Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship

6 winners in first 6 races

It happened only once before:in 1951,even if there was a shared drive at one of the wins,still 6 winners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.221.153 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 is still the first time that no driver has won multiple races in the first six though. Bigdon128 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Fangio and Fagiloi were both recognised as the winner of the 1951 French Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I've nominated this article for peer review, mostly because I'd like some feedback on it. When the season is over, I'd really like to try and get it nominated for GA or even FA status, but if there are any critical issues with it, I'd like to know about them now so that we can address them and work a solution into future edits of the page, rather than finding out about them when the season is over and having to do some major re-writes. So please don't read too much into the peer review nomination; it's just for feedback, both for the article and for myself (so I can become a better editor). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Section headings

I fixed some section headings, but my changes were reverted. I made the fix for the following reasons:

• So sub headings are consistent with the rest of the article and encyclopedia
• To make the sections show up in the table of contents
• To make it clearer that these sections are summaries of main articles

So, what's better about the version reverted to? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1) How is this version consistent with the rest of the article? We have subsections for every major part, but I question whether subsections for each race in the season summary is necessary. I know some of the older Formula 1 season articles do it, but I actually think that's a horrible structure, to have one subsection per race.

2) There are twenty races in the season - plus the summary of pre-season and mid-season testing. That's only going to make the table of contents extremely long. If it gets to the point where the table of contents is actually taller than the vertical height of the screen, that's a problem.

3) It's already clear that these are summaries of the main articles. The link is in the title of each recap, which is the way it should be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, given the length of the review, sub-headings might be a good idea. It will certainly make editing easier. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Race results table suggested edit

I was wondering what people would think about colouring the winning drivers column like they do here. My reasoning behind this is that I would make the results table clearer by quickly distinguishing between the winning driver and the names of drivers who scored the fastest lap and pole. Here’s an example:

Rd.	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	Australian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Jenson Button	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	Report
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Kimi Räikkönen	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Report
3	Chinese Grand Prix	Nico Rosberg	Kamui Kobayashi	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	Report
4	Bahrain Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
5	Spanish Grand Prix	Pastor Maldonado	Romain Grosjean	Pastor Maldonado	Williams-Renault	Report
6	Monaco Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Sergio Pérez	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	Report
7	Canadian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel				Report
8	European Grand Prix					Report
9	British Grand Prix					Report
10	German Grand Prix					Report
11	Hungarian Grand Prix					Report
12	Belgian Grand Prix					Report
13	Italian Grand Prix					Report
14	Singapore Grand Prix					Report
15	Japanese Grand Prix					Report
16	Korean Grand Prix					Report
17	Indian Grand Prix					Report
18	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix					Report
19	United States Grand Prix					Report
20	Brazilian Grand Prix					Report

Would appreciate peoples opinions. Mharris99 (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2012

