Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not to sort by chassis discussed where?

Tvx1, in your revert you say "This has been discussed." Where was it discussed? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed here on this talk page in a discussion I already linked to in the section above this one. It seems that you didn't really bother to click on that link.Tvx1 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hardly a consensus for that then - one mention and no support or opposition for it! I think you should reinstate it per WP:BRD, or give a better rationale than that for defying that fundamental backstop of collegiality and collaboration. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave my rationale in the edit-summary. Firstly, there is the discussion and secondly there is no benefit whatsoever from sorting on chassis. It doesn't group them or provide correlation between them, so what additional information from re-sorting the chassis names do the readers get?? I could see the point, in articles on older seasons where you privateer entrants entering the same chassis. In that case sorting would group those entering the same chassis which is interesting to the reader. Here, however the sorting doesn't provide anything. "Defying that fundamental backstop of collegiality and collaboration" has nothing to do with this. Leave those personal attacks away, please.Tvx1 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think sorting adds value for the reader. So, as that has been in the article for months, then per WP:BRD you need to get get agreement to change the consensus on this. Please revert restore the status-quo and start a discussion on your proposal to change this. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

How? It doesn't add value only because you like clicking on the sort button. I have just thoroughly explained how re-sorting the chassis' do not enhance the understanding of that information for the reader in any way.Tvx1 20:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with our assertions, and please stick to the content question, and don't keep trying to personalise it. We can't predict what the reader wants to see - they might want to find a row by the chassis name, and the quickest way is by sorting. The sort function is free. Either way, forcing your change on us without consensus, especially when challenged, is, I believe, deeply discourteous and a violation of the standards of collegiality and cooperation that underpin the Wikipedia ethos. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like over-design to me—"it might be useful, so let's include it just in case". It would be useful if teams could use the same chassis so that readers could see who was using what, but since every team produces their own chassis, sorting by chassis is effectively the same as sorting by constructor.

Given that some teams (Haas, Williams, Ferrari, Force India and old McLarens) use a chassis designation unrelated to their constructor name, a far more intuitive way to search the table would be to look up the constructor and then find the chassis rather than go straight to the chassis. 1.129.105.10 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather allow the readers to decide for themselves how they want to use it. As we can make it a more interactive and fulfilling experience for them, and without any downside, why impose this unnecessary restriction on how it is used? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for adding functionality to the article, but I'd need more than "it might be useful" to justify it. Thst feels a lot like the kitchen sink. You simply have no way of proving that readers would use it if it were added. 1.129.105.249 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

please change haas engine from 062 to 064

haas f1 are using the ferrari 064 engine not the 062 Sms356 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

See previous discusion. The Haas website states they are using the 062. SSSB (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requent 2 February 2019 (table sorting)

Please update the table markup to include the following:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen
				99	Antonio Giovinazzi
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	5	Sebastian Vettel
				16	Charles Leclerc
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	8	Romain Grosjean
				20	Kevin Magnussen
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	4	Lando Norris
				55	Carlos Sainz Jr.
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
				77	Valtteri Bottas
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	11	Sergio Pérez
				18	Lance Stroll
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	10	Pierre Gasly
				33	Max Verstappen
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	3	Daniel Ricciardo
				27	Nico Hülkenberg
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	23	Alexander Albon
				26	Daniil Kvyat
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	63	George Russell
				88	Robert Kubica
Sources:

References

If I have done this properly (and I'm pretty sure that I have), it should now be possible to sort the table by driver number and driver name and the table will automatically break the larger cells up to accommodate it. This was a function that was not possible when we first introduced the sortable markup to the tables in 2014, but updates to Wiki software mean that it is now possible. 1.144.105.48 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is exactly the same problematic version we disagreed on using years ago. It still has the problem that rows using a rowspan are split when sort button is clicked or pressed and that effect is not reversible lest one refreshes the page.Tvx1 15:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Then that defeats the purpose of sorting by the number column at all. It should sort sequentially, but in its current format it does not come close. 1.129.105.99 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks fine to me like that. In fact I'd say there's no clear reason to have the rowspans in the first place. I'd support removing them altogether. I'd say that providing the expected sort behaviour is much more important. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion on this which leaned towards maken the numbers columns non-sortable. I don't know why that wasn't implemented. There simply is no way to make a sorting on numbers practically usable. Also, the prosed table includes adding rowspans, not removing them. There are no rowspans in the table we currently use.Tvx1 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no "rowspans", but there is faked row spanning by the use of "<br>". It'd be better with a proper single row per driver, then sorting would work logically, and the table would be more useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"There simply is no way to make a sorting on numbers practically usable."

When the sorting was first introduced, I believe that one of the main justifications was to give readers the opportunity to sort the table according to their preference. Those who wanted it sorted by constructor name could have it that way, while those who wanted it sorted by driver number could apply it equally.

"It still has the problem that rows using a rowspan are split when sort button is clicked or pressed and that effect is not reversible lest one refreshes the page."

You can re-sort based on constructor, you just don't get the rowspan effect. But where is the demand to go back to the default layout? I put this together based on the original argument from 2014 that some people would want to sort the table as they saw fit; from that I inferred that once sorted according to preference, they would be unlikely to change it back.

"It'd be better with a proper single row per driver, then sorting would work logically, and the table would be more useful."

I agree. Opposing the change on the basis that once done, you cannot naturally return to the default layout sounds like an argument based on the cosmetic appearance of the article. 1.129.105.99 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's good. So let's see what that could look like then:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	99	Antonio Giovinazzi
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	5	Sebastian Vettel
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	16	Charles Leclerc
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	8	Romain Grosjean
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari	20	Kevin Magnussen
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	4	Lando Norris
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault	55	Carlos Sainz Jr.
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	44	Lewis Hamilton
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes	77	Valtteri Bottas
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	11	Sergio Pérez
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes	18	Lance Stroll
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	10	Pierre Gasly
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda	33	Max Verstappen
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	3	Daniel Ricciardo
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault	27	Nico Hülkenberg
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	23	Alexander Albon
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda	26	Daniil Kvyat
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	63	George Russell
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes	88	Robert Kubica

