can't close a discussion after just a few hours even if there a unanimous decision, if necessary this discussion could go on for weeks.

@DeFacto:, this discussion is about the use of flagicons in both qualifying and final results tables. SSSB (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I missed your switch. But I stand by my deadline comments - very often consensus, especially in F1-related discussions, is never reached. I can imagine the repeating of Gasly and Kvyat in the 2017 driver tables is still being disputed to this day. We have to come to a conclusion somehow, and I don't understand why (or how it is fair on everyone that has participated in this discussion) we have to keep it this way if only one of twelve people (8% of the discussion) wants it. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, you’re a right with your explanation on consenus, but I don’t understand why you stamp on that so much. I think it’s beyond doubt what the community agreement is. There is only one user strongly opposing the flags having gone beyond breaking WP:3RR to try to get their way. No one is agreeing with their stance. And while there is no official deadline, discussion participants can always voluntarily decide to impose one. If we impose one, I suggest saturday 30 March. That’s when the next qualifying session occurs and when this should be settled so as to prevent a similar edit-warring episode from taking place.Tvx1 12:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, because we see a lot of impatience and assertion of consensus, but not many arguments to add the flags are supported by policies or guidelines. All we seem to have are a lot of "because I like them" type arguments, which - we know - should generally not be given any weight when evaluating consensus. How about raising an RfC to see if we can get some quality arguments injected into the mix? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I really think WP:SNOW applies here. Common sense is warranted. This appears to be nothing but to impose process for the sake of it. It think it's clear what the community wants. If you really wan't to make sure that the correct decision is made, you can always put a request at WP:AN/RFC. An uninvolved person will then come and assess the discussion.Tvx1 12:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: could you just briefly summarise what you mean by "wants it reverted to the original" when you added a list of user names above. The reason I ask is because a new reader might assume there was an original consensus in this article, when actually there was not. Although the qualifying table did have flags added to it by the time it was first made visible in the article (they weren't present in the table's commented-out state in the original creation), they were only there about 30 minutes before they were removed, so had hardly achieved the status of "consensus", and then the edit-warring on them started. The edit-warring continued for a dozen, or more, cycles. And by the time the results table was made visible, neither the qualifying table or the results table had the flags - but that state only lasted a little over an hour before the flags were added. The edit-warring then stated again, and the state has not stabilised since - and this discussion hasn't yet reached a consensus. So there is no real "original" here, the discussion is about whether we want flags or no flags for this new article. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Altered. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: thanks, but it still isn't clear to outsiders. Currently (though we don't know for how long) the tables both have flags, so to say "who wants it reverted to what it has been..." sounds like it means reverted to having no flags. I know what you mean (I think), which is "who wants flags in both the "qualifying" and "results" tables and who doesn't want flags in either". Remember, it might/should be an uninvolved admin/editor, who isn't aware of all the background here, who gets to close this discussion, so summaries need to be presented as clearly (and perhaps neutrally) as possible.

