Misplaced Pages

Talk:2012 Formula One World Championship

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prisonermonkeys (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 12 September 2012 (→Explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:49, 12 September 2012 by Prisonermonkeys (talk | contribs) (→Explanation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
2012 Formula One World Championship received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Formula One World Championship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
WikiProject iconFormula One Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Formula One World Championship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days 


2012 GP Map

To whoever created the map of the world highlighting which countries will host GP's in 2012, can you please revise it?? The little island of the south-east corner of Australia is part of the country (known as Tasmania). I notice that Alaska is highlighted, therefore Tasmania should also. --Brody59 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, they screwed up Alaska as well and missed the "arm" that runs between the Pacific and Canada. The59 (Talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
They also missed Hokkaido island in Japan.79.21.163.122 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
How about we just remove it until it is right? --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed it because there wasn't a map last year so why start now (and it was wrong anyway)? --MSalmon (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not having one for previous seasons is not really a legit reason to remove it. Why start now? Because it might be a helpful diagram. The59 (Talk) 08:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It is wrong anyway --MSalmon (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the user who created the old one edited it so it was correct or if even I had a crack at it, would it be acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why it wouldn't be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the original user fixed it or if i had a crack at it would that be more acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if it was fixed then it can be put back --MSalmon (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The new version is up, and it's, er ... green. Very, very green. It might be a little bit too bright. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree buddy. I also want to know why it is squashing the table up so much you can barely read it. That is why I moved the Red Bull RB8 image from next to the Drivers' table to above the teams who had their names changed. Move the bloody map under the calendar.TollHRT52 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2012 (AEST)
The RB8 image is there because it is the car entered by the reigning World Constructors' Champions. It goes under the picture of Alonso, the current championship leader; and Vettel, the reigning World Drivers' Champion. And the picture of the RB8 is not squashing the drivers' table. The size of the drivers' tabe is programmed by the wikicode embedded into the article. Moving the picture won't do anything.
And please don't call me "buddy". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not on your computer or laptop, but on mine it is squashed. And sorry about the buddy thing. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (AEST)
That's the resolution of your screen causing the squashed effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

fastest lap

in the german grand prix schumacher set the fastest lap 1.18.725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs)

And this article already says that...? The59 (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

but don't here (http://en.wikipedia.org/2012_Formula_One_season) or I can't see the italics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is italics, but it just looks like a normal 7. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why no YDT?

Why does the Young Driver Test segment on the season report keep getting deleted? TollHRT52 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

Because it's not important and does not contribute to the subject, which is the season of 2012 Formula One racing. Testing is given no more importance than the training in any other sport receives in their articles. If any of the young drivers actually contribute towards the 2012 races, then its worth a possible mention that they participated. --Falcadore (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because something happened, that doesn't automatically make it notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I agree with TollHRT52, this page is for the 2012 Formula One Season, and therefore everything that happens in it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The test is not part of the season. This article is not about everything the F1 teams do, it is about the World Championship season, i.e. the Grands Prix, and events that affect the Grands Prix. This young driver test is the F1 equivalent of a Manchester United v Liverpool youth team kickabout. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And if we were to include the YDT in the article, what would we say about it? That it happened? Nothing of any degree of notability took place during the test. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links - why not?

Hello, I'm new here, and today I thought I was improving the usability of the calendar table by hyperlinking from it to the Belgian (and later the Italian) GPs to the article for the 2012 instances of those GPs. I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list. This brought me to the calendar table, which is fine, but there was no link to the aticle about today's GP in it. There was one to a generic Belgian GP article and one to an article about the circuit, but neither was what I wanted. I eventually found the article, but it wasn't as easy as it could have been.

So, having eventually found the article, I came back and added the hyperlink for it. However, despite a few attempts to make it stick, other contributors removed those hyperlinks, with various comments such as: "we don't do that", "It already exists further down the page. Redundancy is redundant", "There's no harm in linking every single word in this article either. Or there are guidelines on when we should be linking, and this article is following them" and "Useful links already exist. Redundant links are unnecessary".

This doesn't add up. The table does not already have those useful links in it. The article has links to the generic GPs in more than one table, to the constructors several times over and even to the drivers and circuits several times over, so why not the useful link to the specific GP that the calendar is describing? It's crazy not to. What "guidelines" say you can't add a useful link to a table, especially when there is a column begging for it, and it's probably what most visitors want and expect?

