Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Race titles

I have added race titles to the calendar (which will need a reference, by the way; the Formula 1 mobile site only lists the races individually). But now that I look at it, I am wondering if it is necessary at all. All they really show is the title sponsor of the race and the local race name, and only where a race has either of them. Given that we have always taken the stance that the season articles should be for content that affects the season as a whole, I do not really see the need for this, and have only really included them because we usually do. Having just expanded 2014 Australian Grand Prix to be more than just a redirect, I am struck by the way the full, formal race title only appears in an infobox and as an addendum in the article lead. If it is so insignificant that it is little more than a glorified footnote on a race article - the article that it has the most relevance to - then the question becomes whether or not it should be included in the season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Who said it was ever a "glorified footnote on a race article"?. The title given is it's official race name. What are you doing? *JoeTri10_ 08:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the title is the official race name. But their inclusion does not add anything to the article. It does not help the reader understand the sport any more than if they were not included. You will notice that the article was just fine without them until about six hours ago. Like I said, all their inclusion does is a) give the local spelling of "Grand Prix", and b) name the title sponsor of the race. And you will notice that some races have neither a local spelling or a title sponsor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding them now is good timing as everything is now officially set in stone (Unless certain circumstances arise) but sure by all means get rid of them if you must. Whilst you're at it though can I request you delete the 'Team' names as well please. *JoeTri10_ 09:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How about we discuss the merits of including the full race titles in the article, which is what this discussion is intended for?If you still feel that strongly about team names, feel free to raise it independently. Trying to make out that race titles and team names are somehow mutually inclusive is an unnecessary complication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok so you tell me specifically what is your problem with these names without trying to confuse the issue. If your main argument though is you find adding the information about certain present sponsors is otherwise irrelevant then this is a strong case of Déjà vu. *JoeTri10_ 10:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is irrelevant. In 2012, the Australian Grand Prix was sponsored by Qantas. In 2013, it was sponsored by Rolex. In both years, the race was run exactly the same way; the identity of the title sponsor changed nothing except the signage around the circuit. So why is it so important that the formal race titles be included? Right now, they are only in the article because they have always been in season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So then i ask, what difference does this have to team names? Williams now features Martini in it's official outfit name however it's still run like Williams. McLaren have lost Vodafone but it's still McLaren. As displayed a few months back in a different discussion, you seem to have a very heated dislike regarding sponsorship in anything F1 related. Why? *JoeTri10_ 10:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the team names and constructor names are both listed is because the FIA defines teams and constructors differently, and because the different names are used in different contexts.

And yes, I was opposed to including details of sponsor changes in the article. I still am. And in the same way, I am opposed to including the full race titles in the article for the same reason: they are not important, and they do not affect the season as a whole. I have only included them for the time being because they have been included on previous season articles. How do you not understand this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Team name and constructor names? Sorry but you've lost me, who mentioned constructer names?

You know, some races get taken off the calendar at times due to budgetary issues. Maybe Australia needs these sponsors for the sake of the race happening?. That would effect the year would it not? Just like it has some effect on what drivers are in F1. It features a prior agreement effecting the season overall rather than having a continuous effect during.

The problem is not me not understanding you but that you clearly still have no understanding on how sponsors work period. Now before you go off shouting shenanigans, I can agree you could be considered correct that it is rather irrelevant to the common reader however if we start disregarding sponsorship detailing within titles then we're going to have a much larger problem on our hands then just the opinion on relevancy. I personally think you learn to understand how much money plays in formula one before you starting deciding what's irrelevant or otherwise. *JoeTri10_ 11:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that details like sponsors are necessary because without those sponsors, the race would not be possible is speculation, which is not Wikipedia's role. It is not our place to judge how important individual sponsor agreements are to those races. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, another helpful wikipedia hyperlink. Do you have these on stand by or something? -sigh- Someone else can have a go... *JoeTri10_ 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do have them on standby. CRYSTAL is one of the most important Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collection of articles on things that are, not things that might be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And official race titles featuring sponsorship ARE in existence, they ARE recognized, they ARE important and sponsors DO make a difference whether I have 100 sources on it or not. You do my damn head in with your extreme use of forcing Wikipedia policies in my/peoples face when we present you something you don't have an answer for! *JoeTri10_ 11:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at the calendar, and imagine it without the sponsors for a moment. What does it include?

1) The year.

2) The name of the series, Formula 1.

3) The local spelling of "Grand Prix", where there is a local spelling - and even then, not all of the with a local spelling, like Russia, include it.

Now, we know it is the 2014 season, because it is in the title of the article. And we know it is Formula One, as that is also in the article title. And as for the local names, there is already an entire column for the Grand Prix name, linking to the article for that race.

So the only thing sustaining this column is the sponsor name. And the individual sponsors do not affect the season as a whole. Therefore, they are not needed.

I suggest you read up on notability. Just because something happened, that does not automatically make it notable enough for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"the individual sponsors do not affect the season as a whole" - Yes it does! Sponsors = Money = Participation.

