Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Race start times in calendar table

Why is it so essential that the calendar contains the race start times, both in local time and UTC? I see no reason for this, because this is the season page. The content of this page is the content that affects the overall season. It doesn't matter if the Chinese Grand Prix starts at 4pm or 5pm local time because it doesn't affect the ability of the race to start. If anything, the start times should be put on the individual race pages, because right now, it feels like having them in the calendar table is a viewing guide for readers who want to know when the race begins so they can tune in on time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I had thought we had debated this topic previously and deleted them. Back in the days when peeps thought number of laps should be included in the calendar too. --Falcadore (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that was the case, too. Like I said, the time each race starts does not affect the season, so it should not be included in the season article. If it is to be included, then it should be included on the race report page. And even then, only when it is significant, like in Singapore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It turns out there are actually policies along these lines, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:NOTGUIDE. --Falcadore (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty sure there were policies like that. I don't know if creating a viewing guide was the intention behind including the start time in the calendar table, but that is the effect. Especially since there was a column for race starts in Greenwich Mean Time, which affects the season even less than the local start time does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually think it's very useful to have a column for the start time in GMT. It shows the shape of the season, from the flyaway races which are shown early in the morning in Europe, to the European leg of the season with the "traditional" start time of Midday in GMT, to the hodgepodge of early and late starts at the end of the season. Culturally, there's a big difference between the "national event" races which are shown in the afternoon in Europe and the niche interest races which only a few diehards get out of bed to watch at 4:00 in the morning!83.244.128.162 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's better if we just keep the time of races, to remain consistent with previous articles of formula one seasons. In the previous years this was not an issue. How come now, it has become one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhrapur (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To be consistent with Wikipedia policy, the times should be removed from previous articles as well. When this becomes an issue is irrelevant, as the result is still the same. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are no TV stations listed beside the time and date of each Grand Prix, how is it possible to be a viewing guide? Andhrapur (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the columns list the start times for the races in GMT. People can then use this as a reference to when the race begins, and therefore know when to start watching the race.

Besides, this is the season article. The contents should be things that affect the overall season. Whether or not a race starts at 4pm or 5pm local time is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because the season will progress regardless of when individual races start. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Prisonermonkeys. Another idea; do you think we should make a note of the fact that Singapore is a night race, and Abu Dhabi is a twilight race? Editadam 23:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. On the individual race report pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain Report

"...made it one of the most controversial Grands Prix in the sport's sixty-year history"; is this not opinion??? I think this needs a rewording. --Brody59 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All four references supplied clearly describe the race as controversial. This one explicitly calls it "one of the most controversial in the history of the sport", and the article is not an opinion piece. The line in our article is simply a re-wording of this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mid-season testing in season report

The Mugello tests start tomorrow, so I've made the relevant section of the report visible. However, I think we need to be really careful about this. Since in-season testing has been banned since 2009, its return is notable enough for inclusion. However, we don't want to get carried away; it's not that notable. It shouldn't be any longer than the pre-season section, and should only really be reserved for any major episodes, like Lotus dicovering the flaw int the E20 chassis at the start of the year. So, if you want to add any information to this section, please be careful. Testing times don't amount to much. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's some kind of serious controversy or (let's hope not) a big accident, then we can include that. Lists of times are the kind of thing we don't need, as I'm sure everyone will agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that there's a test is notable, but what happens there is not. (Unless unusual circumstances as you say) - mspete93 23:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something on the tyres could be mentioned. That's getting a lot of attention at the moment. And possibly a reference to Alan Perman'e comments about how the circuit doesn't really have anything in common with the next few circuits the championship will visit; of the next run of circuits, he names Silverstone as the closest to Mugello. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't something concrete have to come from this test relating to these tyres to make it notable? For example, after testing at Mugello, Pirelli announced it would be replacing their "Medium" tyre with a new compound. And that sort of information would only emerge after the tests have been completed. Mentioning anythin at the tests themselves is speculation and without a context of how it will (not might - will) affect the season it is pretty low importance. --Falcadore (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just spitballing ideas here. Right now, the report section says that the teams are using the test to evaluate new aero parts. If a team comes out and says "we're going to focus on tyres", then I see no reason why that should not be included in the article. It doesn't have to be anything major, just add "and tyres" to the existing report. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It probably means the aero stuff should be removed. Teams saying they are testing aero parts ahead of time is news and we are WP:NOTNEWS. --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The entire point of the test is to assess aero upgrades. Without mentioning the aero work, there is little to substantiate this section of the report. However, the tests are notable because they are the first mid-season tests since 2008. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not having had a mid-season test in four years doesnt make it notable. It makes it a statistical anomaly perhaps. What would make it notable is if something significant happens. At present your reason for including is that they didn't do one last year or the year before, and what happened in 2011 and 2010 are not part of the scope of an article about events of 2012. Need a bit more substance. How many training sessions of Olympians get coverage? --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