Eff Won (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Because those links are found elsewhere in the article. The focus of the calendar table is not the specific races themselves, but a top-down view of the races.
You may have noticed that this article is structured with information introduced gradually. It's why we detail who the drivers are and what races appear on the calendar before we start recounting the specific events of each race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The links may well be found elsewhere, but that isn't good enough, they also belong where readers expect to find them; in the calendar. If you find a row in the table describing a particular race, eg today's Belgian GP, then you expect a link to it there and not at some unspecified place further down the article. What do you mean "information introduced gradually"? Readers aren't all idiots, and don't want to be forced to hunt through stuff they don't want to read to find what they do want to read. The links would add value, and could be ignored by those who want to read through the whole of the (long) article just for the sake of it. It links to the drivers at first mention, and to the circuits and to the generic GPs, so why not to the specific GPs? Your answer is unsupportable.
Eff Won (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Why can't it link to the specific races?
Because that section of the article isn't related to the specific races. It's related to the formation of the calendar, rather than the events of the season. The only way you could include links to specific races is if you removed the links to generic races, and that is removing information that should be kept in the article. Moreover, the calendar is the only place in the article where the links to generic GPs fit.
This is a system that is used on every season page (as far as I am aware) and is the result of a long-standing consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed at great length, and this system is the one which was decided upon by a fairly large number of editors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It needs discussing again because there is no clear reason why the first column should not hyperlink to the specific GP. The article would be made more useful, so it must be a good thing. Or can you explain a disadvantage of adding a valuable link there? Eff Won (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not "valuable". It doesn't add anything. As has been said, those links can be found elsewhere on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The reader doesn't want the challenge of finding them elsewhere, the reader wants intuitive links. You didn't say what the disadvantage of the intuitive link is. Eff Won (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The first column has no links in it, so we can easily use that with no disruption to the rest of the table. Tell me, what possible races could "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" be referring to in 2012? Eff Won (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No, we can't use that one, because then we will have two links to something called the "Belgian Grand Prix" with nothing to differentiate between what each link will lead to. It's an easter egg. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are worried that readers won't realise the difference; don't be, because they will. In any case, the specific is more useful that the generic there and the specific links to the generic right near the top anyway. And you didn't answer what else "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" might be in 2012. Eff Won (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot assume that readers will recognise the difference between the links. Misplaced Pages articles are to be written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject - if they click "Random Article" and are brought here, then they should be able to read along with ease.

Secondly, we don't link to race sponsors. So "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could theoretically refer to something else other than the "Belgian Grand Prix". What that something else might be doesn't matter; the fact that it can mean something else means that it should not be linked. Of course, we could always link to "Belgian Grand Prix" and ignore the "Shell", but then we'd have two links two different pages that each use the same wikilink, and that is unacceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You could use that argument to remove ALL links. McLaren has many meanings and I'm sure Fernando Alonso could be someone else too. The fact is, that row is about the 2012 Belgian GP; but, inexcusably, does not contain a link to it. The advantage of no link when a link is what exactly? Eff Won (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
But they all link to pages that reflect what their links say the first time they are introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The first column of the table that says "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could be linked to 2012 Belgian Grand Prix - as, according to that article the 2012 Belgian Grand Prix is also known as the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix". That certainly makes more sense than the links further down: Belgium, Report and BEL. Eff Won (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. I'd suggest that fewer readers will be looking to find a race report from the calendar, than from the results tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
So far, you're the only one arguing for this, with two against - I suggest waiting to see if anyone agrees with you before wasting more time over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, there are numerous links to the same driver, the same team, the same course, the same generic GP, so why not put a link, where a link is sorely missing, to the article that the row is exclusively about? Eff Won (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Because right now, only you think it's sorely missing. And there's only one link to each circuit in the article, as far as I can see. Some people argued for fewer repeat links in the discussion we had; almost nobody argued for more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Really, Eff Won? I just explained that to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A quick count of hyperlinks gives:
  • Circuit of the Americas: 4
  • Fernando Alonso: 22
  • United States Grand Prix: 5
  • Red Bull Racing: 18
Now tell me again; why can't we have one link in the calendar table, on the row about the 2012 Belgian GP, to the 2012 Belgian GP? Eff Won (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as Breton pointed out, the generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. And as I pointed out to you, we cannot be in a situation where there are links to two separate pages that use the same wording in their links. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The generic link can stay where it is too - why not have links to both? If you can think of a reason for only having one link, then the link to the specific GP is definitely the more useful of the two in the context of that table, especially as it, in turn, links to the generic GP anyway. And nearly all links are present more than once - and that isn't a problem with the others, so why suggest it is a problem here? And, to answer your late addition, they don't have the same wording, unlike the 20 identically worded links in the Results and Standing Grand Prix table which point to 20 different articles. Eff Won (talk) 21:52, 2