This entire discussion is based on Your opinion. Just because you think sponsors doesn't mean sh*t does not mean they shouldn't be included. So enough of this now, for me this discussion is over. *JoeTri10_ 12:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual sponsors affect individual races. Not the season as a whole. Therefore, if they are going to be mentioned, then the most appropriate place for them to go is in an individual race article, not the season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you say that claiming that Sponsorship is a necessity for a race to take place is speculation, but in all honesty by your definition your claim that they have no importance at all is just as much speculation. We don't know that for sure. Tvx1 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, regarding the notability guideline you keep throwing at us. I suggest you do some reading on that yourself. That guideline pertains on the notability requirements for a subject to warrant a stand-alone article, not on the contents of an article. There even is a section in the article titled " Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article " I suggest you read that section in particular. It literally reads The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. Tvx1 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, they should be included because the information is available? In that case, we should include a car release schedule, descriptions of livery changes, reactions to the double points rule and Bahrain's decision to name a corner after Schumacher. None of them help the reader understand the season, either, but hey, the content is there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't know that for sure. In the event of something we do not know for sure, it then falls upon the person advocating for its inclusion to reference it. If it can't be referenced and it's disputed, then it goes. --Falcadore (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost correct, but for the fact that it is not the inclusion, but the removal of something that is already included that is advocated. So the burden to justify the removal and gain a consensus for it lies on the shoulders of Prisonermonkeys. And the only argument that user has presented is nothing but speculation, which I pointed out in my previous reply. Tvx1 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bah-booow, try again. WP:BURDEN - Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Falcadore (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And I have already demonstrated the the primary argument in favour of including the titles is flawed. Everyone in favour of them talks about the importance of sponsors, which has not been demonstrated. Assuming for the moment that sponsors are as important as you claim they are, then why do some races have sponsors and others do not? That, to me, suggests that the sponsor only affects that race. Since this is the article for the entire season, those individual race sponsors have no bearing on the season as a whole.

When Daniel Ricciardo moved to Red Bull, that was a change that affected the whole season. He will race for Red Bull for all nineteen races; he is not simply driving for them in Australia and then going back to Toro Rosso. But Rolex are only sponsoring the Australian Grand Prix. Their involvement for the season as a sponsor ends there. They play no further role, and so should not be included at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again, Falcadore. The entire race title column is realibly sourced by source #69. So the situation here is that one user is advocating the removal of reliably sourced information and thus the burden of justifying and gaining a consensus for the removal of the well-sourced content here lies with the user advocating it and so far that user has failed to do so. Tvx1 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And that justification has been proven. Nobody in favour of keeping the race titles has been able to demonstrate their necessity to the article. As shown, the sponsors are the only things keeping the titles in the article, but you have yet to show how the sponsor of the Australian Grand Prix impacts the Malaysian, Chinese, Bahrain or any other Grand Prix. Your argument amounts to "it is sourced", but I could find reliable, verifiable sources for dozens of things that have no bearing on the season - like a car release schedule - if I wanted to. Just because a reference for something exists, that does not automatically mean it should be included. The existence of a reference alone does not make it important enough for inclusion - and if that is the only reason for its inclusion, then it probably is not important enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No Prismonermonkeys, for the 100th time, you are the one discussing removal of well-sourced information, the inclusion of which has been agreed upon years ago. No one is discussing the inclusion of information. Therefore, you are the one who has to demonstrate and prove things and you are the one who has to try to convince other users into agreeing on a consensus to remove it. And so far you have failed to do so miserably. You claim that "it's not important"? Prove that! And by your own arguments please tell me how any of the information included in the Grand Prix column affects the season in whole. Or anything written in the round column? Or even in what's in the circuit column? That's where your arguments don't make sense. Time has come to drop the stick and try help us resolve issues that actually need resolution or improve things that actually need improvement. Like e.g. the line-breaking issue you rightfully brought up. Tvx1 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" is not a policy that you bring up because you do not want to talk about it anymore. The fact is that you have not demonstrated the importance of the column beyond having a reliable source, and a source alone does not merit automatic inclusion.

As for questioning the purpose of all the other columns, are you serious? The "Round" column tells the reader the order the races will he run. The "Grand Prix" column links to the parent article for each race. The "Circuit" column gives the venue. And the "Date" column supplements the "Round" column, showing the spread of the races throughout the season. The fact that you a) think sponsor names are as important as this and b) need to question the purpose of every other column demonstrates just how specious your argument is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They are relevant. As stated, sponsors do have an effect on events and teams. We give the official names of the teams (unlinked) and don’t mention them anywhere else (and the articles are not the official names either), hence they are secondary information at best. So why are the races any different? They are the names the FIA officially refers to the races as. If you go on the website, it is not the "Australian Grand Prix", but rather, the "2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix". The website is currently advertising tickets for the "Formula 1 Grand Prix de Monaco 2014", not the "Monaco Grand Prix". Hence, these titles are important. To summarise, the information is well-sourced (if that even matters), is very much relevant and important (or at least, considered to be by both the FIA and the people who run F1, and those who organise the races), and keeping the information holds in-article consistency with the drivers table and holds consistency with previous seasons. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I direct your attention to COMMONNAME. The FIA might refer to those races by their full title, but they are the only ones who do so. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I direct you to the website of the Australian GP, which doesn't once call the event the "Australian Grand Prix", but, fully the "2014 Formula 1® Rolex Australian Grand Prix". I also bring to your attention that COMMONNAME refers just to article titles and not in-article information. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PM on this. The full titles don't really add anything to the table on the season page. That being said, I think they should still be mentioned in the individual page for the race. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

