Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Tables

message: The current standard table formats have been derived as a result of the following discussions:
* Race and Career Result Charts (Note: this discussion is archived and therefore must not be edited).
* Chassis links from tables
* Constructor career summary tables
Please continue further discussions on this page. DH85868993 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: How much detail should we include in the Engine columns? As much as is known (e.g. "Renault RS01 3.5 V10") or should we limit it to just engine manufacturer + configuration (e.g. "Renault V10")? Does the format need to be consistent between Driver career summary tables, Constructor/team career summary tables, race entry lists (e.g. the 1950 British Grand Prix entry list) and season summary articles (e.g. the 2005 list of Drivers and constructors)? DH85868993 12:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of Engine columns 

message: Hi there, I just thought it might be a good idea to use the same color codes used in the championship standings as a quick indicator of the nature of a position on an event results page. It adds extra information without negative side effects. It would look something like this (example from formula e page, same idea though).
Look at the first column.
   	  	Driver            	Team              	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
1  	11	Lucas di Grassi   	Audi Sport ABT    	25  	52:23.413   	2   	25
2  	27	Franck Montagny   	Andretti Autosport	25  	+2.867      	8   	18
3  	2 	Sam Bird          	Virgin Racing     	25  	+6.559      	11  	15
4  	28	Charles Pic       	Andretti Autosport	25  	+19.301     	7   	12
5  	5 	Karun Chandhok    	Mahindra Racing   	25  	+23.952     	4   	10
6  	7 	Jerome d'Ambrosio 	Dragon Racing     	25  	+31.664     	12  	8
7  	6 	Oriol Servià      	Dragon Racing     	25  	+41.968     	10  	6
8  	99	Nelson Piquet, Jr.	China Racing      	25  	+43.896     	9   	4
9  	30	Stephane Sarrazin 	Venturi Grand Prix	25  	+43.975     	19  	2
10 	66	Daniel Abt        	Audi Sport ABT    	25  	+1:02.507   	3   	1
11 	3 	Jaime Alguersuari 	Virgin Racing     	25  	+2:00.613   	6   	
12 	8 	Nicolas Prost     	e.dams-Renault    	24  	Collision   	1   	3
13 	23	Nick Heidfeld     	Venturi Grand Prix	24  	Collision   	5   	
14 	18	Michela Cerruti   	Trulli GP         	24  	+1 lap      	16  	
15 	77	Katherine Legge   	Amlin Aguri       	24  	+1 lap      	14  	
16 	88	Ho-Pin Tung       	China Racing      	24  	+1 lap      	17  	
Ret	55	Takuma Sato       	Amlin Aguri       	21  	+4 laps     	13  	2
Ret	9 	Sebastien Buemi   	e.dams-Renault    	14  	            	18  	
Ret	10	Jarno Trulli      	Trulli GP         	0   	            	20  	
Ret	21	Bruno Senna       	Mahindra Racing   	0   	Collision   	15  	
Bytas (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not keen myself. What extra information does it add? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not negative, but no positive either. Completely pointless. --Falcadore (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the point of this either. In the season results matrices this actually has a use, because the competitors are listed by championship order and the individual races results aren't always that obvious. The coloring, for instance, allows one to find out who won which race in no time. In this table, however, the nature of the postion is made clear by the order they are listed in. The coloring those not add anything at all. Tvx1 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to state that it is not pointless at all. It shows in less than a second who is in a point paying position and who isn't. It also makes a clear distinction between different types of  classification. In short: it adds structure, user friendliness and strengthens the convention of the used colors, without having any negative effects what so ever. The boxes are there, they still have the exact same information as before, but the background, which would otherwise be a blank square, are used to add extra structure to the results. If it has any negative side effects, i encourage you guys to list them and provide an argument as to why these negatives are an objective drawback. I know this is a new concept and might take some getting used to, but in the long run, i'm convinced that it is an improvement. For example, if a scientific test would presents readers with 100 result tables and ask them to identify if the table used the modern point paying system (top 10) or the old (top 6) i'd bet money on the fact that readers would be able to make the distinction quicker every single time in the newly proposed format. Information doesn't have to be numerical alone, environmental information can be just as powerful, and can help to accentuate certain information and improve it's usability. Bytas (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need colour to show the points-paying positions – we have a points column for that. We also don't need it to show first, second and third – we have "1, 2, 3" for that. Those who have retired are clearly marked with "Ret". It just looks like decoration to me, and that is not required. If you want a negative side effect, I think it's unnecessarily gaudy. But the main point is that there is no discernible advantage in my opinion. The colour system was devised for other uses and I don't see that it has any valuable use here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, but the unnecessarily gaudy thing is a personal opinion. ;) I personally think the blank table looks dull in comparison, but that doesn't matter because it's how i see it, and doesn't have anything to do with objective use of the table. And while the colour system may have been designed for other uses, it has grown out to a well known convention under racing fans, a convention that is no longer confined to just F1 and wikipedia, but is used and recognized around the globe. I gave an example of a situation where the colors can have a real impact, but in general it just helps the human brain to process and use the presented information faster and more efficiently, which is an advantage that in my oppinion shouldn't be underestimated. Bytas (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some evidence that this colour system has made any impact beyond Wikipedia. It was something that was knocked out years ago between a few editors, mainly for the season articles and the driver / constructor results tables. We've given our opinions, let's see what others think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Race results on event page

message: Hi! In order to get an overall good quality level in linking, the MOS suggests (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity) to avoid links like
*Maserati 250F and use instead a simpler
*Maserati 250F
Moreover linking many times on consecutive rows the name of the same company is just plain overlinking (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking). I know the first link seems "more complete", but from the point of view of the reader is pointless to link also the company, he is going to find it on the car article. For these reasons I suggest to adopt also in this table links like Maserati 250F. I'm running a bot in order to fix wikilinks like these, so we are not going to spend human time on them. Do you agree? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link specificity