Everything is properly sortable. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just doubling everything up for the sake of applying the sort function to every column. The columns that get the most benefit out of sorting are constructor, number and engine. Everything else is unnecessary. 1.129.105.78 (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So when you said "I agree" just above, you didn't mean it then? That's what we were talking about, after yours is sorted it splits the rows like this anyway, so why not take the opportunity to have this, very much simplified and 100% sortable, table in the first place? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not simplified at all. It's more complex and duplicates unnecessarily. That's the exact problematic situation created when sorting the table in the proposed table, which cannot be undone then without refreshing the page, and it's exactly what we decided against years ago.Tvx1 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As there are two cars per constructor of course parts of rows will be duplicated if sorted by, say, driver number - that's how sorting works. The question is whether we sacrifice full sortability so that when sorted by stuff common to both cars we get rowspans on the common stuff. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Another posibility:

Teams under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship

Team	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit
				Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Aston Martin Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Honda	RB15	Honda
McLaren F1 Team	McLaren-Renault	MCL34	Renault
Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport	Mercedes	F1 W10 EQ Power+	Mercedes
Racing Point F1 Team	Racing Point-Mercedes	TBA	Mercedes
Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	STR14	Honda
Renault F1 Team	Renault	TBA	Renault
Rich Energy Haas F1 Team	Haas-Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow	Ferrari	TBA	Ferrari
Williams Racing	Williams-Mercedes	FW42	Mercedes

Drivers under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship

Name	No.	Team
Alexander Albon	23	Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda
Valtteri Bottas	77	Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport
Pierre Gasly	10	Aston Martin Red Bull Racing
Antonio Giovinazzi	99	Alfa Romeo Racing
Romain Grosjean	8	Rich Energy Haas F1 Team
Lewis Hamilton	44	Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport
Nico Hülkenberg	27	Renault F1 Team
Robert Kubica	88	Williams Racing
Daniil Kvyat	26	Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda
Charles Leclerc	16	Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow
Kevin Magnussen	20	Rich Energy Haas F1 Team
Lando Norris	4	McLaren F1 Team
Sergio Pérez	11	Racing Point F1 Team
Daniel Ricciardo	3	Renault F1 Team
George Russell	63	Williams Racing
Kimi Räikkönen	7	Alfa Romeo Racing
Carlos Sainz Jr.	55	McLaren F1 Team
Lance Stroll	18	Racing Point F1 Team
Max Verstappen	33	Aston Martin Red Bull Racing
Sebastian Vettel	5	Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow

-- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this purpose of this request solely to allow sorting by number and chassis? Wicka wicka (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears so. But the thing is, we already judged the above suggestion among many other proposals featuring halved tables, in the discussion that ultimately led to the current format being adopted and non of them really got support.Tvx1 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop me if this is a crazy idea, but maybe we should just stick with what we currently have because it works. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: it works like a car with a flat tyre works. But it could work so much better if we fix the "puncture" by finding an acceptable way of sorting by car number and driver name. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two tables is not the answer. The reader should not have to cross-reference them to get all of the information. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: two tables is better than we currently have, but I agree, not ideal. The only one-table solution we have so far is the one with a row per car (4 February post above)), but that duplicates all the entrant details for each car, so is not ideal either. My preference though, from what we currently have on offer, is that 4 February table as it is the cleanest and clearest, closely resembles the official FIA entry list which also has a row for each car, and is the least tricky to code. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"two tables is better than we currently have"

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more if I tried. Two tables is awkward, creating an unnecessary need to cross-reference between them to get all of the information. It's especially noticeable on mobile devices where the tables are arranged vertically and both tables have a greater vertical height than the screen.

"the official FIA entry list which also has a row for each car"

And by recreating that exactly we quite literally put twice as much information into the article than we need to because the entrant, constructor, chassis and power unit all appear twice. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I suppose it depends on whether you prioritise aesthetics over utility, or vice-versa. I don't think we should compromise utility for the sake of how pretty it is. I know it frustrates me not to be able to sort by car number or driver name, so I would happily tolerate the slightly larger table as a compromise solution to the requirements for only one table and having it fully sortable. Have you any other ideas for how we can accommodate both requirements? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I would argue that you shouldn't prioritize aesthetics over utility, or vice versa. You should prioritize both equally and seek for the most optimal compromise between the two because they are not entirely distinct concepts - a solution that looks nice is often the most pleasant to use. And I would argue that's what we've achieved with our current table. It's clean, tidy, it displays all the most important information at a glance, and most of the columns are sortable. We've achieved this at the cost of not being able to sort by driver name, since it breaks rowspans. Removing the rowspans makes the table incredibly cluttered and difficult to read, therefore I (and most people, seemingly) think this is a perfectly acceptable compromise. Maybe there is a solution to this problem, but doubling each row or having two separate tables is not something I'd consider.

That said - what is the reasoning behind the chassis column not being sortable? I just tested making it sortable with the current table and it works perfectly fine. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

See the below discussion. The reasoning is that there is no apparent value in sorting on chassis. Each team use a different chassis. Sorting on the chassis column just rearranges them without giving any useful information. This is different to say the power unit column where sorting groups them per manufacturer/supplier allowing the reader to then compare the groups using the same power units.Tvx1 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Another wasted opportunity, it doesn't even change the aesthetics in this case, and it was taken out without consensus and despite its removal being challenged. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: it's the "most", i.e. not "all" that lets it down, and badly in my view. It's a lost opportunity to make it so much better. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: And many of us strongly believe your proposed changes would make the table far worse. Say something new. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Please see the above discussion regarding sorting the Entries table. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17, the above edit request does not show a consensus in favor of it. I don't why you thought it was okay to make this edit then.Tvx1 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly because I think that having the ability to sort the table by numbers in such a way that it doesn't actually sort by numbers is stupid. And I find the argument in favour of keeping it that way amounted to "we can't do it perfectly, so we should keep doing it a worse way" to be even more stupid. And then for someone to unilaterally revert it without looking at what they changed lowered the bar even further.

