This 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.
Latest comment: 30 days ago21 comments4 people in discussion
Can the format of the calendar table be edited so that the overall column/table widths are not fixed, and it is therefore significantly easier to read on smaller or mobile devices. The formula e page achieves this nicely. Wiki wikied (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually the Formula E wiki page contains 5 columns to this pages 4. This page contains the round, the name, the circuit (incl city) and the date. The formula e page also contains the country, although the circuit name seems a shorter form.
Regardless though, this isn't the point of the question. If I goto the formula e page on a mobile device, the table resizes depending on my device - including if I'm looking at the table in portrait or landscape. This means that the overall table is no wider than my screen as the reader, and each row has a height that is dynamic, and the texts wraps within each cell as needed.
This is a much better viewing experience for anyone on a smaller device as the user doesn't need to scroll left and right to read a single row.
For anyone used to the current layout who doesn't have this issue (assuming they visit on a standard laptop/PC with a much larger screen size than a mobile device), then this wouldn't change as making the table dynamic would still render 1 line per row for those devices, and would only change (to assist) those on smaller devices and make it easier to read and more accessible. Wiki wikied (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The number of columns in a table is obviously irrelevant, it is the contents of the cells that are important, and the Formula E table benefits from containing substantially less information. But I understand that's not your concern. As for what method of display is more readable/accessible, that is ultimately a matter of preference, and incidentally I prefer the status quo. I don't have anything further to comment on that formatting choice. 5225C(talk•contributions) 10:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of accessibility. And I do not think (and I have argued this many times before) that no wrapping literally everything is an accessibility improvment. I do not see why you are so against allowing cells to wrap around multiple rows to make reading the width of the table easier. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Use Proportional Sizing, Rather than Absolute Sizing
The rule that applies to layout tables also applies to data tables. Let the browser window determine the width of the table whenever possible, to reduce the horizontal scrolling required of those with low vision. If cell widths need to be defined, use relative values, such a percentages, rather than pixel values. Defined cell heights should generally be avoided so the cell can expand downward to accommodate its content - something especially useful for users with low vision that may enlarge text content.
And we don’t use any fixed values for heights and widths whatsoever. The font size is defined through a percentage and the width of the columns is automatically scaled by the browser window to the widest entry of each column. Tvx1 13:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Forcing it to appear on one line means that readers have to constantly scroll back and forward to read the text which makes it more difficult to process such text effectively. You might think it a minor issue but to some people it makes a genuine difference. And I have frankly had enough of some editors on this wikiproject putting personal aesthetics choices (some of which aren't very aesthetic in my opinion anyway) over practicality. Do I think we should remove all nowraps, no. (that would generate cells where each line contains one word). But right now we use nowraps excessively. Not just in the calendar table but also in the constructor championship table an the general results table (constructor names for example can be very long and there is no benefit in forcing it into one line). We should sacrifice so-called aesthetics for the benefit of greater accessibility. I have done a mock up of a more acceptable example of the calendar table at User:SSSB/sandbox#Test which I think works much better. Please take your phone out and judge. SSSB (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but no your example is no improvement in any way. The base width of the table is such that scrolling is always necessary, which means there is no benefit in allowing wrapping. The decision to apply nowrap everywhere was a carefully weighted one achieved through multiple discussions and was not done for aesthetics but because we determined that wrapping often hampered readability.Tvx1 13:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Excessive wrapping does hamper readability. But so does excessive nowrapping. We have gone from one extreme to the other whereas we need a sensible middle ground. My example does eliminate scrolling on some devices and in all cases it reduces scrolling significantly. By extension readability is also improved. SSSB (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, your example is no improvement on readability whatsoever. I have a mobile device with a rather large screen and it still leaves me with siginicant scrolling. I can’t image there being many devices where it actually eliminates it or even significantly reduces it. It results in everything happening that this project decided years ago that should be avoided, like circuit names being randomly split in random places and term Grand Prix also being randomly being split in half. I also strongly disagree with your notion that scrolling automatically reduces readability. You are making much more of an evil out of it than it is. Tvx1 13:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"everything happening that this project decided years ago that should be avoided"? WP:Consensus can change. And what's wrong with circuit names or "Grand Prix" being split in half. We wouldn't nowrap these terms in running prose, so I see no reason to do so here. I'm also not making an "evil" out of anything. I am merely arguing that excessive nowraps are hampering readability. My proposal narrows the table (on relevant tables) by apporximatly 30-40% (calculated by counting characters from left to right). I would call that a significant scrolling reduction. This will be more pronouced on narrower screens (as they currently have to scroll further). Out of interest, do you think my propsal makes readability worse, or just no improvement? SSSB (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And I’m arguing that excessive nowraps don’t hamper readability. You keep falsely assuming that scrolling is the only argument to determine readability. Which is wrong. Your comparison with prose also doesn’t make sense. Terms being split on the end of a line in running prose is not an issue because you naturally expect a split there while reading. Likewise each row in a table is one line and thus you don’t multiple splits on that same line. Having to read down up down up down and up again on one and the same line is the worst thing with regards to readability. So the last thing we should do is to reintroduce random splits bases on screen size.