With the Mugello test now concluded to only conclusion that seems to have been drawn is that it was a bad idea. So how notable is it then to the subject? How has something essentially by consensus within the paddock that was a non event become a 200 word paragraph? --Falcadore (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tangent - young driver tests

Right now, it looks like the young driver tests are being brought forward to the middle of the year. If this goes ahead, and if there are any major episodes, should they be mentioned in the article or not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. How is it noteworthy to the subject? --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Gearbox "joker"

During qualifying for the race in Bahrain, Martin Brundle mentioned that drivers no longer have a gearbox "joker" - the one free change of a gearbox without penalty that they had in 2011. However, I can't find anything to support this, so I added a citation template to the page because I don't know if we can reference the telecast. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a ref to support this here. I' ve replaced the "Martin Brundle - Sky Sports F1" telelcast ref with this one. Bigdon128 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Williams Fire

It currently says that Senna's car was the cause of the fire, however, if anyone had seen the Sky F1 footage, it can be seen that the fire starts on Maldonado's side of the garage. Confused? Troggy3112 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding the fire started at a refueling apparatus within the garage, not physically on Senna's car. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This was my understanding too, I was just making it obvious that it couldn't of been anything to do with Senna's car as it was at the complete opposite end of the garage to his car. Troggy3112 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it may have been related to Senna's car if they were removing fuel from it. Just because the storage tank was on one side of the garage does not mean it is meant only for Maldonado's car. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. The fuelling rig was attached to Senna's car at the time of the blaze. And if you look at images from the aftermath of the fire, most of the damage is concentrated aorund Senna's car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Raikkonen photo

I think we really need a new Raikkonen photo to go in this article. The current one is okay, but it's a bit out-dated. It was taken in 2010, during his rally days, but more importantly, it shows him wearing a Red Bull hat when he currently has no connection to Red Bull. I've seen people point to this very photo as "proof" Raikkonen will join Red Bull Racing in the near future. I honestly thought we've have at least one photo of him in Lotus colours that we could use by now. So maybe we could all keep out eyes peeled for a more appropriate picture, and upload it in place of the Rally Germany one that is currently in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 5 photos of Räikkönen in his car this year (2 from testing, 3 from Malaysia) on his commons page, but that's all I've noticed. Since the picture of him used on this page is definitley the most recent of him outside his car, we could perhaps add a new picture of a different driver if you think the current one may cause confusion. Bigdon128 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The current picture is fine; it's just a little out-dated. I would like a picture of him in Lotus colours if possible, but the one we have will do for now. Since this weekend is the Monaco Grand Prix, I'm hoping something of use will come up.

There's no sense in replacing the picture with someone else. The point of the Raikkonen photo is to highlight his return, which is notable enough for a picture to be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Valencia flag

Currently, the Valencia flag is Spain, but it is the European grand Prix, should the actual flag of the race be used (EU/Europe/Blue flag), or stick with the Spain flag. I would go Europe as that is the official flag of the race. The link below shows it.

http://www.valencia-grand-prix.com/en/1421-eu-valencia/

The official flag for all the others is the national flag NBNK1 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

All of the flags relate to the nation where the circuit is located (because is something that is almost always uncontentious), as per previous discussions. The flags are not directly linked the the name of the race. - mspete93 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Europe is not a country, nor is a political organisation, it is a continent. The European Union has a flag, but it is not the European Union Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude, but then again you wouldn't call yourself "European Union" would you, you would still say "European". Just to let you know I have seen a page or two with the EU flag over the European GP but I don't actually know where they are to change them. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I simply implied the official flag of the race happens to be the EU flag, also the flag of Council of Europe etc, and the Spain flag is not used at the event, and whether as it is the European grand Prix the flag of Europe should be used. many pages on wikipedia use that flag so a discussion is requierd as it should be consistent. Remember the European Grand Prix has not always been in Spain, it used to be in Germany/UK etc, and therefore in the history according to the f1 website, they have officially of won the same race, the European Grand Prix NBNK1 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree with NBNK1 because the event is the European Grand Prix, and the EU flag is as close as we can get to a European flag. Also, the race just so happens to have been in a circuit in Spain the last few years, and has been in numerous other locations. It is also, as the link proves, the official flag of the race.