There is, however, a clear desire to use the sort function effectively. Sorting the table by team based on the lowest number they use is by no means effective. If the sort by number option is to be used, it should behave as the reader expects. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should provide the ability to sort by driver number, and by driver name. Without a consensus though as to the method, we are stuck with poor functionality and unexpected (from the reader point-of-view) behaviour. We need to continue exploring this - maybe seek outside help and opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both DeFacto and Mclarenfan17, if the sort by driver number is there then is should actually sort by driver number, not by the team which as the lowest number, while the fact that it removes the cell merges isn't optimal, I really don't see it as a problem and I definitely don't think its a good reason to compromise the sortabillity of the table. SSSB (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The default sorting is by constructor, which is sensible given the non-sequential numbering of the cars. Adding the sort function by number is therefore really a matter of convenience. While re-sorting by constructor creates duplicate content, it does not fundamentally break the table and I struggle to believe that this is so inconvenient for so many readers that we're better off with the "sort constructors by lowest number used" approach. I actually have my doubts that the sort function is used much at all and that if it is used, then I doubt that it is regularly used by the same readers each time they read the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly - duplicating the content DOES fundamentally break the table, and it is not a solution I am willing to accept. I would love it, absolutely love it, if we could find a way to sort by numbers in a way that doesn't ruin the table. No one has achieved that yet, and I'm not optimistic they ever will.

@Mclarenfan17: Watch your mouth. I didn't "unilaterally revert" anything. I fixed the page after YOU unilaterally changed it despite there being no consensus to do so. Wikipedia has never, EVER worked in a way that allows you to stroll in and make whatever change you want, then demand that we let your changes stand while things are discussed. This is why we have talk pages, this is why we reach consensus before making major changes. Let me know if this is going to be a problem. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This was all discussed years ago in the discussions I linked to before and a clear consensus was achieved against any format where sorting would cause the duplication of information. We cannot ignore such a consensus all of sudden because someone decide they like sorting on sequential numbers. The reality is that splitting of rows just makes this inefficient. Once they are split, I cannot be reversed without refreshing the page and it reduces the efficiency of sorting of the other columns, like power units. That sort of information becomes much less clear. The positive of sorting sequentially by number just doesn't outweigh the negatives. If there is such a huge dislike of sorting by teams' lowest numbers, then I suggest making the number column unsortable. After all, I can't really see why sorting a numbers is that important anyway. Since 2014 there has not been any sequential correlation between numbers. In fact, the world champions has barely even used the number 1 since then. I could see the point of number sorting prior to 2014, when these would put the teams in a sequential order, but now I really don't see the benefit.Tvx1 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to be answering these questions from the perspective of a reader. What value does being able to sort by number provide to the average reader? When you sort a list it's because you have one piece of information and want to correlate it with others. Maybe I've come to this page because I want to know who is driving for McLaren. The information I have is the name of the team. The information I do not have is the name of the drivers. So I sort the list by constructor, am easily able to find "McLaren" because I know where it will be in alphabetical order, and then I slide over to the drivers column to answer my question. What I'm struggling to imagine is a realistic situation in which the only piece of information the reader has is the car's number, and has to work backwards from there. That's why I don't believe it is important to be able to sort by driver number. It addresses an extremely unlikely edge case at the cost of literally breaking the table. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that sort of the same feeling I have.Tvx1 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Watch your mouth. I didn't "unilaterally revert" anything."

Except that you did. You reverted the edits without looking at what you were reverting. I know this because you also restored errors in the markup that I had fixed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YOU were out of line in making those edits without acknowledging that there is no consensus to do so. YOU acted unilaterally; I simply fixed your mistake. I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you're incapable of accepting this fact, I would strongly encourage you to lose your password again. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"I simply fixed your mistake."

And in doing so, you reintroduced changes to the markup that meant the table could not sort properly. For example, Kimi Räikkönen's entry was assigned the sort value "Räi", but the Wiki software does not recognise the letter "ä" and so places it after "z" in the alphabet. Hence, the software would place George Russell ahead of Räikkönen. I fixed that problem in my edit, which you reverted without a second thought. So you either didn't know that this was a problem, or didn't care, but either way you should get into the habit of checking what you are reverting.

"I would strongly encourage you to lose your password again."

And I would strongly encourage you to tone down the aggression before an admin sees your behaviour and decides that your password needs to be forgotten for you. You're not going to achieve anything by going on the offensive all the time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: when an editor reverts a bad edit such as that one of yours, it's not reasonable to expect them to unpick and restore any subsequent edits done to the same section. I'd say that the onus is on you to sort that out. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ding ding ding. I'm not the one who incorrectly edited the page, in direct contradiction to established consensus. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: I didn't say you were, I was addressing Mclarenfan17. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"it's not reasonable to expect them to unpick and restore any subsequent edits done to the same section."

Even when those subsequent edits add value to the article? If nothing else, it's common sense to check that you are reverting what you intended to revert. If you just blindly revert on sight, you wind up in this situation.

"I'm not the one who incorrectly edited the page"

Yes, you did. You didn't check what you were reverting. The end result is that you reintroduced errors into the markup. You could have easily reverted those edits whilst fixing the errors at the same time. Instead, you chose to blindly revert and behave in an uncivil manner on the talk page.

"in direct contradiction to established consensus"

Please show me the consensus that says that "Räikkönen" comes after "Russell" when arranged in alphabetical order. Because that's the change you made and it's not supported by any evidence. Or maybe the way George Russell chose the number 100 instead of 63, because that's another error you introduced. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: yes, even if those subsequent edits add value to the article. You can't expect someone else to spend time unravelling stuff that you've mingled into your disruptive edit. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"You can't expect someone else to spend time unravelling stuff that you've mingled into your disruptive edit"

It was not a disruptive edit. That's assuming bad faith. I saw two consensuses emerge: one to utilise the sort function more effectively, and one not to apply the sorting to the number column. Since there was far more support to use the function more effectively, that was the one I felt was more appropriate to apply. Now, I'm happy to acknowledge that my judgement may have been in error, but since Wicka wicka decided to revert that edit, he had a responsibility to ensure that he was actually reverting what he intended to edit. Instead, he decided to revert on sight and then act like an arsehole about it. He either didn't know what he was reverting, or he didn't care. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Shocking, shameful behavior. I have no interest in engaging with you any further. Please address your comments elsewhere. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your behaviour has been shocking and shameful. You made a mistake, but you're too proud to admit it so you resorted to uncivil behaviour. You either did not know about the errors you reintroduced, did not care, or did not think. If you revert an edit, you should take the time to check what you are reverting. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Procedural Decline - Once consensus is confirmed, any user should make the change or re-open RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Convenience break #1 (table sorting)

Just to throw my 2 cents in to the ring, I think we should have a fully sortable table and yes although this means splitting row spans , this is how wikipedia has (at this point)designed sorting to work with "complex rows" as per here. if users want to sort by driver name or number then it would be obvious that the rows would split and as the table reverts when the page is refreshed i really dont see what the big issue is. The fact that I can do more with my own F1 championship table on excel that what I can currently do here speaks volumes. MetalDylan (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"if users want to sort by driver name or number then it would be obvious that the rows would split and as the table reverts when the page is refreshed i really dont see what the big issue is"

The issue is that, from the perspective of a reader, absolutely none of this is obvious. It's unanticipated behavior that effectively breaks the table and doesn't have a clear solution. That is simply not acceptable.