September 2012 (UTC)

We can't have two links because we would have (Shell) Belgian Grand Prix and Belgian GP. Do you see the problem there? The two links have the same or similar wording, and yet lead to different places. "Shell" isn't enough to distinguish the 2012 page from the generic page, because Shell have sponsored the race for years.
As for why the link to the generic page article is the best, this has already been explained to you twice: the calendar is the only place where they fit within the article.
And with regard to the "twenty identically-worded links in the results and standings table", each one of those corresponds to the race whose line it shares. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You are dancing on the head of a pin with this one. There is only one Shell Belgian GP in 2012, the 2012 Belgian GP. If you find that too confusing, you could give it its full name in the table and call it the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix", as it says in the article, or even abbreviate it to "2012 Shell Belgian GP" instead. It isn't rocket science. Eff Won (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What I'm finding so confusing is why you keep forcing the conversation around in circles when you don't get your way. It has been explained to you why the article is written this way. Several times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The "explanations" don't add up though, they aren't rational, as I've explained several times. What I'm finding so confusing is why you are looking for reasons to omit such a useful hyperlink, rather than saying "good idea Eff Won!". Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
So that's it, is it? If your ideas aren't great, then clearly we're making decisions based on faulty logic. I've heard this song before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice try, but you haven't supplied any sound logic yet. All the excuses supplied so far have failed the "have a quick look at the rest of the article and see if they hold water" test. Eff Won (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Enough already, This has "flogging a dead horse" written all over it. If and when someone agrees with you, then this "discussion" can continue. Until then, it's dead in the water. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
To go back to Eff Won's original statment: "I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list."
Why would you not click on the heading that says "Results" if you were looking for the results of qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix? What is a calendar going to tell you about grid positions? The link to the race report is where it belongs, in the Results section. Just because you happened to look in the wrong place does not make it something that needs immediate fixing.
"Hello, I'm new here"
And we're experienced here. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bite the newcomer, but you, obviously not knowing the past discussions over this very thing amongst a variety of editors, made your attempt to improve, but were reverted based on consensus. However, why would you then, despite being told not to do that, continue to do so, again knowing full well that you are new here? Not only that, but continuing to edit war with other editors until your point of view stuck, and demanding that the consensus discussion be reopened because you are still not satisfied.
I suggest you take a step back. You have a concern, fine: discuss it. Demands and edit wars will get you nowhere. Further, once a discussion finally manages to spring up, calling those that disagree with you as illogical or making excuses is certainly not going to help your case either, nor is trying to make this into a win-loss scenario. Just simply be aware that this specific topic has a history, and many editors have discussed it in the past. We are not going to magically do away with that standard simply because you think you've solved a logical conundrum.
So to keep it simple: Calm down. You're new here, you have some things to learn. The59 (Talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, perhaps I was a bit hasty. I hadn't anticipated the level of passion that existed here about what I assumed was an oversight. I apologize to all concerned. I didn't realize that there was a history here.
I hadn't thought to look at the "results" section for the starting positions for a race that hadn't started. I imagined the results would only be for the race itself, and so filled in after the race finished.
Bottom line: I still think a link from the calendar to the specific GP would be useful and I found a policy which I think supports my concern. In Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking, in the "Link specificity" section, it says: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." So, the topic of the rows in question being the specific GP taking place on that date should link to the specific GP article, and it will in turn link to the general one. Makes sense, no?
Eff Won (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You misinterpret that guideline, specifically the part about context. In context, the "Belgian GP" in the calendar is a reference to what sporting event it is. For instance, a mention of the "Indianapolis 500" in the IndyCar article would be linked to Indianapolis 500, not the 2012 Indianapolis 500 because the context is about the event, not that a specific running of that event. The other column of the calendar does indeed refer to a specific running of an event, but there is nothing in the guideline you quoted stating that a link is required or even necessary there. The guideline is for discussing existing links, basically. The59 (Talk) 07:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Car 10 Exclusion