Honestly, I don't really want to use the E.U flag, but to avoid confusion, I don't want to use the Spanish flag again (espcially for a race which doesn't have Spain or Spanish in the title). Perhaps a compromise bewtween both would be the Valencian flag ------------>

Or maybe not... Bigdon128 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT the official flag of the race simply because Grands Prix don't have official flags. Europe is also not an entity. "As close as we canget" is simply not good enough. Also, we should never use flags purely for illustrative purposes. It is also very well established procedure that we should never use a sub-national flag, like Valencia, for any reason in F1. And even if we could what would you use for the Caesar's Palace Grand Prix? The flag used is the flag of the host nation. This matches up with for examples like the Pau Grand Prix, Albi Grand Prix, Pescara Grand Prix etc etc --Falcadore (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If we put the Spanish flag to the European GP at Valencia, we should also put the German flag to Luxembourg Grand Prix, the Italian flag to San Marino GP? I don't think it's a good thing. Here's another EU flag (Formula1.com), and here again (FIA.com). 79.51.77.130 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to use the flag of the European Union as it is not appropriate for many reasons. The EU represeants a group of European nationa, but does NOT represent all of them. Notably Switzerland, who has hosted the European Grand Prix, is not a member of the European Union. It's like suggestions the flga of the Pacific Community should be used for the Pacific Grand Prix, a ridiculous suggestion as Japan is not a member of the Pacific Community. --Falcadore (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about Luxembourg/San Marino. I think always using the european/official flag of the race for the European Grand Prix is the only sensible option, if we leave this a the Spain flag, you would have to put the Italian flag on San Marino grand Prix and im not happy at all at that prospectNBNK1 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

This is exactly the reason why the flags are used in the circuit column and not that of the races!!! You're all going against something that was agreed by consensus before. - mspete93 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What you will also find is many articles about it do not follow that rule. It needs reconsidering, not just for this article but more broadly, just because something has got consensus in the past doesn't mean it cant be reconsidered if new people support a different viewpoint, consensus can changeNBNK1 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree completely the San Marino Grand Prix should have the Italian flag. Not so the Luxembourg race though as early Luxembourg GPs were actually held in Luxembourg. --Falcadore (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, some Luxembourg Grand Prix's were not held in Luxembourg http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Luxembourg_Grand_Prix. The argument is not just about the European Grand Prix, but much more broadly, many past articles seem to have random flags give, eg europe/the country hosting it/the country eg San Marino near by NBNK1 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were - the 1950s events were held at the Luxembourg Findel. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What im saying is does the flag in the link above need changing to the German flag, a lot of people going against seem to have double standards, one option for race, another for another.NBNK1 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to use flags to represent the venue was achieved, but it was not fully implemented as it should have been - there's no "double standard", just the usual cock-up. Flags were moved to the circuit column because they represent the venue, and are not just a regurgitation of the event's "official flag". Using flag icons simply to copy an official event flag fails the MOS. There is also the question of the Pacific Grand Prix, as the area represented by the Pacific flag does not include Japan, so the Japanese one is used to represent the host country. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view, San Marino is the only real problem. Luxembourg has hosted its own Grand Prix, not the most recent admittedly, but the point stands. The Korean Grand Prix has the flag of South Korea not an arbitrary "Korean" flag. Pacific is Japan. Caesars Palace is United States as is Dallas and Detriot. Abu Dhabi is the United Arab Emirates. So apart from San Marino they are all good. --Falcadore (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to agree that my comment about the Valencia flag being used was probably quite stupid. I still, however, disagree about the Spanish flag being used instead of the European flag. Your main argument seems to be that the event takes place in Spain, so a spanish flag should be used for the event. Let me point out that the event also takes place within the bounderies of both Europe, and the European Union. The United States flag is used for the Caesers Palace Grand Prix because the event took place in Las Vegas in the United States, in the same way the European Grand Prix takes place in Spain in Europe. Also, like in Spain, they couldn't call it the United States GP because there were multiple events in the country that year. But, unlike in Spain, it is given the flag of a country because the event, by name, was fixed to a single location.