No I don't think that is in any way useful. In my opinion the Indycar season articles are an overtabled, overcoloured, over-triva filled, lack of useful prose mess, and we really shouldn't copy anything. Also, per WP:COLOUR, colouring should not be used without good reason, or as the only method to indicate information. QueenCake (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it. This is a table which should be deleted anyway as it just duplicates information available in the results matrix. --Falcadore (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, Falcadore, but I think the table is a valuable part of the page. Yes, the information is available in the results matrix, but the problem with that is that it's a results matrix. It's not immediately clear as to what is going on, whereas the summary table presents the information at a glance. It's much more readable than the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of colouring the column (on the basis that I think it's unnecessary), but am in favour of retaining the table - I find it's quite useful if I need to quickly see the winner, pole sitter and/or fastest lap setter for multiple races at once, avoiding the need to search the Drivers' Championship table for the information. DH85868993 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the colouring is unnecessary. The table is clearly marked "Winning driver". I don't think people are so illiterate that they need a coloured column to find the winner. If they are, they probably have bigger problems than trying to find out who the race winner was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, we should definately avoid doing things just because the Indycar pages do it (yes, I know I suggested copying them a while ago, but I was convinced otherwise - a man's opinion can change). Just look at their race reports, where they colour the individual numbers of drivers based on their liveries. That's defiantely in violation of WP:COLOUR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from is that we could make a table of all the seventh place finishers which would be "more readable" than the results matrix and easier to find out who finished in each race, but that would not make it a good idea. It would be duplicating information already presented in the results matrix but does not provide any real benefit as neither pole position nor fastest lap contribute anything towards the season summary of the Formula One season and are arguably less important than the seventh place finishes as you get championship points for seventh but only get a warm fuzzy feeiling for pole and fastets lap. --Falcadore (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that pole positions and fastest laps are statistics recorded by the FIA. If you remove them from the summary table, you might as well remove them from the results matrix as well, because as you put it, "neither pole position nor fastest lap contribute anything towards the season summary of the Formula One season and are arguably less important than the seventh place finishes as you get championship points for seventh but only get a warm fuzzy feeiling for pole and fastest lap". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Seventh places are reported by the FIA. In the official results. My point about that table isn't about how PP and FL aren't important, its that the "summary" table is duplicated information. --Falcadore (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be duplicated information, but you can't deny that it's much more readable than the results matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So? Again, the sevenths would be "more readable" if they had their own table. Poles and fastest laps are career stats for drivers and are not really within the scope of this article and wins are highlighted in gold in the results matrix and are plenty readable. This is unnecessary duplication of data, some of which is not of primary interest to the topic. I have not seen it demonstarted the the numbers of poles positions scored by a driver in an individual season is significant in anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that pole positions and fastest laps have no effect on the season. They have an affect on the individual races and can be noted in the individual race reports, but the race winners are the really only notable thing for a season summary page. I have been against, at the very least, including fastest laps in any season articles as WP:TRIVIA with the exception of series which include bonus points for the fastest lap. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I still feel that if they're notable enough to be marked in the results matrix, then they're notable enough to be included in the summary table. They might not affect the overall season the way race winners do, but that does not automatically nullify their notability as they are supplementary information. If you remove them from the summary table, it will be increasingly-difficult to justify keeping the summary table at all, which means relying on the matrix, which I think is too sophisiticated to be the sole representation of results, particularly for people who have no prior knowledge of the sport.

Furthermore, removing them from the article will make the season articles inconsistent with season articles for other European open-wheel racing championships, like GP2, Formula 3 and Formula Renault. I don't think we can disregard the place of Formula 1 in the wider motorsport content on Wikipedia, so it seems to be an inherent contradiction to me that the Formula 1 season page should contain less information about the season than the season pages of the junior championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

it will be increasingly-difficult to justify keeping the summary table at all, this is exactly my point. These only appeared in the first place because of MrX love of tables over language.

Inclusion in other racing articles indicates either that they should be removed there too or they are not relevant, or both. --Falcadore (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But removing the summary table still shifts the focus to the matrix. And while the matrix is a very good representation of the results, it's also a fairly complex representation. Given time, its meaning is apparent, but to people who are not familiar with the sport, it may take some time to decipher it. The summary table would be a problem if it was the only representation of the results. But it's not. The results are described in prose earlier in the article. The table simply supplements it all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How would it take some time to decipher? 1 means first place, 7 means seventh place, there is a key with Ret, etc. How is that difficult? As you say the prose describes the results, the matrix supplements the text and the summary table supplements the matrix. Does the supplement really need a supplement? --Falcadore (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The table is good, and makes it easier to find the fastest lap. It also explains the pole position quickly instead of clicking onto the race report so I'm for the table. The yellow colouring for the Winning driver column however I too think is unnecessary as it is already clearly labelled. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it important for the article to highlight fastest lap? Fastest lap is not a significant statistic to the subject of 2012 Formula One season but is important to 2012 Canadian Grand Prix. It's important to one, and a trivial detail to the other. --Falcadore (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