And thus I maintain that your example makes readability far worse. In some cells each word is squashed onto another line even on my screen and I have a rather large one. That is just no acceptable. Tvx1 11:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Each word is squashed onto another line" it shouldn't be, because I specifically added nowraps to prevent one-word-per-line cells. We clearly have different ideas of what is best for readability. SSSB (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Tvx1 in response to your view that you "can’t image there being many devices where it actually eliminates it or even significantly reduces it", please see some screenshots. This is how Wiki renders automatically on my device - a rather standard sized mobile phone with a 6.2" display.
To me, the difference is clear and obvious and, handled correctly, I believe the display could be made very clear without need to scroll on smaller devices whilst making no difference to users on larger displays (PCs, laptop, etc).
nb. When I say without need to scroll on smaller, I mean left and right to simply try and read 1 line after another. It may need to scroll down to read top to bottom, but this is standard as users read through and, imo, very unlikely to result in the continued scrolling that is currently needed when accessing this page on mobile devices
Screenshot dated 20260731 of Wikipedia page for 2026 F1 season, specifically focussing on calendar section - unable to see whole of table on mobile device
Screenshot dated 20260731 of Wikipedia page for 2025/26 FormulaE season, specifically focussing on calendar section - able to see whole of table on mobile deviceWiki wikied (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could you please stop comparing our calendar with a Formula E one. They are different tables with a different amount of content and will always look different. My comments dealt with SSSB’s sandbox example of a "better" version of our F1 calendar, which I maintain isn’t better at all.
And it’s great that the FE table looks good (which I don't even agree with) on your screen, but that is only your screen. Your screen is not everyone’s screen. Add to that that calendar content varies every season it’s just pure random luck whether a wrapping table fits well on a particular screen.
You just make scrolling into a problem that it really isn't at all. And by the way, the desktop view exists on mobile devices as well! Tvx1 11:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your screenshots just show the scrolling must now be vertical rather than horizontal. I have a hard time taking the notion that this is a real problem seriously. It's obviously a mere stylistic preference and I repeat my preference for the status quo. 5225C(talk•contributions) 11:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
ok. As we can't get past this personal preference discussion, I have reviewed Wikipedia guidance on the topic.
Setting no widths is preferred wherever possible. This is because the browser can adjust table content to suit the browser window, device size, portrait view, landscape view, zoom settings, user-end font size choices, and other constraints...
Test tables in narrower browser windows. Test in both desktop and mobile views (on cell phones in portrait orientation). See the mobile or desktop view link at the bottom of this Wikipedia page. Use a cell phone to get the true mobile view... Wiki wikied (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Should the calendar tables on this page be formatted to allow natural line wrapping on narrower screens, or should fixed formatting (such as {{nowrap}}) be maintained across table cells?
Option A (Allow text wrapping): Proponents note that reducing fixed widths and {{nowrap}} rules aligns with Help:Width of tables, columns, and cells and WP:ACCESSIBILITY (specifically WebAIM guidance on proportional sizing), reducing horizontal scrolling and improving usability on mobile screens in portrait orientation.
Option B (Maintain fixed formatting / Status quo): Opponents argue that line breaks within short proper nouns (e.g., circuit names or "Grand Prix") reduce legibility, and that horizontal scrolling is preferable to multi-line cell expansion on narrower displays.
Support Option A. Per Help:Width of tables, columns, and cells, tables without rigid width constraints or excessive {{nowrap}} tags adapt far better to varying screen sizes, orientations, and user zoom levels. For mobile users in portrait mode, eliminating horizontal scrolling significantly improves reading comprehension and accessibility, conforming to external guidelines such as WebAIM. While excessive wrapping can be unsightly, a balanced middle ground—removing hard wraps on non-essential text—makes the table far more accessible without sacrificing readability on desktop devices. Wiki wikied (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think some uses of {nowrap} are necessary in tables, especially on mobile devices, where short names or phrases may otherwise wrap in awkward ways. However, excessive use of {nowrap}, which effectively forces almost everything to remain on the same line, can also create problems.
In my opinion, the issue is much more complex than it may first appear. I would prefer not to support either option, as I have not spent the considerable amount of time needed to weigh all the many factors involved.
What I think could be done is to allow versions with less nowrap formatting to remain in the current article, and only in this article, as proposed by the editors who have raised concerns about the status quo. This would allow us to receive feedback during the season from other editors, including those who may have concerns about excessive wrapping. It would also allow us to see in practice how a different approach could be applied, either in one section or in several sections, and to identify both the benefits and the problems that the change may bring.
To be clear, this change would only be a trial for this season’s article, so that we can see how it works in an ongoing article alongside the discussions taking place here. It would not mean that the existing convention has changed. ΘΘεοχάρης (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@5225C @Tvx1 given the current consensus is moving towards change, albeit with limited overall numbers so far, following this proposal from @ΘΘεοχάρης I suggest we modify the 2025 season calendar so we can see and share the visual and practical differences concerning everyone and display images side by side, contracting 2025 changed calendar with 2026 status quo calendar.