IMO, races like the 1997 Luxembourg Grand Prix or the 1982 Swiss Grand Prix are just completly incorrect with the flags as they are now, but would look stupid with the German and French flags used instead. What I'm suggesting is that we don't use flags at all for these races. Do we really need them? I still think it would be good to have an EU flag for this race, but I'd far prefer none at all than a Spanish one. Bigdon128 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So you want to use a country national flag for every race except the European? And you don't see that as a double standard?

If you are asking me, no I don't think so, because it has the European Flag as its official flag and the European anthem played before the race, for all the others the national flag in which the race is held is the official flag. hence I don't see a double standard at all.I suppose you could put both the European flag and the Spanish flag together if you really wanted?NBNK1 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)/

Secondly, as Wikipedias primary role is educational, you don't think the educational role of using the flag to indicate actual location rather than something as arbitrary as the event name as worth considering? To suggest it is stupid to consider using the German flag for the Luxembourg grand prix of 1997 is to condone, by extension, finding a picture of a Roman Legionaires helmet for 1982 Caesars Palace Grand Prix. Because that is what you are saying if you want to link the flag to the name of the event rather than alternative criteria. If I see something that does not match my expectations, my first reaction is not to think it is stupid. It is to wonder why it does not match my expectation and then to find out why it does not match my expectation.

Thirdly as pointed out previously, the European Union flag to be used for the European race is as inappropriate as the Pacific Community for the Pacific Grand Prix. Switzerland, a former host of the European Grand Prix is not a member of the European Union. --Falcadore (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, I advocated using the official flags for the Valencia race, which as shown above is the European flag, yes it has many uses, EU/Council of Europe etc, but it is the official flag of the race. In Valencia, the Spanish flag is not flown, neither is the national anthem of Spain is played the European Anthem is played etc, and the blue flag is used. That was all that I was saying, you seem to be getting confusedNBNK1 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC). regarding San Marino grand Prix in the records book, which discussion doesn't really belong here so there inst any consensus to be had, I personally would have no flag at all. In some past cases, you have has a situation where the race is organized by the auto mobile association of one country but is held in another, which i think can also complicate matters, but really, this talk page is about the 2012 season, so talking about Grand Prix of the pacific isn't much use hereNBNK1 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

You can't have different policies for different seasons or eras. It's one size fits all. Forget the official flag of the race - using a flag icon to reflect the official flag of an event like this fails the MOS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it is being discussed here! so it can be!NBNK1 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, so it can be what? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What I presume that we want is when a flag is used on one article, the same flag is used on others? correct?, at the moment if you look at many formula 1 articles, you get different flags all over the place. A previous user has said there is already consensus on the issues. The problem I think, and this is why implementation of that is negligible is that there are many talk pages, and consensus has gone different ways each time. You either use the official flag or the national flag. At the moment it is totally random with from what I see is no consensus either way. take the link below for the 1993 F1 season

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/1993_Formula_One_season#Race_Three:_Europe

You have the official San Marino flag for the San Marino Grand Prix (it is of course in Italy). For the European the UK flag is used. this is where i think there is an issue, you either use the official flag, or the use the national flag where the event is held, that's the problem, it should be as you said one size fits all, at the moment I don't think it isNBNK1 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

To address your Falcadore's point, why shouldn't races with different locations from their titles be given different criteria? You then say that "Wikipedias primary role is educational", which I agree with, which is why the first sentence of most of the 800+ race articles state the circuit and the location of the circuit in the first sentence of the article, and also why the circuit and the circuit's location are given on the race calendar table on the season pages. If some-one wanted to know where the race was held, they could find out very easily. The purpose of the flag is purely illustrational, and on all the race articles sits directly next to the race title - which is why I though it would look 'like some-one had made a mistake' (is probably a better way of putting it). I think this would be the case considering the majority of readers are completely unaware of this "alternative criteria", and I still think it would cause more confusion than a flag which I now realise to be incorrect (thanks for pointing out the Switzerland, I honestly hadn't seen it, or considered it before).