Perhaps you could summarise the applicable policies and guidelines and the "quality" arguments given by each contributor too, next to their names in in the lists, so newcomers are tempted to add their argument too, rather than just adding their name to one of the lists (as Admanny did) as if it were just a simple vote based on personal preference. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic thread

@DeFacto: This whole situation is actually pretty clear to me. From what I’ve seen over the past few days, I’m not sure if honesty and common sense are allowed on Wikipedia, but I’ll try (and I’ll probably take some flak because of it, but let’s go). This “talk” (I’d call it a mess, but let’s keep calm), is actually one editor’s crusade, Mclarenfan17 in this case. Why? Well, there’re two ways to look at this. The naïve/hypocritical/pretending (pick one depending on your situation, and to be clear I’m not directing this specifically at DeFacto, but to all who have participated and will participate in this talk) way is to think this is about the sake of the article, the respect of guidelines, WPs and rules, the amelioration of the F1 project, the sake of mankind and Humanity in general... The second way to me is the honest and common-sense way. Let’s stop the hypocrisy. Mclarenfan17 has decided to remove the flags for his own convenience (yeah, let’s talk about how “I like it/don’t like it” arguments are supposedly not allowed. True, in this case, they are hidden). Why? Because he is colour-blind, so the flags are a trouble for him. He’s done the same in some WRC articles, as pointed out by Alex95-Ukraine and Unnamelessness. Of course, he, (Mclarenfan17), conveniently/obviously never mentioned this, he had to come from an other user. Mclarenfan17 has prepared his trick well in advance (yes, I am not afraid of calling this a “trick” in the present situation, thought I’m sure some WP will tell me I’m not allowed to). He created the page one month before the start of the season and of this Grand Prix. He even states: "I know that creating the article a month out is a little premature" (oh really?). Obviously, not a lot of people had the idea to go and check the talk page of the first race of the season one month before the actual start of the season, so Mclarenfan17 was well prepared to jump on everyone who did with his arguments. DeFacto states: “Although the qualifying table did have flags added to it by the time it was first made visible in the article (they weren't present in the table's commented-out state in the original creation), they were only there about 30 minutes before they were removed, so had hardly achieved the status of "consensus”". Yes, but who by? Mclarenfan17 of course! (Should I say “pretends to be shocked”?) Sure, we can ignore that the 997 other articles about Grand Prix covering 70 years (100%) of Formula One seasons have a flagicon presence in result tables, and that it’s pretty much what you’d call a consensus, because it has "hardly achieved the status of "consensus”" on the present article… Should I invoke common-sense there? Or is common-sense forbidden? WP:SNOW exists though... I’m sorry for his condition. I’m not a monster and I see why he does this. But, as I’ve already said, a minority of users’ condition should not set the rule for the vast majority of users who don’t have one. So let’s stop the hypocrisy. Let’s stop the pretending. This whole thing is one man’s selfishness vs pretty much everyone else it would seem. This is not about encyclopaedic style nor the improvement of the article. Now, Mclarenfan17 is accusing users that are against him (again, pretty much everyone) of canvassing because his manoeuvre failed. This is a serious AND false accusation, as anyone can see in all the users’ talk pages. This is paranoia. Patriote95 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Keep going with the personal attacks. See where it gets you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I'm not "attacking" you as a person, I'm denouncing (we can say "attacking" if you want, whatever works for you) your whole attitude, which I find to be (very) hypocritical (my comment detailing why). Sure, there's the possibility that I am completely wrong about your actual intentions, though I seriously doubt it. People are free to let me know if they think so, but I'd bet they'd share my view. I'm not afraid of saying names. You're the one accusing your opponents of canvassing (Who? Why? Which proofs?) without mentioning who you are talking about (for fear of reprisals because it is very much not true?) Now, if I need to say "one editor" instead of having the honesty of saying your name when I talk about your contributions and attitude, well, why not... "Keeping the peace" and all I guess... Patriote95 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC) @Patriote95:, I think the canvassing accusation is an honest mistake with the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Mclarenfan17_and_his_flags., at first glance it looks like a biased notification for a discussion, this violates WP:CANVASSING under campaigning, its not immediately clear that that was Admanny starting a new discussion. I think you might need to take a look at WP:AGF and you need to stop with personal attacks, as you are so keen to see the evidence look at that multiple paragraph rant you posted. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC) @SSSB: The canvassing accusation I was referring to was the one is this very talk: "It feels like canvassing to me." Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC). Two days BEFORE the one you mention in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Mclarenfan17_and_his_flags. (which may (or may not) be a "honest mistake"). It have to notice that Alex asked for some proofs of canvassing in this talk in his 07:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC) comment, but, weirdly, no answer was provided... [Pretends to be shocked]. WP:AGF is great in the world of unicorns and rainbows, but this is what I actually did when I first came to this talk. Only after Unnamelessness provided an information which shed a new light on the whole thing did I changed my view on this talk. (14:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)). I have a right to think some editors' actions are not done is good faith. I hate hypocrisy, and will keep combatting it. Sorry, I use multiple paragraphs when I try to argument and make some points. Next time I'll try 2 sentences and 30 words top. I would hate to try to develop my thinking instead of just saying "XXX acts like this" and bail out... And I've said it, and I'll say it again, I did not attack THE editor, but the editor's ATTITUDE. Patriote95 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC) You don't know me. You have no idea what my intentions are. You talk about the need for me to show proof when I suggest that there has been canvassing, but offer no proof to support your own claim that I created the article in advance to deceptively create a consensus. How do you expect me to respect your request—though it's more of a demand—when you are clearly holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself? And then you have the gall to criticise me for my attitude when you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite. Now you can dress this up however you want, but it's still a personal attack. My advice would be to stop it before someone stops you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC) I was ready to let it go and move on, but I cannot let such hypocrisy go unanswered. Obvious anteriority my good sir... Your "argument" is completely fallacious. You first started accusing people of canvassing (no names, no proofs though) on 06:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC). Alex asked for clarification about your accusations on 07:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC). My comment you're referring to was published on 19:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC), 60 hours after your initial accusations. You had plenty of time to answer to Alex (and to the people you accuse without naming). Your (childish) "How do you expect me to respect your request—though it's more of a demand—when you are clearly holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself?" is not even applicable. "I won't say because Patriote95 won't say" makes no sense, Alex was the one asking (rightly so) far before me. But, let's hear it. Have some honesty! WHO are you accusing of canvassing? WHERE are the proofs? User talk pages? Article talk pages?... If I'm to be reported to WP:ANI by someone, so be it, but surely you false accusations of canvassing (TO WHOM? Are you afraid of the consequences?) would belong there too... You don't want to answer to me? Fine. Answer to Alex and the others. Stop hiding. I had the honesty of saying your name when I talked about you. Accusing without naming is... not very brave (to put it nicely), dishonest and disloyal (to put it frankly). Patriote95 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Entry list table

So as we reached the consensus for keeping flags as it always was, it's time to discuss one more thing. Do we really need entry list table? Unlike rally, in F1 entry list will be almost always just copied from race to race without any changes, cause there are usually 1-2 driver change at max per season (last season even didnt have mid season driver changes at all). The reason for adding the table was that the article about specific car has a link to every race article, but race articles dont have links to car articles. But we can just add this template for that purpose in every 2019 race article instead of adding the whole table. So in my opinion this table should just be removed. Alex (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex95-Ukraine: We haven't got a consensus yet, the discussion is still ongoing, this has nothing to do with rally, something being included in another wikiproject is neither here nor there, it is irrelevant. I think this discussion should wait until we do have a consensus on the above discsuuion about flagicons. SSSB (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually we got. It's 10+ people for keeping flags and only 1 person, who just continue to repeat same arguments (which arent even truth: flags are not used for decoration and there isnt any rule to use flags only once) 10 times, for removing them. And as for this discussion, its better to discuss it now, while people still visit this talk page. As for rally, flags need to be added back there too (except special stage winners table, where there can be 15 of them per driver). We can obviously start a new discussion somewhere in rally talk page or WP Motorsport, but I think that this discussion is enough for that cause its almost same things. Alex (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex95-Ukraine: consensus' aren't carried out by which side has more votes, it is based on which side presents the best arguments, references to wikipolicy carry more wieght than the type of comments some of you posted which generally fell into WP:IDL/WP:LIKE, there is still an ongoing discussion. SSSB (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Come on, you have to be a bit serious here. There literally is no support for the lone person’s proposal. And the little arguments for removing flags have been clearly called into question. I think WP:SNOW applies here. This appears to be enforcing process just for the sake of it.Tvx1 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I already raised this at WT:F1. I would like to kindly invite everyone who contributed to the above discussion to weigh in there. After all it affects all Grand Prix articles.Tvx1 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The results tables should stay the same that they always have been, and race-by-race entry lists should be removed altogether. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05:, I am moving your comment to WT:F1 where this discussion is taking place. SSSB (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)