In the constructors standings table it says the result at the Italian GP for car 10 is EX. I am aware that this is correct for Romain Grosjean in the drivers standings table, as he is excluded, but Lotus are still allowed to run somebody else (presumably 3rd driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio), as it explains in the signed teams and drivers table. Therefore, the result is not EX for Lotus. Sas1998 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would also argue that Grosjean himself should not be listed as "EX" in the drivers' table. He will nevr sit in the car over the Monza weekend, so that space if best left blank. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly he will not sit in his car because he is excluded. That is the reason and it should be mentioned in the drivers' table. FinnishF1Fan (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking back over some of the other pages where drivers have been excluded from the race, it appears that the unwritten definition of an exclusion is when a driver is formally removed from the results of a race after that same race has been run. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) He is not excluded, he is banned. It doesn't matter how many editors don't understand the difference, "EX" is the wrong terminology to use in this case. It so happens that there is nothing in the key to show a ban because it's not a result in a strict sense. It's a results table, and Grosjean will have no result for Italy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
By way of an explanation, a driver/car is excluded (EX) if he is thrown out of the event between Friday practice and the race (now very rare). If he is thrown out after the race has started, he is DSQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean, like Schumacher in 1994, should be labelled as "SUSP" or "BAN". --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is under way here about that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant column in calendar table

OK, so there's opposition to the idea of adding useful hyperlinks from the specific race rows in the calendar table to the specific races, and no current support for it. What about removing one of the two columns giving, effectively, the same data then? The "Race Title" and the "Grand Prix" columns could be merged into one and the generic GP could be linked to from the resultant single column, thus a redundant column would be removed. Eff Won (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the exact reasoning that you stated in your intent to edit the article in the first place. As some Grands Prix are not in English and thus not in a name easy to recognize for casual users, both are listed for their ease. The59 (Talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links again

I thought the reasons given by Prisonermonkeys for removing the links to specific GPs from the calendar table were unlikely, especially given the poor level of compliance with many of the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines of many aspects of this article. I had a recollection that I'd seen the specific GPs limked from the calendar table in previous season articles, so I went on a little investigative journey. What I found was that not only that those links did exist in the 2011 season article, but in the 2010 article too. That was they did exist, until June 11, 2012 when a certain Prisonermonkeys, visited both of those articles in turn, and deleted all of those valuable links using the same astonishing (given the policy compliancy state of both of those articles to) edit summaries: "there is no need for this - links to report pages are all throughout the article". In other words; deliberate systematic destruction of content to the detriment of the articles. I have restored the information in both of those articles and I plan to add it to this one too now that there is clearly actually no good sound reason not to. Eff Won (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you're so familiar with many of the policies and guidelines here so quickly, take time to read WP:AGF – and heed it. Your above comment violates it in a big way. If you want to continue editing, be sure to rein yourself in a little bit. I'm sure you'll want to strike parts of your comment, like "deliberate systematic destruction of content", for example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I took the time to read through many of the links that were provided when I registered. God knows why though, they seem to be totally disregarded by the dominant editors here. The assumption of good faith of one so blatantly denying the assumption of good faith to others is difficult. I stand by my comments for the reasons I detail on my talk page. I am sorry that I ever crossed the threshold of this article and am disturbed by the hostility exhibited to newcomers here. I hoped I might be able to improve this article, but I fear that was a naive assumption. I fear that there is a clique here resistant to interference from outsiders. Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Your very first statement is that you feel that the reasoning for Prisonmonkeys removing the links is unlikely. Exactly what gave you the notion that the reasoning supplied by the editor was false, or even possibly false? Because as far as I can see, there is not a single thing questionable about the reason given by Prisonermonkeys. Therefore, if you somehow find Prisonermonkey's edits to be questionable, then you have failed WP:AGF from the start. And your rating of the article of having a poor level of compliance to Misplaced Pages policies is based on what, exactly? I don't know anyone who reads all possible guidelines before they ever start editing, AND knows them well enough to start judging articles after only two days.
We are assuming quite a lot of good faith with you, even with all the grief you have supplied over the past two days. However these sort of unfounded accusations gives us reason to be weary of good faith. If you wish to help us maintain good faith in you, then you need to supply the good faith in others. The59 (Talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
We ARE getting a lot of unilateral editting going on in a number of articles, like for example an IP edittor is removing from early season race reports the line from the lead stating (formally the 2012 Sponsor Name Here Countristania Grand Prix) stating that it is irrelevant, which has me a little astonished. Certainly I think the359 hits the nail on the head with incorrect assumption of how Good Faith works.
That having been said, I'm a little surprised at you Prisonmonkeys. From this debate last year, not only were you fine with the links heading to race reports, you used it as justification for not linking to race reports elsewhere in the article. --Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused here. From what I gather, Prisonermonkeys was arguing in 2011 the same thing he is arguing now - The calendar section should not link to specific race reports. The59 (Talk) 08:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I've completely grabbed the wrong end of the arguement. My sincere apologies Prisonermonkeys. Tt does, for EffWon's benefit, point towards previous established consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That's okay. I stopped paying attention once it became apparent that this argument was going around in circles. I don't mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note: as suggested at Talk:2010 Formula One season, this discussion has moved to WT:F1 as it involves more than this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eff Won (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious level of non-compliance with key Misplaced Pages guidelines