This is why I suggested not putting any flag on these race articles, so there is no wrong information, confusion, or repetiton of information already mentioned in the lead, the infobox (assuming there is one) and also the race circuit's article. Basically, you've convinced me not to want an EU flag, but I still don't want a Spanish one (however, I think putting flags next to the circuit location in the race calendar in a season page like this one is acceptable, because, unlike if they next to the race title, there is no confusion to what is meant).

I also agree with NBNK1 that for this situation a consensus should be reached, because I don't think it has been already. Bigdon128 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

To just clarify/comment for probably my final time, im personally not overly concerned about whether the races official flag or national flag is used. I would go official, but im not really that concerned to be honest.

I just think at the moment there is no consensus. Its all well and good to say, its been revisited before and we agreed this. You only have to look a the mix between official/national in the various articles on F1 to see its been difficult to implement and not because of a general cock-up, because the same issues have been raised before on other articles/talk pages and reached different conclusions, hence why there is a mix-up in all the articles as Bretonbanquet agreed with (I think) above. Finally, it could/has been suggested that for many articles where there is only one flag and we are debating what it should be, then why not include both or none (eg. San Marino), is that sensible do you think? Anyway, I will leave it up to you guys to debate and try and sort it outNBNK1 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

No. There have not been umpteen discussions with different conclusions. There was one discussion at WP:F1, where discussions of that type are supposed to be held. It was, if I remember correctly, a fairly clear consensus, but as usual with F1 on Wikipedia, it falls to a very small number of editors to implement the consensus. It's a boring job. Not all articles (not just 864 individual WC race articles, but non-Championship race articles, parent race articles and season articles as well) were dealt with, leaving us with the current situation. There was, if I recall, almost no problem with people reverting the changes that were made, it was simply that the consensus was not fully rolled out. It looks like the San Marino / Italy thing wasn't dealt with at all, for some reason. But that is not to say there was another discussion somewhere where it was decided to use the SM flag. WP:F1 has a lot of grand ideas that don't always reach fruition, due to the enormous number of articles.

There is also the problem that different types of article emply flags in different ways. I'd say a flag above the infobox on a race article serves no real purpose and shouldn't really be there at all - it would be better served in the infobox 'Location' field (if anywhere). Flags in season tables and calendars do serve a purpose, in representing races. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For NBNK1's attention, there are no "official" flags for Grands Prix. I'm not sure where you are misinterpreting that from. Even if the F1 website use flags on their website, it's purely decorative. There never has been an official flag for a Grand Prix. National flags are official to the nation they represent, not to anyone or anything else. And to support Bretonbanquet, the consensus has been reached many many times previously, This topic appears to be debated every six months. I personally disagree with the San Marino Grand Prix but otherwise the flag belongs to the host nation. I suggest you study the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One for guidance on this issue. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If you read the F1 website, it mentions that the official anthem and flag is raised/played before the race, but im not really interested in wasting time studying that point, I would just personally recommend remove the flags from above the infobox on the race articles, but as I said before im not really interested in debating it further, there seem to be many cases supporting the use of the San Marino flag actually, but isn't really relevant to this talk page as I said above, so don't what to discuss that here and argue over examples etc, its not the placeNBNK1 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I think we should remove the flag from above the infobox on race articles, it may be time consuming, but it will stop people trying to change the flag and starting further disputes like this in the future. After all, as Bretonbanquet says, they don't really have a purpose. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think leaving it at the established consensus is entirely appropriate until such a time as a new consensus is achieved. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean immediately, or even at all, I was just putting it out there to find out if it could be part of a new consensus, if there is one. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it would be more appropriate to raise the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Should I move this dicussion there then? Bigdon128 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free if you wantNBNK1 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Discussion moved. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sorted then, i'll go make the change. BosleyTree (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly oppose this. To me, participating in a Grand Prix means taking part in qualifying and the race. Glock didn't take part in either, so we cannot reasonably say that he took part in the Grand Prix.