The only alternative I can think of is to merge the summary table with the calendar so that these:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	18 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysian GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	25 March

Rd.	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	Australian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Jenson Button	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	Report
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Kimi Räikkönen	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Report

Becomes this:

Round	Date	Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Pole position	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	18 March	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	Lewis Hamilton	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	Report
2	25 March	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysian GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	Lewis Hamilton	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Report

The big problem with this, as I see it, is that it separates the summary of the results from the results matrices. In order to make it work, we would have to separate the calendar changes section, but we can put that in with the 'changes' section, which is currently directly underneath the calendar. We would then have to move either a) the changes section to the bottom of the article under the results matrices, or b) the combined calendar-results summary under the current changes section to be above the results matrices.

Personally, I would be all for merging the calendar and the results summary table, and then dropping the changes section to the bottom of the article if people agree with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Or we could just delete the summary table. There is nothing in it not displayed elsewhere.

Did you note the very first thing someelse did as add the trivia back in again? Completely defeated the purpose. Just delete. And what's more you deleted the wrong table. The calendar table had a function that is entirely seperate from the the results.

--Falcadore (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think fastest lap is trivial? Just because no points are awarded? Better to condense information into one table. It is now easier for all to read and digest. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the fastest lap is worth adding? Just because it is a statistic recorded for each race? The³5₉ (Talk) 17:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is just as significant as pole position. Neither result in points awarded (at this point in history) but both are widely talked about and recorded and therefore are significant. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Fastest Lap widely talked about at all. It is mentioned, then passed on. Fastest Lap is not necessarily a measure of a driver, team, or pace, and can be affected by all sorts of variables, far more so than a race win or pole position.

Sergio Perez set the fastest lap of the race in Monaco. He also finished 11th, a lap down on the field. What exactly was the achivement there? What is there to talk about there? Vettel set the fastest lap in Canada, despite losing the race lead in the closing laps. How did he do it? He pitted for fresh super sticky tires in the final 5 laps. Of course he's going to be able to set fast lap then. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is beside the point. There are so many variables that alter everything in F1. Would you say it's more relevant to include a column for driver who led the most laps as well? Where does that stand in the list of importance? Officially Mr X (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not beside the point, its exactly the point. Tenth places are more notable than fastest laps, its the last position that gets a point which actually contributes to the topic, where as fastest lap does not. Fastest lap is notable to the driver who wins it and to the race article concerned, NOT to the season summary. Trivial relevance. --Falcadore (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PM here. I'm posting from a public terminal, so I haven't logged in.

Anyway, I've removed the fastest lap column from the new table. Yes, it was the first thing someone added - but I think it will stabilise once people get used to it. I've been convinced that it's not notable enough for inclusion, but I still think the summary table has merit.

Secondly, what's with the over-use of the Tooltip function? Someone (and I have a pretty good idea who) applied the Tooltip to the round numbers to show the race title. Not cool. The Tooltip function does get used throughout the article, but only for abbreviations in columns where having the full title (ie "Position" in the results matrices) would make the look of the table awkward. 101.161.11.125 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thje summary table doesn't acquire merit by deleting the calendar table. --Falcadore (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't experiment with the tables on the actual article page. We have talk pages to discuss the ideas and sandboxes to develop them - the article space is meant to be relatively stable and not feature rapid, large-scale changes especially if there's no consensus for it.

On the matter of keeping a summary table, I agree with Falcadore in that it's unneeded. It's no different than the statistics tables we had on these articles a few years ago; a large table presenting information, that is already included in tabular form, in a slightly different way. Count me in for removing it. QueenCake (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not deleting the calendar table. It's merging the summary table into the calendar table.

I still think the idea of a summary table holds merit. The results matrix is simply too complex to understand at a glance for new readers. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written with the assumption of no prior knowledge of the subject, and I think the results matrix alone assume too much. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And how is it too complex for new readers? Everything in the summary table is clearly indicated in the results matrix - yellow for a win, bold for pole, italics for fastest lap. How more simple can you get? If something on this page requires prior knowledge of Formula One, it's all the "Changes" section, which are only relevant to people who have watched the previous season of the sport. QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because while the results in the matrix are clear, they are not as clear as they are in the summary.