Also - I've still not seen anyone justify this proposed change from a utility perspective, i.e. why is this actually useful or needed? I laid out my case above for why sorting by numbers seems like an unusual edge case. Can anyone argue otherwise for reasons not limited to "well I just think we should be able to sort all columns?" Wicka wicka (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think being able to sort the drivers alphabetically is an obvious one that is on a par with wanting to sort the constructors etc. alphabetically. The driver numbers ok yeah I can see is a bit more obscure but I think that is more confusing to the reader as to why they *can't* sort that column. Additionally, I really dislike that we use "
" the way we do, a table should have cell lines that distinguish data there is absolutely no reason why we have the driver names floating in the same cell. It is neither aesthetically or functionally beneficial. We should be aiming to make this article the best it can be and that means following Wikipedia's recommendations for what makes a good table not just cobbling something together that we think is the best solution. MetalDylan (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@MetalDylan: I take great issue with your phrasing here. Everyone is in agreement that we should make this page as good as it can be. We simply disagree on what "best" means. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: one of the MOS "dos" for tables is "Make columns sortable as appropriate." These two are clearly appropriate as sorting is a normal expectation for columns of numbers and names. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: In no way does this answer my question. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: what do you think could we give as a good reason for defying Wikipedia's MOS on this? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: We are not defying the MoS. It says "make columns sortable as appropriate." I don't think it's appropriate to sort the number column given that it breaks the table, and none of you have explained why you think this functionality would be valuable.

@Wicka wicka: yes, "as appropriate", not "if Wicka wicka thinks it is appropriate". It is clearly normal expectation, and therefore appropriate, to have columns of numbers and names sortable - why wouldn't it be? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The linked discussion clearly agreed though the splitting of rows is not normal exceptions and thus not appropriate for this use. Reminder that it's "as appropriate", not "as DeFacto thinks it is appropriate". Also, the page you are linking to is not part of MOS. It's an information page. Read the notice on top.Tvx1 17:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The splitting is described in Help:Sorting, and doesn't stop the sorting of those columns being appropriate. Fair enough, that dos and don'ts page isn't part of the guideline, but it is linked-to from it and "describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables." It makes good sense and there is no reason not to follow it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: It's notable that you continue to refuse my request to explain why you think this functionality is useful. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: how can that be notable when it is incorrect? I didn't refuse any request of yours. If you disagree, then please give a diff of where you think that happened. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I have asked on numerous occasions (SCROLL UP) for any one of you to explain the practical reasons behind needing to sort by numbers. NOT ONCE has anyone answered this question. There is no diff to give because you never answered. It's a simple question, or at least it should be: what practical, real-world scenario exists in which a reader would really need to sort by a driver's number?

At this point, if you still refuse to answer, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: as I said, I have not refused to answer. "Refuse" is a verb and one has to actively do it, which means to support your accusation you would be able to show where I did it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate and expand, it is clearly a normal expectation with tables (think spreadsheets) for columns of numbers and names to be sortable - why wouldn't it be expected here on Wikipedia? I can imagine one seeing a number on a photo or video of a car and sorting the table to find it more efficiently to know whose car it is, or wondering if there is a pattern to the drivers' choice of numbers, or wondering which is the highest or lowest, or if any decade is preferred more than the others. Why would we want to limit the reader's ability to explore the data and understand relationships and find patterns? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we can consider this discussion closed if DeFacto can't actually explain what his request adds to the page. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: presumably then, as my comment that you appear to be replying to was quite a detailed explanation, by me, of what I think sortability adds to the article, you will think we can consider this discussion is still open. Perhaps you might now (having had its potential revealed to you) accept that sorting can add value, and thus withdraw your opposition to it. Or maybe try to think of a compromise solution to the current lack of effective sortability? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: No, you have given no practical reason why we should add number sorting despite me repeatedly asking you to justify this change, so we are not going to make this change. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"so we are not going to make this change"

That decision does not solely rest with you. The ability to sort the table was introduced in 2014 as a compromise because the drivers' choice of numbers required a change to the structure of the table. Having the table arranged alphabetically by constructor was seen as the best way to do it, but sorting by number was introduced as an option because some readers may prefer it.

The problem is that the reader may reasonably expect the table to be sorted sequentially—currently 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10—but it actually sorts the teams based on the lowest number used, which means the order would currently be 3, 27, 4, 55, 5, 16. This was done because if the numbers were sorted sequentially, the software automatically generates additional cells for entrant, constructor, chassis and engine; if you then re-sort by constructor, those cells remain and so you get a lot of duplicated content. The only way to restore the original table is to refresh the page.

The question then is what is more important: a column behaves as the reader expects or a table that retains its visual look regardless of how it is sorted. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, the thing is, it is quite a leap to brandish splitting of rows as “expected behavior”. We considered it already five years ago and came to the consensus it wasn’t and thus we decided to avoid it. Since then we have used the current system and in those five years we’ve had literally no complaint about how the numbers actually sort. That really begs the question whether a change is actually requuired at all.Tvx1 13:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The splitting of rows is unexpected, but so too is the way the table is sorted by the lowest number used by each team. Splitting the rows does not break the table, and indeed is necessary; because only one team (Toro Rosso) have sequential numbers. So the issue is not the splitting of the rows, but the inability to merge those rows back together if the table is re-sorted based on constructor. Given that it doesn't break the table, is largely cosmetic and is based on a specific set of conditions, I don't think it's as big an issue as you are making it out to be.