A user commenting on my talk page invited me to give links to the specific Misplaced Pages guidelines that I feel are being contravened in this article (I think that's what was meant).

Just hours after I made my first edit here, a friendly user added (to my talk page) a welcoming message, and starter links to several hyperlinked networks of pages dealing with key Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which I then devoured. With much of the content of many of those guidelines still fresh in my mind, I thus realised that I was being fed duff information about the compliance state of this article, and duff reasons why my edits were being ruthlessly destroyed.

Let me list just some of the failings as I read it:

  • MOS:BOLD tells us not to use bold other than in a few specified circumstances, and not to use it to emphasise text. The text in the 'Constructor' column of the first table is non-compliant.
  • MOS:LINK tells us:
  • That section headings should not themselves contain links. Each section under the 'Race summaries' heading contravenes that one.
  • To avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. The article is littered with those.
  • links should be created to: relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (...). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. The calendar table contravenes this by not linking to the specific GP pages.
  • Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations... Every GP location city and country is linked, many several times over. A clear contravention.
  • Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on. Many of the 'Report' links in the first of the 'Results and standings' tables blatantly contravenes this one.
  • Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Almost every link in every paragraph contravenes this one.
  • WP:LENGTH tells us that at 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. This article is currently about 180 kB.
  • WP:COLOR tells us to ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. The last 2 tables contravene this comprehensively.
  • MOS:FLAG tells us that the name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon. This article does not comply with that.

And that's what I've found so far, after just a few days experience editing here.

We should challenge ourselves to fix all of these, at least, and ASAP.