Yes, I get it: this article has too many tables. But I think that removing the summary table would be a mistake. I've demonstrated that it can be merged with the calendar table, keeping the most-relevant content intact. It's something that I think merits consideration, but everyone is opposed to it because Mr. X decided to add the fastest lap column back in despite the trend against it in this discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't fastest laps need to be noted on the page due to this? http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2012/dhl_fastest_laps.html. It's on the official F1 website and part of the 2012 season so it would be relevant for the article? BosleyTree (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems a very rare thing that my opinions get any sort of mass agreement but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. I have been, and still am, of the opinion that tables are not something to be removed as much as possible - they are a great way to present information and makes that information both understandable to readers of any knowledge level and unambiguous in its interpretation. There is already a good balance of prose to tables in this article, in my opinion, and the only reason I can see for making any change at all to this type of article is so as to shorten its length a little by merging two tables that fit together very nicely (i.e. the calendar and the results for each event). The matrix serves a different purpose, namely to be a comprehensive reflection of the race results and its intent is to provide as much information as possible on the results to any reader who is interested. The results table that we are discussing here exists to provide a summary of the facts of a race that are most notable for records and such like, and as a result this table's purpose is equally as crucial and serves it's own, entirely valid reason for being on this article. Plus, there is some degree of validation of truth being allowed for here - how easy would it be to accidently put the apostrophes for fastest lap around the wrong driver in the matrix, or miss them out completely (which has happened a few times already this season - it is often hard to notice). By having pole and fastest lap information displayed in both the table and the matrix is a way of confirming that the facts are true within reasonable doubt. I'm sure I will think of more to say on this but I don't disagree with you all just to make a fuss - I honestly would rather stay out of it, and I do until I see something going on which I genuinely believe is not the best way to do things.

Also, I agree with the above point made by BosleyTree. The DHL fastest lap award does exist with prominence, and you know how much drivers like Mark Webber and Seb Vettel care about getting as many fastest laps etc to try and top the records lists - this surely also adds to their notability. If fastest laps are important to the mainstream then they are important enough to include on Wikipedia articles. Officially Mr X (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For such a prominent award, this is the first time I've ever heard of the DHL fastest lap award ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not everyone has heard of everything. Your statement really doesn't affect anything. See here: DHL Fastest Lap Award. Officially Mr X (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A sponsor offering an award for the most fastest laps still doesn't make fastest laps notable enough for inclusion on this page. This page is the season page, and as others have rightly said, its contents should be limited to things that affect the entire season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And where in the world have Vettel and Webber specifically said they aim to take fast lap in each race? These two are interested in pole positions, winning races, and championships, records that happen to come through that is secondary. I have never heard a single drivers or team say that they are going into a race weekend aiming to earn fastest lap of the race. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He may be referring to the way Vettel is said to really like form guides, and pushes for the fastest lap in the race just so that he can say he set the fastest lap of the race - but we only have Martin Brundle's word on that, and while he is recognised as an excellent expert commentator, it's still hearsay. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A query, does the DHL award ever mention any rankings (ie who finished second, third etc) or is it just an award/trophy/prize for the winner? In the latter case, there is no need to tabulate each fastest lap as there is no recognition of a second place. A simple sentence along the lines of Vettel wins the DHL award (with reference), covers the entire concept perfectly adequately.

Such an award would not be an acknowledgement of how many fastest laps were scored, but simply that Vettel had scored more than anyone else. --Falcadore (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting off-topic here. The real question is this:

A) Do we keep the season summary table?

and

B) If so, how much do we keep?

The way I see it, the best way forward is to work elements of the summary table into the calendar (as I did above), for all season pages, and remove the fastest lap.