They do appear in race articles. But even then, they are treated as secondary information at best. It appears in the infobox, and once in the article lead. This is literally all that it says:

The 2014 Australian Grand Prix (formally referred to as the 2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix) is a Formula One motor race ...

So the race articles barely even acknowledge the existence of a race title. Why should they be included in the season article when they are redundant and only really name the sponsors? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Importance *JoeTri10_ 08:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How are they important? You have not said one way or the other. All you have managed to produce is "without sponsors, the race might not happen", which is speculation. Since all of the other information in the race title is contained elsewhere in the article and the table itself, all you have a handful of company names whose importance has only been explained as "they might be" and the importance to the season has not been demonstrated at all. If anything, your argument has only proven that the titles should not be included at all: you argue for their overwhelming importance to the individual races, but this is the season article. The sponsors do not affect the season as a whole. Therefore, without the sponsors, the titles simply repeat information, and they are unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sponsors are needed to make things happen, that is one of the their main purposes and that is certainly not speculation. As TVX1 stated that you obviously (but not surprisingly) ignored, it is also speculation to state that they also may not. If you wish to delete repeated information, replace the middle man by instead taking out the 'Grand Prix' section and adding hyperlinks to that listed under 'race title'. The bottom line is that the (sponsor) inclusion in the title is just as important as having Martini, Vodafone or any other sponsor in the name of the race outfits name. The official race title's mishandling in other pages I feel is what's causing your issue also. Grand prix titles are often used as the generic default of discussion sake when talking about a certain race; it's simply easier. That however does not make it the correct format to use officially which is why many (if not all) other websites list these races under their official given name first. So in a nutshelled example: if one were to discuss Williams, you'd generically speak of "Williams" without adding Martini or even in cases much like if one would say 'Ferrari' instead of 'Scuderia Ferrari' even though the latter would officially be the correct name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is a database of up to date fully detailed references and facts. Though each article features information about itself, that which represents branched articles must accurately represent and source each branching article. It is of course unnecessary to detail every part of the formula 1 season within one article because each separate article details that however accurately listing to such should not be lazily handled just because the information may be present elsewhete. So as I said above, if a repeat of information bothers you this much (now?) than replace that which describes less than what describes more. Hyperlink the race titles and bin the 'Grand Prix' section. If you are still going to argue that having sponsors mentioned is irrelevant information than this is unresolvable. I am seriously not going to go into more detaile about this. *JoeTri10_ 09:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sponsorship of the Australian Grand Prix contributes to the race organisers, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, offsetting the cost of the event. It doesn't go to the FIA, it doesn't go to the competitors. If it goes anywhere other than the AGPC then it would go towards the coffers of the Victorian state government for whom the AGPC run the race. --Falcadore (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You say that Wikipedia is a collection of facts, and that some are naturally left out because of a lack of importance. That seems to contradict your earlier statement that the sponsors are important.

And I see you have taken to immediately reverting any edits you disagree with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sponsors feature importance to the entire grand scheme of the 2014 calendar. The official race names are of relevance to the season and the official race names feature more importance and priority than the generic information lacking title that you wish to keep. (See previous comment for agreement over middleground)

Yes, this discussion is still on going. As for your statement of "The article was fine without it", See previous years articles, they seem to be doing just fine with this format too. *JoeTri10_ 10:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because something has always been done one way, that does not mean it is a good idea. And for someone who has always argued that the most important thing is consistency with other articles, I find it odd that you never saw fit to include the formal titles, even when they had been published for months. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeably adept enough at compiling code for charting and also on-going discussions have also been going on about race sponsorships (Something that always continue until the last quarter of winter). I also had confidence enough that those who constantly adds information were at some point going to update the article and indeed you did. I am more of a person who fixes or small updates then adding more important bulk until I learn more of the in's and out's of Wikipedia. So I'm sorry, shoot me? *JoeTri10_ 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you cannot remove well referenced information, the inclusion of which has been agreed upon years ago, just because you don't like it. You're the one advocating the removal of the information, so the burden of justifying the removal and gaining a consensus for it lies with you and not with those wanting to keep it. At this moment there is nowhere near a consensus for the removal. At the moment you have presented one argument : It's not important., but you haven't founded that with any proof at all and therefore it is pure and utter speculation.