Also, we might have made that decision five years ago, but that doesn't mean we're locked into it. There may not have been any complaint, but what are you expecting? That IP editors will post edit requests? Right now you have three editors—myself, @DeFacto and @SSSB—who have expressed concerns about how the sort function is applied. What more do you need? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer a complete row per driver, which allows every column to be properly sortable, as in my first example above here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It unnecessarily creates redundant lines. I can accept them as an unavoidable side effect of the sort function, but not deliberately building them into the table as the default layout. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: if we followed that logic consisently, we would have to rowspan all the same engines together as well. As it is, it only works because we have chosen to group the drivers by team, and to sacrifice sortability by driver name and car number. Rowspans are a formatting device more suited to static tables and print media which don't benefit from having mult-column sortability. For digital media, readers would (rightly in my view) not be surprised by, and would probably mostly expect anyway, separated rows and fully functional sortability. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you missed some considerable parts of the timeline of the evolution of our tables. Grouping drivers by teams is not something we decided to do in function of sortability. In fact, we have grouped the drivers by their teams right from the first season article we ever created. Sortability is something we didn't consider until 2014, when the way numbers are distributed in F1 changed drastically, we realized it was a practical feature but also decided that sorting should not come at the cost of massively changing the structure of the table when applied. Nothing was ever sacrificed. Fully sequential number sorting and name sorting was never there to begin with.Tvx1 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm always interested in ways of improving things, yes. But luckiily, we can get full sortabilty with minimal change - all we need is to dispense with the pointless rowspans we have burdened ourselves with, and which have no apparent benefit at all for digital media. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Comments like this are why you're getting absolutely nowhere in this discussion. You make no attempt at actually justifying your suggestions. You just say we need to be able to sort by numbers. Why? What value does it add? You say rowspans are pointless. Why? F1 is a heavily team-based sport; grouping teams together is obviously common sense. You really think it's justified to duplicate 90% of the content in the table just to be able to sort an additional column? Well, if you believe that, TELL US WHY.

When Tvx1 says "we made these decisions five years ago," he's not saying "we can't ever change the page." He's saying "we made these decisions for a reason, now give us a reason to go back on those decisions." So far, you haven't. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: how many times do you need to go round this loop? It may have escaped your notice, but there are two championships being fought in an F1 season. Sure, one is a team event, but the other is fought between individual drivers, that is the Drivers' Championship. And there are (generally) two drivers per team. It doesn't take a massive leap into some weird fantasy land to imagine that some readers might expect the table to be sortable by driver name and number. That's how tables generally work since we moved away from printed books to computers. The value it adds is that the tables become intuitively more usable, more engaging and more likely to satisfy readers desire to analyse and explore the data. On the other side of the coin I have not heard a single reasonable reason yet why we should deny that function. That we would need to duplicate some data doesn't matter as that is quite normal and entirely expected for fully functional tables. Even in the current dysfunctional table we repeat the engine data between teams using the same engine. Think of the readers first, their aspirations should take priority over those of the WP:F1 editors. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Because when I think "intuitive" I don't think "needlessly duplicate all of the content" or "design a table whose format irreversibly changes when you sort it." More to the point - you still haven't answered the question. Statements like "some readers might expect this" or "that's how tables generally work" are meaningless genericisms. You're not actually saying anything.

I am beyond sick of engaging with you in this pointless debate. We have explained numerous times why these decisions were made and why we want to maintain the table the way it is. Your counter argument is "but I wanna change it." Sorry, not good enough.

P.S. I AM thinking of the readers, I have explained this numerous times before, in comments you conveniently ignored. We should not break the table or clutter it with duplicate information for the sole purpose of adding features that are not practically useful. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: we are obviously not getting anywhere with this, let's try and explore the problem a different way. To help me to try and understand your argument, can you briefly explain what you think the benefits are of being able to sort the table by "Entrant", "Constructor", "Chassis" and "Power Unit". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: No thanks, that's not what we're discussing. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: just to help me understand your logic, which has currently passed me by. We might be able to strike a compromise on this if I can see where you're coming from. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are at least as many disadvantages of duplication of that data. The sorting on power units, for instance, becomes vastly less efficient. Currently it allows to group them per power unit supplier and allows readers to easily compare the groups. Splitting the rows makes that much less usable because the correlation between teams is lost and the readability is vastly reduced by the elevated number of lines and the vast amount of additional, mostly duplicate information that needs to be parsed.Tvx1 15:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1: it could be grouped by power unit if the rows were split per driver - or why not? Lines don't reduce readability, they can even enhance it by helping the eye align content across the width of the table. Either way, none of that outweighs the advantage gained by being able to sort by driver number and name though. Have you thought about compromise solutions to this? How about a seperate table of drivers and just team names? That could offer sortability on driver no. and name, but keeping the team nitty-gritty (engine, etc.) out of the way. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto, I agree that IF we include sortabillity by driver number there should be a different row per driver, however I don't see any justification for adding sortabillity by driver number. What's the point of sorting by driver number? A drivers number is used purely for driver identification whilst they are in the car, as it has no bearing on the outcome of any session or season I don't understand why you think it's important to be able to sort by driver number. SSSB (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: just to calibrate on this, can you see any justification in sorting by driver name, or by entrant name? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Needlessly splitting the table in two just to accommodate a feature you haven't yet justified is maybe the worst idea I've heard so far. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: we wouldn't need to split it if it was needless, I'm looking for ways around the impasse, which that idea might help with. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: you have lost me now. Why can't you see the potential uses I gave for the sort, most recently in this edit? Or am I misunderstanding your comments? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I am not bothered by sorting by driver number, I would go as far as saying that a drivers number is unnecessary information, it's only useful if you are looking at an uncaptioned image or watching the race. However I do think we should use a table with 2 rows per team so you can probably sort by driver name. Currently you can't sort by driver name and if you could it would produce the following: Albion, Kvyat, Badly, Verstappen etc. To me sorting by driver name is more useful than sorting by number and sorting by name or number should produce that result, not something which at first glance makes no sense. I would also argue that if sorting by driver number doesn't give the actually do that sorting by driver number shouldn't be an option at all. SSSB (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — most of what we need to sort the table by drivers is already in the article. It would not be hard to add that function. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 — I am aware of that, I am simply stating that its my justification for agree with the original proposed format. SSSB (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Convenience break #2

@DeFacto: Please explain, in your own words, why you think this table needs to be sorted by number and/or driver name. It would be ideal if you frame your answer in the context of how a reader might realistically be expected to use the table, rather than vague phrases like "this is how tables work." Wicka wicka (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: again? Ok, but please excuse me if I repeat what I've written before in this discussion.