As for the footnote, the reason for it being there was not so much to explain why Glock did not take part, but why Marussia did not enter two cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well does the "Rounds" column represent race starts, or attendances, and before you answer Prisonermonkeys, I suggest you go back and look at the 1950s/60s era F1 and those drivers who have a single DNS against their names. Do we indicate in the Rounds column which race they were DNSing in, or do we leave at blank. The precedence is well established for this sort of thing, let's not try to establish anything new. --Falcadore (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between qualifying, but not starting the race and neither qualifying nor starting the race. For example, Glock did not start the 2011 Turkish Grand Prix due to a problem with his gearbox. However, he took part in qualifying for that race; had he started, he would have lined up twenty-second. So I think we can reasonably say that he took part in the Grand Prix, even if he never actually started the race.

On the other hand, Glock did not qualify the car in Valencia, and he did not start the race. He was sick on Saturday, and although the stewards gave him permission to race if he was deemed fit, he was still too sick on Sunday to start the race. So therefore I don't think we can reasonably say that he took part in the Grand Prix.

In short, I don't think a driver can be described as taking part in the Grand Prix if he does not race (or qualify for it, as qualifying is a pre-requisite). I'm sure you can see the logic in this: if he did not drive the car, he did not take part. If there are instances in earlier season articles where drivers are listed as taking part in a Grand Prix even though they did not drive in qualifying or the race, then that is something that needs to be addressed. I think I'll raise it over at WP:F1, since it's an issue that affects the wider Formula 1 pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to put him down as "DNS" in the results matrix, then he "participated". A non-participation would be a blank space. A practice session is part of a Grand Prix weekend, and Timo was not a designated 3rd drive (something that must be decided prior to practice). He participated in the Grand Prix weekend and was the team's entry for the race. I see no reason that something magical happens between an official practice session and qualifying that suddenly makes the driver a participant. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: " started the season, breaking the record of five established in 1970"

First, that's not what the cited article said, it referred to 1970 as the most recent time (prior to 2011) that there were five champions currently active. Second, the first time there were five would have been at the start of the 1968 season with Brabham, G. Hill, Clark, Surtees & Hulme. Unfortunately, that was only true for South Africa and it didn't happen again until 1970. Bill321 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Five was not the record anyway. There were six winners in the first six races of the 1951 season. Fangio, Wallard, Farina, Fagioli, Gonzalez and Ascari. --Falcadore (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He means note about there being 5 World Champions, not on the winners/races deal. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. My mistake. --Falcadore (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Season report

We've got a bit of a problem here, and I've been remiss not bringing this up before we got eight races into the season. The season report section isn't a season report. The name suggest it reports the season, but instead of doing that we have eight individual race summaries. The two are not the same thing, nor are they interchangeable.

The format very much needs to be alterred so it actually describes the season, instead of eight races. --Falcadore (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As you have said yourself in our discussion on this, we need to write one season report, not twenty race summaries. As we are eight races into the season, we do not have a full season report. So we can't rewrite half a season report when you've raised that point.

Personally, I don't see much of a problem with it (though I've done most of the writing so my opinion is a little coloured by it). However, reading over your comments, all I'm seeing is you saying "we need to change it" rather than "we need to change it, and this is how we should do it". How is anyone supposed to be able to change it without any idea on how to go about it? Do you want to keep the race summaries as they are, but add an executive summary at the start of the section? Do you want to remove the sections entirely and just have it as a wall of prose? Do you want less of a focus on individual races and more focus on the championship? (I think this last one is a little silly - eight races in, and we have no clear championship leader.)

What do you want from the report? How do you want it to be structured? How do you want it to be written? You haven't given any clear direction on how you think it should be written, so to sit back and say "it needs to be changed" is, well, useless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As we are eight races into the season, we do not have a full season report. So we can't rewrite half a season report when you've raised that point.

Of course we can. It just means we have to adjust the language for the whole report after each race. It's just like real life, new events alter the whole. --Falcadore (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you perhaps take one or two sections (say, Canada and Valencia, as they're the most-recent two) and demonstrate how that would work? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because it seems by asking a question like that, you've entirely missed the point. A Formula One season is 20 races, not one or two in isolation. --Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how do you expect anyone to be able to rewrite it if you can't demonstrate what an appropriate rewrite would be? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I can demonstrate - little busy right now - but it's pointless to do it for two races, as its not in any way an improvement over what we have now. --

An example. Don't be hung up on the wording, it was dashed off very quickl, but the structure is the important part.