Having said that, I have to say I feel more or the same way as *JoeTri10_. Maybe we should look at this the other way and ask ourself what the merits are of the Grand Prix column of the calendar. Tvx1 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I for one find that the only issue with my suggestion is that because the titles of the races feature the year, Hyperlinking it to the race track itself may confuse the reader. Maybe once the season is over we then re-open this discussion (if anyone remembers that is) or maybe just after page is created and then we hyperlink it to this years race. It loses the repetitive information and links the reader to a more relevant page regarding this season and not just F1 as a whole which is what you would call PM, "irrelevant information". That is just a thought for the sake of finding middle ground however. *JoeTri10_ 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Because the race title column refers to the specific race, linking to anything within it implies that the link will go to the specific race article instead of the general race article - for example, 2014 Australian Grand Prix instead of Australian Grand Prix - and the content of the two articles is extremely different. Linking to the specific race articles is more appropriate in the results summary section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the full race titles make the table look a mess on mobile devices. "2014 Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" is six lines long. However, "Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" is two lines long, "Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi" is three lines long, and "23 November" is one line long. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just write, for example, "Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" (i.e., ignoring the "2014" and "Formula 1" parts of the official titles) (like what I've got on my wiki (ignore the excess columns)) and placing non-breaking spaces into the table? —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The thought had occurred to me, but the full titles have "Formula 1" and "2014" in them. We cannot pick and choose which parts we include and which we do not, because that changes the nature of the titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If there's no will to compromise than we're going to leave it how it is. We're not changing it just for the sake of changing it. That's about it. *JoeTri10_ 05:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about compromise. This is about accurately presenting information - what you would call responsible editing. The article needs to match up with the sources, and if the source reads "2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix", then that is what needs to be in the article, presuming that we keep the race titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All of this can be solved by adding span style="white-space:nowrap" /span around the text in the troublesome cells. Tvx1 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Past seasons do not have the year nor the words "Formula One" in the race titles. Why should this year be different? ^Kytabu_Talk 09:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Kytabu, they probably should contain the year and "Formula 1". Look at the formal name on 2013 Australian Grand Prix - it gives the title of the race as "2013 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to solve Prisonermonkeys' issues with the line breaking, specifically on mobile devices, but always have some cells from the circuit and date columns overlapping when watching it on mobile devices. I really have no clue what I'm doing wrong here. Tvx1 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest using standard nbsp's instead of nowraps where it looks likely that cells could overlap. It also allows you to cut long lines of text in half (when an nbsp is intentionally left out). It is what worked for the drivers table. To explain, for some odd reason, nowraps don't properly in tables on mobile. I have no idea why this is the case, maybe we can mention it at WP:VPT. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

—Gyaro–Maguus—, even with your suggestion I can't get it fixed. The Belgian and Russian circuit cells keep causing problems. Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps breaks at the hyphen, which I can't solve without corrupting the link and Sochi International Circuit breaks after the flag, which can't solve at all. If I force a break in those two cells, to put just those two rows in two lines, in front of the town name; other circuit cells suddenly spill over into the date cells. Tvx1 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll mess about with it. I might chuck in a cheeky nowrap on the hyphened words. Hopefully this is solvable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried messing with it yet, but would it help to shorten "Sochi International Street Circuit, Adlersky City" to "Sochi International Street Circuit, Sochi"? JohnMcButts (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. The most problematic ones are Melbourne, Sepang and Spa.

Also, the Sochi circuit is not actually in Sochi. It is in Adlersky City, which is recognised as a different city, even though it is in the Sochi metropolitan area. To say the race is in Sochi when it is in Adlersky City would be same as saying an event is in Sydney when it is being held in Wollongong. Wollongong might be in the Sydney metro area, but it is not part of Sydney. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it, hopefully no worries. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's better, but the longer circuit names are being forced onto three lines, with the flag on the first line and the name on the second and third, which just looks odd. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Better? —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Oh dear, that didn't work... —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The only way to fix it is with the "Nat." column. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What about separating them into two columns, one for the circuit and one for the location? For example, "Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne" would be separated into "Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit" and "Melbourne, Victoria". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not when there are flags involved. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The version with "Nat." column looks really good, but our goal was to have one line for each row. Still, If we can't achieve that I think this version is the best alternative.Tvx1 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The table is too wide for one line a row. I have split the lines in the way I think is best and most efficient. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is one solution that we know works: we get rid of the "Race title" column. None of these problems arose until that column was added in.

As an alternative, I would propose turning the "Race title" column into some kind of local name column. Many of the non-English speaking host nations have their own name for the race, which we can see in the likes of the Italian, Brazilian and Austrian Grands Prix. But many of the others with local names which do not use the Latin alphabet simply keep their names in English.

To me, the local name is the title of the race, and far more important than a sponsor who bought signage around the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong, the problems arise because of the inclusion of flags. The race title column actually causes no problems at all, except in making the table wider, an issue which was sensibly tackled and fixed.

