Talk:2017 MotoGP World Championship

Rider table sorting

Thought I'd open open a discussion on how we should sort the rider table. Recently someone changed it to be sorted by rider numbers, which personally I don't support, it's effectively arbitrary. If a reader comes here looking for a specific team or rider, without knowing the rider's number, they have no way of finding where that information is in the table without just going line by line. Personally I think we should sort the teams alphabetically, but using just the team name not the sponsors. For example, Repsol Honda would be sorted under H, not R. Thoughts? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateiradu92: Your input would be welcome. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table should be arranged alphabetically by manufacturer. When more than one team uses the same manufacturer, those teams should be arranged alphabetically. As the series does not use sequential numbering, riders should be arranged within their teams based on the rounds column, then numbers.

This is the system used on season articles for other championships, most notably Formula One. If you look at the 2016 article, you will see Alonso is #14, Button is #22 and Vandoorne is #47, but Vandoorne is listed before Button because he replaced Alonso. It's a system that works very well, and really should be adopted by all season articles for all motorsport championships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. I'm just really strongly opposed to sorting by numbers when the numbers are arbitrarily. Kind of defeats the point of sorting, doesn't it? Thanks for making the change. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I changed the sorting of the teams in the 2017 season is purely to maintain a consistency with the previous seasons which are sorted by rider numbers. Personally I have no preference on the chosen sorting system but I believe that consistency is a key element: if you prefer to sort by manufacturer, than this change must be made to previous seasons and other classes as well (Moto 2 and Moto 3). What do you think? Thanks @Wicka wicka: for prompting me to the conversation. Matei Radu (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that decisions should be made based on how much work is required. If you arrange the table based on rider numbers, then the 2017 table would (thus far) go 04-99-22-25-46-26-93-29-38-44, which follows no apparent pattern. Articles should be written in such a way that a reader with no prior knowledge of the subject can click "random article", wind up here, read it and understand it on the first attempt.

Thus, the manufacturer column should take priority, then teams, then rounds, and then numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested to maintain the current sorting system, let alone because of the less work required. Where did you get that idea? My proposal is simple: if you want to change the sorting system do it, but also apply the new sorting to the previous season in order to maintain consistency between them. It would be kind of confusing the see one season sorted in a way and another season sorted differently. Changing only the 2017 season would only do more harm. Matei Radu (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. And I don't think it'd take THAT much effort to reorganize other article. And even then, it's worth it to improve readability. To play devil's advocate, though, should we sort them by manufacturer and then team, or team alone? It's difficult to compare MotoGP to F1 in this regard since these days the manufacturer and team are indistinguishable, but in seasons in which manufacturers supplied multiple teams it seems we sorted by team name. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer first, then teams within the manufacturer, then the rounds contested within each team, and finally rider number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think that's the right move. I don't think Wikipedia editors put enough weight on organizing content in the most readable fashion. In this case, though, the Constructor column is bolded and shaded a darker color. The eye is naturally drawn there, so it makes absolute sense that the entire table is sorted primary by that column. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Crutchlow

@Colin Edwards 2016 — please do not add Cal Crutchlow (or any rider, for that matter) without a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]