Nine races into the season... (refer to archived copies of this page so as not to distract from the real message)

Sorry, but I'm not sold on it. It bounces back and forward too much - sometimes it focuses on races, other times if focuses on teams and there is no real rhyme or reason to the changes - there is far too much emotive language, and your entire last paragraph is speculative. Maybe it's just a wording thing, but the whole section feels like it was written to cut down the word count. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So when I say, don't focus on thw wording, by all means, focus on the wording.

The point is, this, albeit not well written, is a season summary. The most important part of a season is the winner, You souldn't have to read 17 miniature copies of other articles to find that out. The battle for who wins the world championship is more important than individual race description. We have articles on each individual, so we don't need to recap that here. So you start with the championship leaders, Alonso, Webber, Vettel, Hamilton. Hamilton then leads into how McLaren have struggled lately. First victories to Rosberg and Maldonado are of course noteworthy, the Lotus resurgence. Then Constructors championship. Ater that summarise how the smaller/slower team spent their seasons and any other events of the season like de Villota.

You might call that jumping around, but that is telling the story of the season in order in importance to the article topic which is 2012 Formula One season. Jenson Button winning the first race is not where it should start as the implication then is, is that the AusGP is the most important event of the season. --Falcadore (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Then put in a season overview, an executive summary of the season once the title has been decided. Falcadore's sample is incredibly disorganised. It goes from concentrating on the season to concentrating on races to concnentrating on teams with no real pattern as to when these shifts in focus are appropriate or why the tone has shifted. It's filled with speculation about who is fast and who might be fast, and its internal logic is contradictory. And there is far too much emotive language in there. What's more, you suggest looking at other season events like de Villota's accident. While that was certainly a notable event, it didn't actually affect the outcome of anything in the season. Marussia didn't withdraw from the British Grand Prix because of the accident, which is about the only set of circumstances that I can think of that would justify the inclusion of de Villota's accident.

Sure, you say "don't concentrate on the language", but there's not a hell of a lot else to look at. The style of prose is, in my opinion, so inherently flawed that it's impossible to look beyond it and see the structure, because the structure depends on the style of prose used. This whole thing feels like a half-term season report written for a magazine rather than for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Then fortunately for you I already spelt out a structure for you so you would not have to read the prose. Do I need to write the structure out for you a second time? Is it poosible for you to address that instead of focusing on something I have now said three times is not the importance component? Tell you what, how about I use bold and italics.

start with the championship leaders, Alonso, Webber, Vettel, Hamilton. Hamilton then leads into how McLaren have struggled lately. First victories to Rosberg and Maldonado are of course noteworthy, the Lotus resurgence. Then Constructors championship. Ater that summarise how the smaller/slower team spent their seasons and any other events of the season like de Villota.

Is that impossible to be understood? Tell you what else, I'll delete the prose you object to so strongly, that should help focus your attention. --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't like it. I still think it is better-suited for a magazine, and Wikipedia is not a magazine. I think it is inappropriate to review a season after less than half a season, and as you yourself has pointed out, when we write a race report for the race page, we do it after the race has been run, so how can we review a season after only half a season? I think it assigns undue weight to certain areas - such as the championship leaders - under the assumption that those areas will maintain their notability as the season goes on. But mostly, this feels like a change for the sake of change. You seem to be trying to condense something down into a format that doesn't work for it under the assumption that you can only have quantity or quality, but never both. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But we're "reviewing the season" anyway by doing individual race reports in miniature and providing a progress score, but we're just doing in an unstructured manner which does not actually reflect the priorities of the radership. All I'm trying to do, is to get the story written propoerly. This isn't a "don't do it until later" because we are already doing, but doing it with all the priorities messed up.

If someone comes into the article now, trying to find out who is leading the championship, you have to go to the bottom of the article to find. out. I'm not proposing to create something new, I'm proposing to fix something already here that is broken. To suggest we should not do until after the season is finished, is to suggest the article should be deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And what does "It's like a magazine" mean? Wikipedia is actually supposed to be written this way. It is NOT supposed to be written in a timeline. This isn't facebook you know. --Falcadore (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean that it reads like something that would appear in a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. But you clearly think I'm an idiot because I don't see things your way, so I doubt you'll take much note of what I just said. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some magazines write in an encyclopedic style. The Style are as different as the subject, so it's a relatively meaningless remark. This isn't about personalities. --Falcadore (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)