The column wasn't just simply added in. The official titles got released, and, just like the majority of previous seasons, was placed into the table with references. You brought up this discussion because you don't like it and because you seem to think you run this project, because you don't like it, it should be removed; this is not how the project should be run. Running my own wiki, I know exactly how you feel and I just moved on (very) quickly. And things like this should not have to come about.

The official names are the names used by the organisers. To me, it is more important to have this than the name in the local language because what explicitly defines the local language in places such as Barcelona (Catalan or Spanish) is actually quite political and one I'm sure we can have a 50,000-byte discussion over it. And over India as well. And there are those who would disagree with the Romanization of Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic and whatever it is in India. The official name is an official designation. I would try to come up with examples, but I'm too tired right now. You are now placing opinion in your reasons for its removal too. I have given good and solid reasons above (somewhere) as to why it should stay. Please, some plausible reasons or abide by WP:STICK. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not kidding when I said the flag issue did not exist until those titles were added in. Sure, the circuits appeared across multiple lines, but there was never an instance where the flag appeared on one line and everything else on subsequent lines. I can only speculate that the issue is caused by my browser having some kind of maximum allowable width for tables. But that does not explain why the table is not wrapping in the most logical place. This is how it appears now:

Sochi International Street Circuit, Adlersky

City

But from what I have see, this is how it should appear, and there is space to make it happen:

Sochi International Street Circuit,

Adlersky City

That is why I suggested separating it into two columns. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As for that discussion you linked to, it's funny, because if you swap my name for "Sport and politics", it applies to her as well. In every single occasion I have seen her edit, she accuses people of article ownership the moment they disagree with her. So you are right - that never should have been allowed to happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your browser attempts to everything within the width of the screen. If not, then it crunches up everything to make it as compact as possible There is no maximum allowable width, just that beyond a point (which is different on every device and device orientation) it needs to crunch the width.

So, from this perspective, if you have a large enough screen, it is entirely conceivable that having the race title column does send the table from just about fitting to actually fitting. But you need a pretty large screen for that.

All the tables in my sandboxes will lead to the flag on Sochi being above the rest of the text. This is caused by the nbsps in "Sochi International Street Circuit". It needs to be this way, otherwise the nowraps that hold the hyphenated words of "Spa-Francorchamps" and "Barcelona-Catalunya" together will spill over into other columns. Since flags are unaffected by nowraps and nbsps, the only way to fit this the way you want is to use the one with the "Nat." column. Splitting the column the way you want will not fix this, because as long as the flag is in a cell with text, there will width problems.

As for you views on Sport and Politics, I have three things to say: 1. Just because she does something bad doesn't mean it is okay for you to do so. 2. Two wrongs don't make a right. 3. You are one of the leaders of the WikiProject and you need to set examples of good leadership – to which I would say you are not doing enough. —Gyaro–Maguus— 10:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of thing I can work with: you take the time to explain your position, which is more than I can say for other editors, whose arguments consist of "but I have a source". I can find sources that show the launch dates for each car, but the article does not have a car release schedule. So why is it that some things are included because they are sourced, but other things are not, even though there are sources to go with them? There must be some quality that sets the information that is included apart. In the case of the cars, all of the cars will race, but the dates they are launched on have no bearing on their ability to compete. Therefore, the dates they are launched are not considered important enough for inclusion. I happen to think that the same logic applies to the race titles: namely, that the sponsors do not affect any part of the season outside the race (or, in some cases, races) they sponsor. Therefore, they are better suited to the individual race articles. However, every time I ask someone to further elaborate on their position, I get one of two responses: "the information is sourced" and "the burden lies with you". I have just demonstrated that the former is no argument at all (with the car release schedule), and the latter is a non-argument, because any attempt to prove that burden is usually countered with "the information is sourced". Is it any wonder I get frustrated? All I ask is that people make an actual argument. How does Rolex sponsoring the Australian Grand Prix affect the Singapore Grand Prix? How does Etihad's sponsorship of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix affect the race in Spain? If the answer to these questions is "it does't", then why are we including them in an article about things that affect the entire year? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And it does not help that we get editors like Sport and Politics, who join a discussion, offer an opinion, and then accuse anyone who disagrees with her of breaking OWN (seriously, check her contributions). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Let us stop our Sport and Politics debate (the user is a "she" according to her userpage, I've corrected all pronouns, including yours).

Anyway, you finally offer a decent point. I also agree that just because the information is sourced doesn't necessarily mean anything. We could put sourced information on general relativity into the article, but it doesn't mean anything here and would be removed.

Because on a fundamental level I disagree with their removal, I say this: the FIA, F1, and the events themselves refer to the races with the official name. You do not see, anywhere, the shorter forms. Imagine is someone sees "Eni Magyar Nagydíj". To the untrained eye, that is gobbledygook. I see it as "Eni Hungarian Grand Prix" because I know what it translates into, but many will not. As long as they know to come here, they will then find out.