I'm suggesting this because I think there is a lot of overlap between the summary table and the calendar table - particularly the round number and race title columns. I see no reason why they cannot be worked into one table and certain elements of the page being reworked, like this (and what ever happened to being bold? I was bold, but when those edits were reverted, I was basically told "don't be bold"). I think it's the most effective solution because it keeps the important parts of the summary, removes the excess, and takes out an otherwise-unnecessary table. This, I think, sevres everyone's ideas best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A) No.

B) Made irrelevant by answer to A.

This has the added effect of removing any overlap with other tables. The "summary" table is all overlap anyway.

Any summarising should be performed by the article lead (per WP:LEAD) where no table belongs. If we need a table to summarise other tables we are truly lost in the WP:NOTSTATS. --Falcadore (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit Prisonermonkeys, because while everyone is encouraged to "Be Bold", you're also meant to use caution when doing so. It's not really the best decision to apply your changes halfway through the discussion you started, especially when it's clear there is currently no consensus.

On the issue, I agree with Falcadore. The table is unnecessary, and if there's really problems with the results tables that mean we have to have the summary one then I suggest we start a new discussion. The table for the calender serves a clear and distinct purpose, and shouldn't be cluttered with results. QueenCake (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my preference is for a combined calendar/summary table, with fastest lap, noting that this is what already exists in all the season summary articles from 1950 to 1993 inclusive, e.g. (excerpt from the 1993 table):

Round	Grand Prix	Date	Location	Pole Position	Fastest Lap	Winning Driver	Winning Constructor	Report
1	South African Grand Prix	14 March	Kyalami	Alain Prost	Alain Prost	Alain Prost	Williams-Renault	Report
2	Brazilian Grand Prix	28 March	Interlagos	Alain Prost	Michael Schumacher	Ayrton Senna	McLaren-Ford	Report

DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Maybe it could be part of a wider project, bringing the 1994-2012 season articles in line with the 1950-1993 pages, because there are major differences between some of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with that too. At last a reasonable compromise. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable? I still dispute the relevance of fastest laps. I'm willing to concede that there are some people who feel that they are important, but at the same time, they're the first thing I'd cut out if given carte blanche. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Im not happy with that because its a table without any focus. The calendar table should be just that, the list of races describing location and date and should not be diluted with information dragged from other parts of the article. The summary table should just be removed because that results matrix is perffectly clear as it is and does no need to summarise anything, which co-incidentally it does not actually summarise anything it just repeats data. A summary table would group stuff together because that what summaery means, this is just copying. --Falcadore (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree - the results matrix is not "perfectly clear". It is clear once you work out how to read it, but until then, it is anything byt "perfectly clear". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it not clear? The number translates to race position. Very simple. --Falcadore (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet it is still more complex than the summary table. And I cannot help but feel that you are going out of your way to try and make a case for the summary table to be deleted because you feel that there are too many tables in the articles. The problem is that almost every single motorsport category that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page has a summary table in it. Some don't have the results matrix at all - instead, they just rely on the summary. If you remove the summary table from Formula 1 season articles, you're creating a contradiction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is more complex, it carries more information. A lot of those Wikipedia articles use the "summary" table for different purposes, for example, those series who apply points to the achievement of fastest laps and pole positions, it has "some" value. Some of them also add in round winners where multiple races contribute to a round which is not displayed in the results matrix, this also plainly worthwhile. But plainly not to post 1950s F1. The circumstances of how those tables were created should be remembered also.

When you have one table where all it does is copy information already displayed on another table, then you have quite obviously too many. Is there a single thing that table does that is not done elsewhere in the article? --Falcadore (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for WP:MOTORSPORT. If you want to remove the summary table from this article, then you need to discuss the wider implications for all motorsport articles. We cannot have a situation where some articles have summary tables, but others do not with no clear distinction as to how the rule is applied. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to that at all. I've already detailed why this is something to be considered case-by-case. There is no reason to keep this table in this article, it's just repetition. --Falcadore (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, you are relentless, and in all sincerity I believe you are wrong. Consistency is the MOST important factor to be retained here, and any overhall of a part of motorsport articles has to be ensured to be the right one. I am not happy with where you are taking this discussion and it definitely needs to be brought to the attention of others in the wider WPMS community who may not be following this discussion.