With a car number (from a photo or wherever) readers might want to sort the table by driver number to efficiently find who the driver is. They might want to see if there is a pattern to the drivers' choice of numbers - when I first played with it, I was intrigued to see the number repeated digit numbers in use: 11, 33, 44, 55, 77, 88 and 99! Only 22 and 66 were not used - I wonder why?. They might wonder which is the highest or lowest, or if any decade is preferred over others. I know I've done all those things with my sortable example - have you? ;-).

Driver name sorting would be used to quickly locate drivers (to check their team, perhaps) or to investigate patterns and relationships.

Perhaps I'm a bit of an obsessive, but I can't imagine why would want to limit the reader's ability to fully explore the data and understand relationships and find patterns. Perhaps you will now reciprocate and tell us why you think this table needs to be sortable by entrant name and/or constructor name and/or engine name. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I have an answer for you, but before I get to it, I need to make two things clear here. Because I'm getting real sick and tired of the way you are handling this. It feels very much in bad faith.

"I can't imagine why would want to limit the reader's ability to fully explore the data and understand relationships and find patterns"

No one here is advocating that we limit the reader's ability to do anything. Absolutely no one. This is a blatant lie. We have repeatedly and openly acknowledged that some readers might want this functionality. But what we also acknowledge is that implementing this functionality requires either breaking the table, or duplicating every row, or splitting the table into two. Given the usability impact of these three options, and the very limited practical functionality of sorting by driver number, we strongly believe it's not something we should add. This does not mean we wish to limit the reader. It means we are trying to strike the best possible balance between multiple conflicting options.

"Perhaps you will now reciprocate and tell us why you think this table needs to be sortable by entrant name and/or constructor name and/or engine name."

Nope. This is a discussion about you proposing a change to a table format that has been successfully in use for many years. It is not a discussion about why I may or may not prefer it to be sortable by entrant name. I am never going to respond to this question because it is utterly and completely irrelevant. It is an obvious and childish attempt at using my potential response as some kind of logical "trap." I don't care for that one bit.

Now then: if you so desperately desire to sort driver numbers for some bizarre analytic purpose, please see the List of Formula One driver numbers. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: you are being very defensive (and quite rude too, I think). It's all about priorities, and your priority seems to be to preserve rowspans at the expense of full sortability, i.e. you would rather limit the reader's ability to sort everything than have separate rows per driver. That isn't a lie, that's a fact. And I can't believe your response to my last request. We should be trying to reach a solution, which means working in a collegial and cooperative way, not point-blank refusing to cooperate. And your "answer" does not solve the problem as it is out-of-context of the season, the teams, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I believe Wicka wicka's priority is to have content and functionality that is effective. We shouldn't be having full portability solely for the sake of it. Make some things sortable just doesn't yield any benefit. As proven with regards to the chassis column in the discussion on the chassis column below. We all want to find a solution. But a solution is not synonymous with adding number sorting at all costs. Keeping the status quo is a perfectly viable solution to this discussion.Tvx1 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear from DeFacto's non-response above that we can close this discussion and maintain the table in its current format. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think it's a non-response. The pre-2014 articles structure the tables sequentially by number. We have the capacity to include that as an option in the markup, not as the default setting but to further accessibility. You have yet to refute the idea that having the table sort as the reader expects it to supplements the article except to point out a cosmetic flaw that the reader will only encounter if the meet a specific set of conditions. What is the point of having sortability if we don't use it? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because sortability isn't applied to a part of the table, that doesn't mean it isn't used at all. There other parts which use it. It doesn't have to be added just for the sake of it. It has to be used where it's meaningful.Tvx1 11:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Allow me to break down the ways in which your reply reeks of bad faith:

"The pre-2014 articles structure the tables sequentially by number."

Yes, because driver numbers were assigned based on finishing position in years prior to 2013. Not relevant. Also, we still didn't make the number column sortable in those years.

" We have the capacity to include that as an option in the markup"

We have the capacity to do almost limitless things that we choose not to do. This is a meaningless statement.

"not as the default setting but to further accessibility"

Explain to me how adding this setting "furthers accessibility" in any way. That's not what that word means. Nor can I even fathom how we "further accessibility" by making a table whose layout fundamentally changes if you sort by a specific column.

"You have yet to refute the idea"

I don't have to. You are the one proposing a change. The burden rests on you to justify that change. You have not done so.

"having the table sort as the reader expects it"

Prove this statement. Prove what our readers expect.

"a cosmetic flaw that the reader will only encounter if the meet a specific set of conditions."

The flaw that you describe is encountered only on one condition: if we implement your request. Seems like an easy thing to avoid.

"What is the point of having sortability if we don't use it?"

The point of sortability is to be used where appropriate, not in every single column for no reason other than that we can.

Thus far the arguments you and DeFacto have made in support of number sortability can be easily summarized as "I wanna," and your arguments against the fact that doing so breaks the table are "nuh-uh." This isn't good enough. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"the ways in which your reply reeks of bad faith"

It's not bad faith to disagree with you. And I wouldn't go throwing around accusations of bad faith given your recent uncivil behaviour.

"doing so breaks the table"

Oh? How does out suggestion make the table unreadable? It does not cause cells to be out of alignment, prevent markup from functioning the way it is supposed to or cause any problems for the reader. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You claim you are not arguing in bad faith, yet I never once said anything makes the table "unreadable." Do not lie again. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"I never once said anything makes the table "unreadable.""