There is more. I agree, sponsorships do not affect the other races. Yet, on basically all football season articles, the sponsors and kit manufacturers of teams are mentioned. They do not affect the other teams. Not only that, but on this very article, we have the official names of the teams. How does Williams' Martini sponsorship affect Marussia, or Pirelli, or Renault, or even Lewis Hamilton? Why do the football articles include those and why do we include these, if they only really affect the teams involved?

Either we keep both the race titles and official team names, or we remove them both. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And who has even invented this "rule" that "every byte of information that is included on a season article has to affect the season as whole"? Prisonermonkeys, of course! And since Prisonermonkeys apparently runs the project everybody has to abide by that user's will. Interestingly enough this "rule" isn't mentioned at all among the Project's guidelines, let alone among the Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So then why is it a matter of life and death that we abide with a "law" that apparently hasn't received universal recognition by the project's members?

Why is it so difficult to understand that is just impossible to rigidly apply such a "rule" across the entire collection of season articles? After all, I still have to see any explanation how the information in the "Grand Prix" column "affects" the season as whole? Yet, I have no absolute determination to have it removed and I'm certainly not making a matter of life and death out of it. Tvx1 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Have I seriously left and come back to a debate now involving making extra pieces to the table? Guys, leave it. Don't create something new out of nothing just for the sake of doing something (Again may I add). I don't understand what's going on. This sounds like pure ownership from Pm and Maguus *JoeTri10_ 20:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, *JoeTri10_, Prisoner has raised a legitimate concern about the excessive line breaks when viewing the calendar on a mobile device. It was close to having a line for each word. Myself and more importantly —Gyaro–Maguus— have then made some good faith efforts to solve the the issue. Gyaro made some propositions then, one which looks very good even on a mobile device in my opinion. I don't know why you accuse Gyaro of owning the article. Gyaro has made some suggestions, but hasn't demanded a change to the article ignoring the other users opinions altogether, let alone edited something in the article in ignorance of the discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll clarify my position for Joetri. I do not own the article. And why would I want to? Remember, I lead The Formula 1 Wiki on Wikia. Wikipedia, in fact, is of lesser concern to me than my wiki, and feel free to look at my contributions to see that I basically never majorly edit articles on WP (compare it to my Wikia contribs). As I state on my userpage, my main aims on WP are to fix things and to help resolve disputes (which I have done more than my fair share of in my 21 months here), and since I have a good technical knowledge, I can design tables to work on both PC and on mobiles. I quite simply have an opinion on how the article should look, and have found good reasons as to why it should be so. I think the column adds to the article. So I came up with not one, not two, but three ways to go about into the future with it. This excludes those I know would not work. I disagree with PM's arguments (all reasons stated above) and I use this thing known as reason (which only Tvx1 appears to fully understand the use of) to argue my way. I have been praised recently for this manner. Oh, and if I had my way, this is what I would have. So, yeah, WP:OWN does not apply. Tl;dr is best admitted when performed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Joetri, please be very, very careful when accusing people of breaking OWN. It has been used far too quickly and far too frequently by people looking to shut down a debate because they want it to end. We may be going over the finer points of code for mobile devices, but this is an issue that needs resolution. The work we do here could be applied to all of Wikipedia to improve useability for all readers. Coming in here an accusing other editors of violating OWN is unacceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that some kind of joke? In the past 2 months you have accused me of more things than I can remember with almost no evidence at all. I've had people come to me about you PM. I wouldn't try the whiteknight approach and funny that with Gyaro appearing out of the depths of the abyss as of recently with the sole idea of supporting you without question. I'm not looking to shut down the debate with it, it just seems rather obvious. There's no we about any of this. Not a single person here in the past half a year has had any actual impact on a single thing that's been done apart from you Pm and Maguus. Everyone else has had a say in but it's been used to twist your own idea into happening. So don't you even dare act all high and mighty on me now.

Now how this table has a problem on mobile devices is beyond me when it should just be following the format we've had for years. If such is the case regardless than the other articles must be in an absolute horrendous state. *JoeTri10_ 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel better having vented your spleen?

There is no winning with an OWN accusation. You can deny and the denial would just be used against you.

If it came down to a vote (I know it doesn't) I'd be for removing "official" (really "Sponsored" would be a better descritopn) names for both race and team. Contributes little as there is no follow up explaining the difference, and because the short name (COMMONNAME anyone?) is used near universally outside of press releases. Even then it's used selectively. Teams don't refer to other teams in press releases by their official names. Why give their sponsors coverage in your material? So when even the race teams don't refer to "official names" in their "official ducments" that says something by itself. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This had got to be the dumbest topic we've participated in. Sponsors are credited everywhere in all areas of business because they are extremely relevant. You guys have lost the plot. *JoeTri10_ 08:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to the races, sure. Relevant to the teams; absolutely. But relevant to the Wikipedia season articles? That is open to debate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to tell me how it isn't relevant other than because you don't think it is. *JoeTri10_ 08:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did tell you. And I will explain again:

The sponsors affect one race. But this article is an overview of nineteen races. Since those sponsors have nothing to do with eighteen of those races, there is no need to include them in this article.