Besides, Falcadore, you seem have quite a firm control, if I may say so, of all Australian motorsport articles and the way you structure them (aesthetically) is not something I particularly like, though frankly is too much effort to have me oppose. You also, on the V8 Supercars season pages, already include season summary tables which have the calendar aspect and results aspect, along with the matrix - surely this is the format you are opposing on this 2012 F1 page? Contradiction? And don't say it is "case-by-case" because that is not a philosophy that is valid for any of this discussion. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Then let's consistently delete them from all Formula One articles. Consistency of appearance is not more important than notability. Compare Formula One to Le Mans races, MotoGP, Indycar, there is no consistency of appearance and nor should there be as different motor racing championship put emphasise of different components of the sport. American place far more importance for example on first across the line, to the point where second and third receive little recognition above what tenth place achieves. Fastest laps mean little and who leads a race lap recieves more benefit than pole position.

This should always be done on a case-by-case basis rather than try to make a 2010 World Rally article look like a 1960 non-champ Formula One race or a Red Bull Air race. I think we all remeber your attempt to splash colour across dozens of tables for little real reason other than it looked pretty.

As has been mentioned previously there is value to some of these tables, like for example to highlight round winners when multiple races contribute to a weekends efforts. This is not only notable it is requently highlighted in media. Similarly when poles and f-laps contribute to a season for example when they are allocated championship points, like for example most Formula 3 series and GP2/3. But you look at NASCAR and they have vastly different performance indicators. It would actually be wrong to consistently highlight fastest lap achievement because it is a statistic that means nothing to NASCAR, completely failing notability. To write consistently across motorsport articles like that is giving emphasis to the non-notable, but against wikipedia policy.

None of that is applicable to Formula One. F-laps have not contributed towards a season post 1960, and poles not at all. They are notable specifically to the race reports but not to season articles.

There is no consistency in real life, Wikipedia should not try to create original research without foundation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose deleting the summary from every page without first taking it to WP:MOTORSPORT. As I said, almost every motorsport categoy notable enough to have a season page has a summary table. Removing the summary from every Formula 1 season page might create consistency within the Formula 1 pages, but it is inconsistent with the wider motorsport section of Wikipedia, and that's not an issue that can be ignored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As you are the only one talking about deleting from every page, that should not be a problem. I would ask that you stop trying to escalate the scale of the issue. --Falcadore (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to escalate the issue. I just think that removing the summary tables from all motorsport articles (which you would have to do in order to justify doing it to one article) represents a significant enough change that a wider discussion is necessary first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no global complications, the polar caps won't melt, you just go to the article which has a table which does nothing but copy stuff in other tables and present it slightly differently and you delete it. No harp seals have been killed. It has NO effect on anything else. No-one got made redundant.

"which you would have to do in order to justify doing it to one article".

Seriously, no, you would not have to do it. --Falcadore (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe you should do it, since we're only going in circles here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Timo Glock - WD or PO?

Timo Glock is not taking part in Valencia because he is sick.

However, there is some contention over how this should be classified in the results matrix, given that he took part in practice, so one school of thought is that he should be listed as "PO" in the matrix.

On the other hand, the reference given in footnote in the driver table (explaining why he only contested rounds 1-7) makes it pretty clear that his team formally withdrew him from the event, which leads to the idea that he should be listed as WD.