Eff Won (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For a rookie edittor you are astonishingly well-versed in policy. --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Whump... there it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well versed? No, but I can read, yes. Having followed some of the chains of links given to me on day 1, they are all there in black & white for anyone who is interested to read. If rules are well hidden and as difficult to get to grips with as you seem to imply, then I imagine that I have only scratched the surface here, and that many more transgressions will become apparent as more policies and guidelines are read. Eff Won (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anyone who is given a handbook on Day 1 and feels within a few hours that they can start making demands on what is or is not correct to do in various situations. Reading guidelines and applying them practically are two different things. You also seem to be woefully ignorant of several of the pillars of Misplaced Pages, which are far more important than methods of style, namely the treatment of other editors. The59 (Talk) 06:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Look on my talk page, you will see there the "handbook" I was given - on day 1. As I said, I haven't read them all yet. Why not follow some of the links there yourself, read some of the guidelines, and you'll see where I'm coming from. Then review your responses and actions here. Eff Won (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the text on your talk page. I'm also well aware that my reponses to you have come solely based on your disregard for the warnings and advice you have been given. I am also well aware of the existing guidelines, and know that they are what forms my responses to your actions. The59 (Talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
But don't understand how debating works. You don't WP:EDITWAR and don't argue the same subject on multiple pages. You've made your point that you have a disagreement, now discuss it with the involved editors, come to a consensus and absorb that consensus into the article. WP:CONSENSUS. If you've read all those other policies (without making content contributions), you can read these as well. --Falcadore (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you want to go down this road, I'll oblige...
MOS:BOLD is in reference to prose. Tables are not prose. Further, the results matrix also features bold for the Position and Total Points columns, to help them stand out. This is simply for readability amongst the various cells.
MOS:LINK's reference to major geographic features means continents, not necessarily cities or countries. Further, since you point out that MOS:FLAG says the country should be listed alongside the flag, then the calendar section fulfills this requirement by linking the country. Also, an article this size does require some repeated links merely for the sake of sanity. Also, if you're going to argue that the calender should have links to the race reports, don't then say that the repetition of these links is against policy.
WP:LENGTH sets a limit of 50kb in readable prose. 2012 Formula One season is currently 33kb of readable prose. The other 150kb is code and references.
WP:COLOR tells us not to use color unless there are other definitions. The definitions are in the key and helped by the diagram of points per position in the race. These charts are also universal to all motorsports articles, and are not simply an F1 idea. I would also point out that the example of sporting results featured on WP:TABLES includes colored cells.
Finally, there is WP:IAR, which states that certain guidelines can be ignored if it is in the best interest of the article, and this is something that has been discussed before. We do not in any way hide that we have agreed through consensus to ignore certain elements of the Method of Style, which, in and of itself is not a requirement, but merely a guideline for how to structure an article. Nor are they necessarily key elements. Several of the F1 articles which have reached Featured Article status also ignore some of the MOS elements you point out here. The59 (Talk) 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You may have convinced yourself of that, but your selective and skewed interpretations of the guidelines reveal the real problem - a deep-rooted ability to see just what you want to see, but not what is actually there.
Take a look at MOS:BOLD again, for example. It states, and I will quote it verbatim; after giving the main use as in the "lead section" it goes on to say: "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases..." then lists the cases I recounted above, and then: "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." It doesn't distinguish between the prose and anywhere else. Your excuses for breaking the other rules are mostly similarly groundless.
WP:IAR only applies if "a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages". The rules I mention above clearly do not fall into that category. And just because rules are broken in some other articles, that isn't an excuse for breaking them here and certainly isn't an excuse to make editing an unpleasant rings of fire experience for a new contributor.
Eff Won (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Text and tables are two seperate entities within an article. There is no externeous bolding in the article text. Bolding in tables is not covered in WP:BOLD. In fact bolding is built into tables, with the ! starting field which not only automatically bolds the text, but also changes the color of that cell to a darker shade of grey.
WP:IAR can be applied to anything. The "rules" you mentioned above are not rules, they are guides. There are not requirements.
As for ring of fire experiences, you should see it from our perspective. You seem to be quite adament that "breaking rules" when it comes to edit warring is justifiable, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with saying that methods of style, which are inherently not rules, cannot be broken in this specific article. The59 (Talk) 06:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't distinguish between "text" and "tables" in the way you suggest. It explicitly allows bold for table heading, thus implicitly not for table body text. Guidelines are "rules" and this article contravenes many of them with no supportable excuse. I'm not saying I have read all the guidelines, and probably followed links which sounded more useful or appropriate for content rather than behaviour, but judging by the reception I received, any behaviour rules that there might be are either quite lax or poorly adhered to anyway. Eff Won (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
1952 Winter Olympics, 1956 Winter Olympics, 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1926 World Series, 2009 Giro d'Italia. These are all Featured Articles. All have tables. All have bold in tables. Some even have color in tables! Are you going to tell the editors of these Featured Articles that they are in gross non-compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines? And these are just the first five I happened to grab from the Sports section alone, I can grab many more, including Formula One articles, which show the same thing and have been approved by the community.
As you can see, you are not only misinterpreting these guidelines, but also confusing them for "rules". They are not rules. In fact the very opening of WP:MOS states that they need to be applied with Common Sense and by default have exceptions. Nowhere is it stated that the Manual of Style is a rule. The59 (Talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If its in Featured Articles then it is obviously within the parameters of good editting. So lets abandon that arguement and move on. --Falcadore (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
They might have a valid reason to break the rules. What is the reason here - more than if they can we can, I hope. Eff Won (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Straw-clutching at its lamest. Featured articles cannot break the "rules" - they are proof that rules aren't being broken, neither there nor here. Anyway, as you have been told more than once, they're guidelines, not rules. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Feature Articles are Feature Articles for a reason — they are examples of the best-written articles on Misplaced Pages. They cannot get to FA status if there are critical issues in the way they are written. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

I have just reverted an edit to the article by Prisonermonkeys, not because I want to edit-war, but because I don't accept that his total reversion of the six edits I made, which represented over an hours deliberation and hard work, was justified; especially under the edit summary of "please stop deliberately disrupting this page - it has been explained to you that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not biblical commandments".