Ahem:

"doing so breaks the table"

That's what a broken table is—a table that is coded in such a way that it cannot be read as intended. This is what a broken table looks like:

Teams and drivers under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari	C38	Ferrari 064	7 99	Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi
Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow		Ferrari	SF90	Ferrari 064	5 16	Sebastian Vettel Charles Leclerc

So, with that in mind:

"your arguments against the fact that doing so breaks the table"

Would you care to point out where I or @DeFacto have proposed a format that does the above and breaks the table? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Convenience break #3

@Wicka wicka:, although you specifically may not have used the word unreadable yourself others in this discussion have and you need to start assuming good faith because your previous reply assumed bad faith. I feel this discusion is starting to go round in circles, everyone is simply repeating themselves, I think it's time to have an independent close this discussion. I also agree with Mclarenfan17 on the fact that introducing extra rows when sorting in the table does not break it, break is to end or destroy something (Cambridge dictionary definition), the proposed edit does not do this in any way. As for my personal opinion we either

a) add sortabillity by driver name and car number and have 1 row per driver per the original request

or

b) don't include sortabillity by number or driver

Which one we choose doesn't bother me but I think it should be one of the above. SSSB (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, and then it was proven that I was wrong to do so. I'm not going to assume good faith regarding someone who openly lies about what I've said. That's where I draw the line.

For simplicity's sake, and to potentially end this horrendous waste of time, I would support your suggestion that we remove number sortability entirely. However, I think think it's extremely clear that there's no consensus and no justification for changing the table at all. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

You need to stop taking things so personally. You should also read WP:AGF. And until such time as you can behave in a civil manner, you should probably stay out of discussions. Lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you because they disagree with you won't achieve anything except a headache. The rest of us will ignore you and get on with the job of improving the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." You openly lied about what I've said, and now you're openly lying about my behavior and attacking me on a personal level. That means you lose my assumption of good faith. Your statement is way, way out of line. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC) If you choose to interpret my comments as a personal attack, that's your prerogative. It's also your mistake. So I suggest that you take a minute, stop working yourself up and think about how your attitude might make others feel about working with you. If you value contributing to Wikipedia and if you want your contributions to be valued, you might reconsider how you interact with others. Shouting at people isn't going to make them listen to you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC) OK, trading personal attacks at each other is not going to achieve anything whatsoever in this discussion. If you have personal issues with each other, take it to the administrators. Otherwise, focus on the content instead of the people.Tvx1 03:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC) I have done so. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I support your first option, I agree we should "add sortabillity by driver name and car number and have 1 row per driver per the original request". I'm sure readers would very likely expect numbers and names to be sortable. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I support Option #1, the original request. Although the inability to restore the original format of the table (short of refreshing the page) is inconvenient, it does not break the table and make it unreadable, requires the reader to meet a specific set of conditions before it is a problem, and is, at worst, a nuisance. Option #1 means that sorting the table by number will also make the table behave as the reader expects it to. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I would rather submit an RFC than accept a solution that results in breaking the table for absolutely no reason whatsoever. If you are concerned about the user's expected behavior, simply do not allowing sorting by number at all. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: we seem to be arriving at a negotiated compromise solution here, where the table, though it won't revert back to the original rowspans if sorted on entrant, won't be broken, it'll still look right and function correctly, and will have improved sortabilty. Are you going to come on-board on this one? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: That is not a compromise in the slightest. That exact behavior is what I consider to be broken, I have made this clear from the very beginning. I will not accept a solution that breaks the rowspans. SSSB's second option is an acceptable compromise, because removing number sortability entirely preserves the functionality of the table while also ensuring that nothing about the sorting behavior is potential unexpected. It also reflects that fact that prior to 2013, the numbers column wasn't sortable at all. Are you coming onboard on this one? Wicka wicka (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: it's a compromise in that it offers full sortability to those who want it, and it retains rowspans for those who want them but don't want the sortability. SSSB's second option doesn't provide sortability on driver number or name, so isn't an option at all for those who want that. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: The problem from the very beginning has been that changing the way we sort the numbers breaks the rowspans. This is not a compromise. It is literally the exact suggestion I have been fighting against this whole time. Let me state that again for emphasis: That is not a compromise. His second option is a compromise to some extent because others have pointed out that the current table sorts numbers in an unusual and potentially unexpected way. Remove number sorting entirely fixes this. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick edit: I would propose that if we cannot agree on SSSB's second suggestion, we should pose this question to WikiProject Formula One as a whole. And if somehow no consensus can be found there, then we can open an RfC. But I feel like I've made myself absolutely clear on this: in no universe will I support a solution in which you create a table that breaks the rowspans. I just won't. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Presumably you meant if we cannot reach a consensus on either of SSSB's suggestions. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Defacto and Mclarenfan17, both of you keep claiming that the original proposal makes the table "behave as the readers expect". Yet, you still haven't provided any evidence that that's behavior that the readers would expect. Yet we had a discussion five years ago which came to a clear consensus that it's most certainly NOT what the readers expect. Yet, no reader whatsoever in five years of us using sortability has complained whatsoever that the table sort does not behave "as they expect". That argument is thus purely your personal belief and it's thus very weak. I support SSSB's second option, though I have no problem with keeping things as they are either. Lastly, Mclaren17, your supporting of the original proposal is a bit of a breach of Wikipedia protocol since you made that proposal yourself while still editing while logged out. It thus gives a misleading impression of more support for the proposal than there really is. I'm prepared to take part in an RFC, but I'm afraid that's being raised to enforce a change just for the sake of it. Sometimes discussions just end with no consensus and the best thing is to accept it and move on then.Tvx1 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of this, especially the fact that there is a clear lack of consensus and thus we should leave things as they are and move on. The only reason I suggested the possibility of an RfC is because I don't get the impression that the others involved are willing to accept that outcome. I would rather just agree to disagree. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, Wikipedia doesn't do reader satisfaction surveys, and we have no way of gathering any evidence of what behaviour users expect, so we have to rely on our own intuition. Even a discussion amongst WT:F1 editors (can you give a link for that 5-year-old one please) wouldn't have access to any evidence about reader preferences, so any consensus declared following such a discussion can only have been based on the balance of personal opinions. I know from experience though, that today's computer users, if confronted with a list of names against numbers, would very likely expect to be able to sort it by either. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that "such a discussion can only have been based on the balance of personal opinions" is not correct. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which we have not seen, we must assume that our readers have no problem with the way the table is currently structured. That is the null hypothesis in this case. It's obvious that readers notice problems or things they believe are problems - just look at the two edit requests we received regarding the Haas engine.

