Template talk:Formula One Championship

Comments

Before changing the width of the template or adding <br>'s, please try and resize your browser window. It might look quite different to all of us using a different screen resolution than you :-) Best regards, Fred Bradstadt 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about giving the decades their own line. I think it makes it a lot easier to read and find the year you're looking for.

1950 • 1951 • 1952 • 1953 • 1954 • 1955 • 1956 • 1957 • 1958 • 1959
1960 • 1961 • 1962 • 1963 • 1964 • 1965 • 1966 • 1967 • 1968 • 1969
1970 • 1971 • 1972 • 1973 • 1974 • 1975 • 1976 • 1977 • 1978 • 1979
1980 • 1981 • 1982 • 1983 • 1984 • 1985 • 1986 • 1987 • 1988 • 1989
1990 • 1991 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1995 • 1996 • 1997 • 1998 • 1999
2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009

Manipe 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer it as it, taking less vertical real estate. Also, if it is changed, I think it will look odd when 2010 is sitting on a line by itself on the bottom. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, is gets a lot easier to find what you're looking for. And when the time comes for a 2010 article, we'll think of something. Maybe adding all the 2011, 2012, 2013, even without linking to non-existing articles, just thre numbers there, to make this look ok.--Serte 10:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it for now, as well as adding the v.d.e, so that people can comment/change it back. Manipe 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010

Personally, I see no need for having a link to 2010 Formula One season (or 2011 Formula One season) in the template yet. But since it's there, someone must disagree… What are your opinions on the subject? Fred Bradstadt 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some speculation specifically related to 2010 (possible return of turbocharging, bio-diesels, aerodynamic freeze, etc). It seems reasonable (to me) to record this speculation in an article called 2010 Formula One season. And if it's reasonable to have an article, then I think it's reasonable to link to it from the template. DH85868993 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an earlier 2010 Formula One season article which was deleted due per WP:CRYSTAL back in August. Once more sourced detail became available and the article got recreated, I went ahead and added it to the template. I figure that as long as the article exists, you might as well have a link to it in the template to make it easier to navigate to.--After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separated and moved to "Future seasons" section of the template so that the current season to be at the end of line. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Length

This big list of seasons is unwieldy. At the very least it should be broken down by decade... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.102.211 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine how it is. It was changed to one row per decade back in 2006 (see further up this page) but then changed back to the current format shortly afterwards. Apparently nobody else has found the list too unwieldy for the past decade. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By Decade

I agree with Maxtremus's edit that categorized the year by decade. Much more readable and navigable. Starting a discussion per Island92's revert. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates regarding football (example), are not split by decade. Island92 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This F1 seasons navbox is entirely composed of a list of years. Your example (while mostly irrelevant) is a good example of a navbox broken down into subcategories for different aspects of the topic. For this particular navbox, decades are the most relevant subcategory that would improve navigability. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Template:Juventus FC seasons, for example? No subcategories. Island92 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this template be split? Island92 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much more readable and navigable as I said before, not sure why you are asking me my reasons when I've stated it before. You shouldn't focus on WP:OTHERCONTENT. Discuss the merits of the suggestion on its own. It's possible the Juventus one could be improved by decade subcategories as well, but however that one is done has no bearings on this navbox. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]