If there are specific problems with any one of my six edits please describe them here, and we can see if we can reach agreement over a rework, but please do not wipe them all out again in such a dismissive fashion, and please do not characterise my work as "deliberately disrupting this page". Eff Won (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read over the section "Serious level of non-compliance with key Misplaced Pages guidelines", which you started, and which explains to you why the Manual of Style is not to be taken as an absolute law. I characterise your work as the deliberate disruption of the page, because that is all you have done for the past week. You need a consensus to make those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you think I haven't read that? I suspect that you had not though, but now have, as your more recent edits reveal that you are now eating your own words. I see you didn't come back and admit it though. Are you now going to retract that personal attack too? Eff Won (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, your rewrites of the section are misleading, the section is already a little too long as is, and your edits didn't actually add anything but extra words. Please stop editing pages for the sake of disrupting them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My edits clarified some of the unclear content (as we'll see below), and please stop characterising my edits as disruption, especially given your recent edits to the page. Eff Won (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your rewrite of the Italian Grand Prix section because it did not actually add anything - just more words to a section that was already bulking up. It also misrepresented things by removing the sentence about Ferrari using Massa to get a tow. Your inital edit summary commented that "it reads to me as if Alonso appeared to be giving Massa one". For one, you seem to have misread what was being said; Ferrari planned to use Massa to give Alonso a slipstream. And secondly, they wanted to get both their drivers on the front row by having each give the other a slipstream - which is supported by the reference - but the plan fell apart when Alonso's anti-roll bar failed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) (Moved here from User talk:Eff Won by Eff Won)
Apart from the replacement of discouraged links in the section headings, which you now clearly accept, as you took another one out yourself later and replaced it using the same technique that I had introduced for the others (so no disruption by me there), I clarified a few points as follows:
  • I changed "Six current and former World Drivers' Champions..." to "Six current or former World Drivers' Champions..." I thought that sounded less like there were six current champions.
  • I changed "The final race of the European season" to "The final race in Europe of the season" as I don't consider there is a formal "European season".
  • I shortened the sentence "Ferrari's early bid to put Fernando Alonso on pole position by way of using Felipe Massa to offer him a slipstream ended in disaster when..." by removing "by way of using Felipe Massa to offer him a slipstream" from it because that was the opposite to what the reference article was saying, as I read it. So the sentence was less misleading after my edit I believe.
  • I replaced the unparsable sentence fragment "...he elected to start on the harder compound tyres and complete one stop, producing fastest lap after fastest lap..." with this "...he elected to start on the harder compound tyres and attempt a one stop race, and then produced fastest lap after fastest lap" because I thought it improved the sense of the sentence.
  • I inserted the short sentence "Pérez came in second." after the account of how Pérez challenged Hamilton for the lead - to answer the dangling question of what became of him, as he wasn't mentioned again before my edit.
  • I replaced "A double retirement for the Red Bull cars, with Vettel suffering another alternator failure and Mark Webber spinning violently at the Ascari chicane," with "A double retirement for the Red Bull cars, with Vettel suffering another alternator failure and Mark Webber severely flat-spotting a front tyre after spinning violently at the Ascari chicane," to claify that Webber had to retire because of his tyres and that he hadn't spun off, or hit anything.
  • I replaced "to take second place in the World Drivers' Championship" with "to move up to second place in the World Drivers' Championship" as clarification because I thought "take" suggested a final positon.
Right, over to you Prisonermonkeys, to substantiate or retract your allegations.
Eff Won (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an example of your edit, which adds nothing but words to the page.
This is an example of my edit, which adds actual content to the page.
The quality of your edits is consistently low - you haven't actually added anything of value to any article you have edited. The fact that you run straight to the article talk pages and demand explanation as to why your edits were reverted, not to mention the way you reuse to allow any progress on an article until you have been satisfied, is enough for me to characterise your edits as deliberately disruptive.
Also, in future, please do not copy messages from your user talk page over to an article talk page without first asking permission to do so. If you feel that I raise points that need to be discussed here, then please send me a message before you do so. Don't just take the liberty of copying it straight over. It's very rude. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: