Talk:2004 World Series by Nissan
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Another table?
[edit]Looking at this article I see a newly added table, a duplication of an already existing results table. That made it until deletion seven tables versus four sentences of descriptive prose. I think there are other priorities with this article with another tabular layout describing who finished where in each race. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Driver standings already covers completely race results. Instead of duplicating the same information and adding qualifying to justify a separate table, a short table explaining how points are allocated achieves the same goal for far less content.
- If a racing series only has four lines of textual description that it is not sufficiently notable for this level of in depth statistics coverage. --Falcadore (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- * There was no "newly added table"? I have only re-established the original point table which was deleted...
- * If the "Driver standings already covers completely race results", then lets also delete the sections "2004 Driver Lineup", "Calendar", and "Results"! These three sections are also covered in the "Driver standings"?
- * "depth statistics coverage"? A point table is the most important table! "Depth statistics coverage" is to show who retired or did not start?
- * Isn't the best solution to keep both tables? So every user can chose which info is needed...
- Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- 2004 Driver Lineup doesn't covered in the "Driver standings". Calendar and Results now is merged. Cybervoron (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this series is important enough for this level of statistics, then it needs more than four sentences of description. --Falcadore (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- 2004 Driver Lineup doesn't covered in the "Driver standings". Calendar and Results now is merged. Cybervoron (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you add something like this:
| Position | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | Pole Position |
Fastest Lap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Races 1 & 2 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 (R1 only) |
1 |
| Race 3 | 20 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Then you do not need separate points and results tables. One table can serve for both. It takes up considerable less space and for a serious where notability does not appear to be sufficient to justify even a paragraph of description, this is surely desireable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of tables. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)