The last time a driver was taken ill was in Canada last year when Sergio Perez was ruled out. He was listed as "PO" because he took part in practice, but the difference is that Pedro de la Rosa took over the car for the rest of the weekend. Here, Marussia have no replacement driver for Glock, and combined with the reference that makes it clear he was withdrawn, I think "WD" is the way to go on this one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a DNS, because he is on the Starting Grid-Document of the FIA. --Gamma127 (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say DNS too. Could have started the race without doing qualifying. - mspete93 10:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that document? Because if that's the case, then Glock absolutely should be listed as DNS.

And while Glock could have started the race, that's not the issue here. Whether or not he was capable of doing so is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to link to the FIA document, because they have a not good homepage. Click here, then "TIMING INFORMATION", then "PROVISIONAL STARTING GRID". So he is qualifyed für the race. --Gamma127 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I don't know about that. It simply says "allowed to start from back of the grid"; it doesn't really define one way or the other as to whether he is qualified. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats the normal comment for drivers who set no time in the qualifying. The document says that Glock has the 24th starting position. --Gamma127 (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But he has no ability to start the race. He never did. It's not like he crashed out of quailfying before setting a time and the stewards have said he can race. Nor has he set a time, but is unable to take to the grid. He was sick, which forced him out of qualifying, and he is still sick, which is keeping him out of the race and the team have had to withdraw the entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a DNS. He was allowed to start pending permission from the doctor [1]. There was never anything anywhere that said he wouldn't be allowed to start because of a lack of a qualifying time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's definately not withdrawn as that is for force majuere style situations, or for a withdraw before qual begins. Sickness is the same as an injury during practice. Driver incapacity is covered by DNS. --Falcadore (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realise this conversation was here, I was actually in the middle of changing Timo's WD boxes to PO boxes. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the same situation as the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. PO should be for drivers who were not intended to take part in the race, like Kobayashi in that instance. Glock, in this race as in that race, was allowed to take part in qualifying (but didn't today) and was allowed to race (but didn't in either race). It's a clear-cut DNS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I vote DNS, with a note below the drivers table Ballchef (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No note. Details like that can be carried by 2012 European Grand Prix as its a detail relevant to that race, not to the season as a whole. --Falcadore (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Would we still not say Rounds 1-8 for Timo, since he had participated in the weekend's 3 practise sessions? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes, he still counts for the round as he did attend the round itself and drove in it, even if only in the practice sessions. BosleyTree (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I say no, because if you look at the 2011 driver table, Sergio Perez is not listed as having taken part in Canada, even though he only drove in practice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Perez situation and the Glock situation are not comparable. They are completly different. Perez was replaced by de la Rosa and after that he had no cockpit for the race. Glock instead was not replaced by anyone and even got a permission to start from the stewards. So of course by Glock should stand 1-8. --Gamma127 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But how can you count someone as taking part in the Grand Prix when they only take part in practice? To me, "taking part" means that they qualified the car (a prerequisite of racing) and raced it. If they only took part in a practice session or three, it doesn't really consititute participation in the Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the official F1 site here - http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2012/791.html, he is listed as a DNS for Valencia. So i think DNS is how we should go about it. BosleyTree (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Effectively, Glock did qualify the car because he had been allowed to start. It's not essential to take part in qualifying to qualify for a race. There have been times when you could miss out on all practice and qualifying and still be allowed to race. Participation in any session equals participation in the Grand Prix event. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Glock was the driver of the #24 for the Valencia races, and still was on Sunday afternoon really. He should have 1-8 in the table. In Canada last year, Perez ended up little more than a Friday practice driver and was replaced as the driver of that car for the race, even if that was unintended. This is how it is done in any other series, where drivers often get no further than practice. If they were entered for the race, they should be in the table. - mspete93 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What he "effectively" did is beside the point. What he actually did is what is relevant to this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether he did it or not, he's still a DNS on the official site, and i think that should really be whats there. BosleyTree (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the footnote in the driver table. It doesn't matter what Glock "effectively" did. It's what he actually did that matters. And while he was effectively allowed to take part in the race, he did not. If all a driver needs to is take part in a practice session in order to be considered as having taken part in the Grand Prix weekend, then we might as well have a column showing which reserve drivers took part in which sessions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, even if he was at the event, he didn't race. But he was at the round which would make it 1-8, but then, if we did that for every driver that had ever taken part in a practice session, things might get complicated. I think, for now it would be best to keep it as 1-7 with a footnote, until we can figure out a system that would work in this situation. BosleyTree (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with MotorsportPete93. It should be 1-8 in the table. --Gamma127 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

General consensus seems to say 1-8, so perhaps 1-8 with a footnote describing the situation or just nothing at all? BosleyTree (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No footnote. We don't need a note explaining every time why a driver did not take part in a race when they were supposed to do so. - mspete93 15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Have some trivia re: European GP

There have never been that many championships (10) represented on a podium before. The combined number of c'ships among the three men is 10 - MSC 7, ALO 2, RAI. The same three last shared a podium (and positions!) at the 2005 French Grand Prix but at the time neither Alonso nor Raikkonen had won championships (not sure, but I'll add that it is the biggest gap between a shared podium - 7 years).

The next highest # of championships represented on a podium were the nine races in 2006 where Schumi (7x champ) and Alonso (1x champ) shared the podium - Bahrain, San Marino, Europe, Spain, Great Britain, Canada, France, Turkey and China.

Before that, at the 1993 Japanese Grand Prix and the 1993 Australian Grand Prix, Prost and Senna shared the podium, at the time with 6 c'ships between them (Prost recently crowned his 3rd), and also the 2001 United States Grand Prix where Schumacher and Hakkinen shared the podium, at the time also having 6 championships between them (Schumi recently crowned his 4th).

Those examples involve only two racers on the podium. The next highest with all three drivers contributing championships are the 2011 Japanese Grand Prix and the 2011 Indian Grand Prix, where recently crowned Vettel shared the podium with Alonso and Button both times, for a combined 5 championships.

I am not counting times where Schumi or Fangio were the sole champions on the podium. I am loving this season! Ballchef (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia manual of style advises editors to shy away from including trivia. This is the season page, so its contents reflect what happened during the course of the season to directly affect it, and while those statistics might be interesting, including them would simply drown the article in information that isn't really notable for the race report page, much less the season overview. Sure, there is the occasional statistic - like Schumacher's first podium since 2006 - but that is only complimentary information and doesn't require a lengthy explanation as to how it is notable. Likewise, other statistics through the article - like seven winners in seven races, six World Champions on the grid - are the really big, notable ones.

As for the season report, statistics don't really fit the tone of it. I am trying to follow the narrative of the season, recounting events in such a way that makes for one whole season, rather than twenty individual races, and also to show the grid as a whole rather than focus on the championship leaders. I'm also trying to make it interssting and engaging and keep the word count to a minimum (there was so much going on in Valencia that it was the hardest one to write to date; in the end, I thought that follow Alonso's progress through the field was the best - and most interssting - way to do it). Long lists of statistics don't really fit in with that; they will only slow it down.

That said, you might find a place for those statistics on the list of records page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Ballchef was suggesting the above information should be included in the article; I got the impression he/she just posted it here for the information/enjoyment of other editors who frequent this talkpage (but I could be wrong about that). DH85868993 (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did think that maybe it was worth noting on the race page/report that this is the highest amount of experience ever to share a podium. I included all that other information about previous records just for the sake of it, as I got a bit research-happy. But now that you mention it, would such events have a place on the records page? There were two records as far as I know, 1) Longest gap for the same three racers to share a podium (France '05-Europe '12), and 2) Most championships represented on a podium (10).

BTW I like your season summary so far Prisonermonkeys! Ballchef (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(and possibly another first?- three non-reigning champions on a podium) Ballchef (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This sort of material *might* be worth noting in the 2012 European Grand Prix, but probably not in 2012 Formula One season. The latter article describes the 2012 season as a whole rather than small one-off achievements (or co-incidences) that occur during it. It's against the concept of the article title. --Falcadore (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)