Now, I accept that sponsors contribute money to an event, and that that money helps the event take place. However, we have no way of knowing how much money they contribute, and we cannot say whether or not that money is the only thing allowing the race to go ahead. So, all we can prove is that sponsors exist. How is the fact that they exist at all critical to completing this article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see the point of this information. It is just there for the sake of it and does not add to the table it is just information for the sake of information. Sport and politics (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

-sigh- So it boils down to: It doesn't effect everything therefor it's irrelevant. Is that what you're saying? *JoeTri10_ 11:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am saying we already have the name of the grand prix why do we need it twice? Sport and politics (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I never disagreed with that point which Is why I instead insisted the information under 'Grand prix' Is less relevant as it repeats the more official, accurate title in a nut shell for this years race. PM is arguing deleting already accepted information due to opinion over sponsorship; something he finds irrelevant. This has also now expanded onto the driver table because of cases like Williams and McLaren. Soon he'll end up arguing the point of adding information about their nationality at this rate *JoeTri10_ 11:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning used by Prisonermonkeys, Falcadore and now Sport and Politics use is fundamentelly flawed. Can anyone explain to me how the Sauber Chassis being named C33 affects the Ferrari being named F14 T, how the Mercedes engine being named PU106A Hybrid affects Renault's engines, how Vettel's number 1 affects Kobayashi's number 10 and how Perez being Mexican affects Rosberg being German. So if we consistently apply your made-up defenition we would have to trim the table down to only including the constructor names, tyre supplier and driver names.

As for the calendar. I do think it should be possible to merge the functionality of the "Race Title" and "Grand Prix" columns. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

They don't have to be relevant to each other, just to the topic. Information that is specific to a single event rather than the season as a whole is better presented on the single article it is relevant too. To me though it's small potatoes. The bigger issue to me is having two columns devoted to the name of the race.

If you absolutely must clutter up the calendar table with this extra information, I would prefer to see it presented in the following form.

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	16 March
5	Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli Spanish Grand Prix	Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona	11 May
8	Formula 1 Großer Preis von Österreich Austrian Grand Prix	Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	22 June
11	Formula 1 Pirelli Magyar Nagydíj Hungarian Grand Prix	Hungaroring, Budapest	27 July

It should be remembered what the purpose of the calendar table is. It is to state which race is on which date and at which location. Anything on top of that is padding, or table-cruft. Should keep the table as simple as possible to reduce the potential for confusion. Once upon a time people would load this table up with all kinds of addition rubbish, like the time of day the race would start and the timezone of the circuit and even provincial flags. --Falcadore (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Or this? —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand the necessity of including "2014". Seems unneccassary when 2014 is in the article title and the idea of any races from 2013 or 2015, or perhaps more specifcally any year other than 2014, being included is ludicrous.

Or "Formula 1" for that matter. There's no Formula 3 or 4 cars included. --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

PM pointed out that we ought to use the full race title. Note how even the Australian GP website refers to the event as the "2014 Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix". Personally, I think we could drop the "Formula 1" from the race titles as well, but I don't think we can do either. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the full race title is highlighted in the individual race articles. I see it as overcomplicating things. We've gotten by without complaint since Wikipedia began without excessively cluttered titles. --Falcadore (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This was my idea days ago but it got quickly dismissed. I suggested Hyperlinking it to this years race as apposed to the race track itself just to clear up confusion and making it more useful. That however also got dismissed because normally the results table do the same thing (Because following previous pages is certainly what we do best here!)

Ah yes Maguus, you have point there assuming ofcourse that the The official website is a load of nonsense. Also Maguus, did you try looking at the top left hand corner of that page? *JoeTri10_ 13:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The FIA feels it isn't neccessary to list long names. FIAs calendar at it's own website Sine there is so much inconsistency amongst websites I don't feel we can use their behavior as any kind of general trend, because plainly, there isn't one. --Falcadore (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The logo? Yes, that is the sole exception. Everywhere else on the Aussie GP website refers to it in full. Why don't you check what Force India have to say on the matter. Or Williams, who appear to have our calendar sans sponsors, but with "2014 Formula 1" on every line?
Having read though, it wasn't dismissed, more ignored in the barrage of text you wrote at that point (think tl;dr). I did that table because Tvx1 mentioned the idea.
And no, we are not linking to the individual year's races (which doesn't actually happen in my table), the historical event. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see, so because it's small and out the way we'll just forget its theres. _{Shhh, It might hear us}. The Force India link you showed me has the full title smack dab right in front of my face, what was that trying to prove? Just because part of their site has it and part of doesn't so surely! it is obvious we must go with the part of their site that doesn't list the full name because [Blank]. I didn't say your table linked it to the years race, I said it should do. But lets be counter productive because arguing about the fact it features 2014 in the title is much more fun than resolving it. The only thing you're trying to prove regardless how wrong we can be in comparison and even together with other sites. if I linked enough sites that spelt McLaren > Mucalarun, does that mean we should change it to such? *JoeTri10_ 14:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would put a decent argument together, but, quite, honestly, I have no idea what exactly you are trying to achieve or argue for. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny that. *JoeTri10_ 14:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No not so funny. If you did not spend so many words maligning or insulting people, your intention would be clearer. Sadly because of this divided focus, it is not. --Falcadore (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My intention was expressed days ago but it went ignored because of Tldr apparently. This entire this is stupid and I'm pretty sure people here now are complaining for the sake of it so... -shrugs- *JoeTri10_ 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we put all the personal attacks aside please and make some constructive arguments on the propositions that have been made. I for one really like the proposition on —Gyaro–Maguus—'s sandbox labeled That's What You Get. I think we could really continue with this one. And I would suggest we link the races to the individual year's article because this is the article for one particular and not just a list of Formula One Grands Prix. I do realize the Individual Season articles aren't created until shortly before the actual race. But it isn't really a problem as the links would automatically redirect to the main Grand Prix and when the individual articles are created the links will work correctly without any one needing to update the code. See how easy a wikipedia editor's life can be? Tvx1 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've linked each one to the 2014 races. Doing so means we don't need to exclude any part from the link. And for any editors with qualms about it, those race titles are specific to the year, so linking them anywhere else in that manner will potentially confuse and misdirect readers. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggested to do now even a few hours ago!, Jesus Christ!... Obviously I'm getting completely ignored and dismissed as you just did the exact same thing you said you wouldn't do earlier today hours ago Maguus ("And no, we are not linking to the individual year's races (which doesn't actually happen in my table), the historical event), so thanks a bunch. Hypocritical controlling at it's maximum. Not even excusable. You wonder why I get angry *JoeTri10_ 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to being an inconsistent hypocrite who changes his mind often. Hell, I even have this userbox on my userpage. And if you read what I wrote on the Sirotkin affair... but I digress, the table was different then. In its previous construction, linking to the individual races was not an option. Now the columns are merged, the link can be made. You are not the source of my ideas, it is a case of what I call "independent thinking". But I digress, it appears you approve of the table (since you have had the same ideas before) (though I must note you are getting ever closer to violating WP:PA in the process). So that is three in favour. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with Gyaro's proposal "That's What You Get" is that it contains no links to the parent race article. The race titles link to specific race articles, like 2014 Australian Grand Prix, and Australian Grand Prix gets ignored. We already have links to the specific races in the results tables, so replacing the only links to the parent articles with another link to specific articles makes no sense whatsoever. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And there are links to the parent articles in the results tables as well (specifically the season overview table). So currently there are two sets of links to the parent race articles, even though this article deals only with this season. So how is that better? Tvx1 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I've mixed my most recent design with Falcadore's idea. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The common position on the matter is that we all want relevance to the season as a whole. Joining together Pm's and Tvx1's comments, we need a chart that does not duplicate information but also backs the retained extra information with relevance which is much more achieved with the 2014 articles. The upcoming new tables confirming the results can easily link to overall grand prix pages if need be. A bigger picture here helps where we position information in the most relevant of ways I feel. *JoeTri10_ 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the big problems we used to have - and it may still be on some early season pages - was that information was being introduced in the wrong order. The season review was appearing at the start of the article, and was referring to drivers, teams, races and circuits before those drivers, teams, races and circuits were introduced in the team and driver table and the calendar.

I bring this up because this is a concept that we call the schema, or the assumed prior knowledge. To draw a real world example, we have to assume that a Year 2 student has completed all of the coursework for Year 1. That Year 1 coursework is the student's schema.

In the case of the above issue with season reports, the authors were assuming that readers knew who the teams and drivers were prior to reading the article, which may not be the case. And in this article, we need to link to Australian Grand Prix before we link to 2014 Australian Grand Prix, because by linking to the 2014 Australian Grand Prix first, we are assuming the reader knows what the Australian Grand Prix is, without actually telling them.

Besides, we have an entire section dedicated to specific races in the results section. If links to the parent article appear, they are only supplementary. The calendar section should give those parent articles priority. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Before this gets archived with the discussion incomplete, does a table that starts like this:

Round	Grand Prix	Nat.	Circuit	Date
1	2014 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix		Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	16 March
2	2014 Formula 1 Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix		Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	30 March
3	2014 Formula 1 Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix		Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	6 April

Be good enough to put into the article? (Full table in my sandbox) —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it. Having half the sentence hyperlinked and half the sentence not just doesn't look good. The worst example is the German Grand Prix. That one has two none hyperlinked words followed by two hyperlinked word followed by a non-hyperlinked word followed by another two hyperlinked two words and finished by another non-hyperlinked word. I you ask me the one you labelled "That's What You Get" looks better. Tvx1 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that linking the entire piece of text, including "2014", will make people think the race links to this season's race. Maybe if we hyperlink all but "Formula 1" and "2014" (including the sponsors), it might look better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)