When you say our readers expect something specific, you are making an assertion, and that assertion requires evidence. When Tvx1 and I disagree, we are not making an assertion of our own, we are acknowledging the lack of evidence in support of yours. These are not two equal stances. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: I was referring to the five-year-old discussion Tvx1 mentioned (we still need a link for that) with respect to being based on the balance of personal opinions. The argument about no evidence of problems equating to no need for improvement is a non-starter - we wouldn't add much at all it we had to wait for reader requests before we could add or change anything. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"no evidence of problems equating to no need for improvement"

"wait for reader requests before we could add or change anything"

"only make changes that we can prove they have asked for"

@DeFacto: Where do these statements come from? I didn't say these things and neither did Tvx1. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: those are what I believe to be the essence of some of the earlier reasoning. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I have been trying to point out throughout this discussion. The problem for which a solution is being sought in this discussion does not appear to exist. No readers have ever complained about the number or name sorting. So I really think WP:NOTBROKE applies here.Tvx1 17:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, "point out"? You say that as if it's an incontrovertible fact, when it's just an opinion. We have a duty to provide the best experience we can for readers, not only make changes that we can prove they have asked for. And did you manage to track down a link to that five-year-old consensus you referred to? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The best experience is not synonymous with providing full sortability no matter what its costs. We very much want the best feasible experience for the readers. And we have been attempting to point to you for nearly three weeks that your proposal does not create a better experience. Why it's such an immense difficulty for you to accept that? And with regards to that link, I've already provided it three or four times during the discussion. Your apparent admission that you still didn't bother to click on it even once, demonstrates a clear low respect for other user's contributions. Nor does this implication in the previous comments that I might be making up the existence of that old discussion altogether.Tvx1 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes! Sorry about that, I missed it hidden away there in that little Easter egg! And no wonder I couldn't recall it, it all happened during my "gap-years". Wow, how things have moved on in the last five years! Sortability is now available on mobile devices and we clearly now have a better understanding of how Wiki sorting code works. I'm even more sure of my gut feeling now, that readers, especially those using mobile devices, would expect us to do better on the driver number/name sortability. Can you imagine anyone now accepting "1, 3, 4, 17, 6, 44, 7, 14, 8, ..." as the result of an ascending-number sort? But, as I don't see any prospect of getting any more support for my view on this any time soon, I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion (until next time). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:

"Sortability is now available on mobile devices."

That's news to me. If it is available on mobile devices, the article does not currently do it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: it works on all mine, and has done for years. Are you on particularly old hardware and/or software? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto — nope, I'm running and up to date Android phone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: are you using "Mobile view" rather than "Destop view" for the pages? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto — yes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sorting IS most certainly available on mobile devices. It's only not available on the mobile version of Wikipedia, but that's not the same thing. If you access the desktop site on a mobile device you can use sorting (as well as tooltips actually) by tapping on the sort buttons.Tvx1 13:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: so sorting is available on this page on mobile devices, but you choose to use an option that disables it. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: No, he's using his device normally. It doesn't work in the Wikipedia app or by default in any mobile browser. Requesting a desktop site is going out of your way. You have chosen an option that enables sorting, not vice versa. And by the way, the ability to request a desktop site is getting rarer and rarer these days. Most sites use viewport restrictions to scale down content for smaller screens, which makes the "request desktop site" button entirely useless. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is though, that sortability is not technically unavailable let-alone impossible on mobile devices due to any perceived technical limitations. It's simply not available on Wikipedia's mobile site because that version of the site is not programmed to use it even though from a technical standpoint it could.Tvx1 16:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is that it's extremely bad faith to describe someone using the normal and default version of an application as "choosing to disable" anything. It's indicative of the way DeFacto has handled this entire conversation. Never addressing what anyone is actually saying, instead choosing to put his own spin on it so it's easier for him to argue against. It's exactly the same as when you or I say "there's no evidence that users are confused by the current table" and his response is "so we shouldn't change anything unless users ask for it??" Which of course is not even close to what we said. It's not debating ideas on their merits, it's arguing for sport, and it's an enormous waste of time. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well I only wanted to clarify that sortability is technically available on mobile devices, it's just not provided on Wikipedia's mobile site. You are also correct to clarify that the mobile site is the default when you access Wikipedia on a mobile phone, though it's not on tablets. I'm not aware that there is a way to select a different default.Tvx1 23:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto — there's a big difference between having sortability available on the mobile site and getting sortability by accessing the desktop site on a mobile device. The desktop site is unwieldly at best on a mobile. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I use a smartphone much of the time, but only use the desktop site, and have never found it troublesome. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, we're getting distracted again. I'm going to start an RfC in the hopes of resolving this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with an RfC, but DRN might be a better fit. I've seen plenty of RfCs go unanswered in the past. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If I could chime in... (I must admit to NOT reading the entirety of the arguing above, but I think I get the gist) I'm pretty new to editing, so until very recently I WAS just a reader (which is what a few seem to be arguing about)... I don't see how anyone (on a computer/laptop as opposed to a phone, at least) would even want a table so small to be sortable, so I doubt many people would ever bother sorting it (I know I wouldn't!). I think the proposed layout at the very top of this section is much more visually appealing and easier to read, having a clear separation between drivers, compared with the one currently in the article. Having the drivers all together makes for a horrible mess in the case of multiple driver changes (see Toro Rosso in 2017 Formula One World Championship). And worst of all with the current table is probably the most likely thing to sort by, driver name, isn't an option. So I will give my support to the proposal at the top of the section, but would prefer no sort option, especially if there's no way to resolve the issue of losing the larger cells.A7V2 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019 - Haas Engines

Haas using last years Ferrari engine (062) needs a citation or amending, as I can see no source online showing them using the engine from the previous season. 81.106.221.250 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I performed a quick Google search and found 2 sources which do say they are using a variant of last year's ferrari engine. SSSB (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ferrari hasn't significantly overhauled their engine since 2017. The 2017 engine was called the 062 and last year's engine was the 062 EVO. Haas launched their car before Ferrari and probably assumed the naming scheme wouldn't change. Then Ferrari launched their car and called it the 064. Haas is 100% not using last year's Ferrari engine, this would be huge news if it were the case. However, Haas' website clearly says 062, so I'm not sure what we should do. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We can only put what's in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it worth putting in a note clarifying that Haas' official website states they are using the 062? I feel like this is something that's going to cause a lot of churn with people trying to "fix" it. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Done the note. SSSB (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the rules, teams have to use the current year spec. I was thinking they didn't update that part or forgot too? PD001 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)