The aim will be to make multiple iterations of the table format that will satisfy the majority.
For each change, we can add an RFC to contrast against the 2026 calendar.
@Wiki wikied I support your position on the nowraps, but I oppose continuing this discussion beyond this RfC. I also don't agree with ΘΘεοχάρης's of trialling nowraps within a single article with the appearent aim of increasing participation. Noone not following this page will be aware that this is a trial run. We need to let someone close this discussion and move on with improving Wikipedia in other areas. SSSB (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@SSSB edit to this page was an error, I meant to change a previous year but somehow reloaded the current page in error prior to hitting edit. Ignore that Wiki wikied (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: One way to improve the table would be to remove "Grand Prix" from every cell in the "Grand Prix" column, because it is completely redundant. You could also remove the cities from the "Circuit" column since readers already get a sense of where the event is held from the "Grand Prix" column and then can click on the circuit links for specific information. That would significantly reduce the amount of content in the table without affecting its value. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Option B – I don't understand why this is being forced through an RFC (which should be held on the talk page of one relevant article anayway). Why can't some people just take no for an anwser. I have explained the problem more than well enough during the discussion. Removing the nowraps results in the readability of the tables being just a case of random luck based on the particular reader's device's specific screen size. This all boils down to one person's personal dislike for scrolling (which I don't understand). And scrolling isn't even required. You can very easily use the desktop view on whatever device you like, desktop, laptop or mobile.Tvx1 11:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Two people saying no does not constitute a dead horse. In fact, given this RfC is 50:50, the horse is very much alive. SSSB (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Option A I agree that nowraps have their place, but this wikiproject seems to have an insistence on nowraping literally every cell in every table. Some of the other users here are not accurately reflecting the arguements. This is not a "personal dislike for scrolling" (if Tvx1 wants to go down that route I can just misrepresent his arguemnt as a "personal dislike of text wrapping") it is an opinion that horizontal scrolling reduces readability and we can mitigate this by being more pragmatic about how we use no wraps. No wraps should be used to prevent columns in our tables becoming unnecessarily narrow. They should not be used to indiscriminatly force everything onto one line. I also don't think Tvx1's claim that scrolling isn't requried because you can just change to desktop view. To me this feels like an admission that this is a problem. Not only will some readers not know how to switch between mobile and desktop view. The text in desktop view is then too small to read on my mobile phone. We can heavily reduce the scrolling by allowing cells in tables to wrap across multiple lines. Tvx1 doesn't understand the problem with horizontal scrolling. I don't understand the problem with wrapping text on multiple lines. SSSB (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This very much boils down to a personal dislike for scrolling. Neither of you have provided any proper evidence that scrolling is an actual problem. And you are overstating the issue. You are making much more of a drama out of this than it is. Moreover, your proposals only serve to move the scrolling from horizontal to vertical.
And if have explained the problem with wrapping more than clearly enough. With random wrapping it’s just down to random coïncidence whether the contents remains readable for a specific reader. There is no way anymore to guarantee a consistent appearance. I won’t keep repeating myself.
As for your comments regarding the desktop view, changing to it is child’s play and you can zoom in using your fingers.Tvx1 19:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If I zoom in with my fingers I am still scrolling horizontally so that "solution" isn't a solution at all. It is also only child's play if you know that funcationality exists. I also think that vertically scrolling is beneficial to horizontal scrolling. After all youu scroll vertically to read the article, I don't see the issue with scrolling horizontally to read a table (which depending on the device and the table isn't a guaranteed necessity anyway. As for "random coincidence". It is only random coincidence if you remove the nowraps entirely. I have made very clear that (at least I) intend to keep some nowraps to avoid excessive wrapping.
I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree about whether wrapping is problamtic, about whether horizontal scrolling is problamatic and about whether you or I have explained anything clearly enough. SSSB (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no need to zoom so much that it requires you to scroll. And yes you scroll down when reading an article, but not repeatedly down and up again and again to read one segment of text. And the latter is what you get if you squash everything together on a small screen.
And as I have explained to you again and again, you just cannot guarantee good readability for every reader with just select nowraps. I just doesn’t work. Every device is different. The problem is just as much there as with no nowraps at all. I really don’t know why you refuse to understand that.Tvx1 10:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
For starters, none of our cells contain so much information that you have to scroll up and down to read one segment of text. Our cells do not contain sentences of text, do they. As most it is an team name or curcuit information which can easily be put in two lines and require no scrolling in either direction."There is no need to zoom so much that it requires you to scroll." - this is a bold statement from someone who continues to say that every device is different and every readers expirences Wikipedia differently. Because that might be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone.And I don't know why you continue to misrepresent my arguements in your responses. At no point I have I suggested that we can guarantee good readability for all readers. I have not claimed that it will be considered an improvement for all. Although your claim that some nowraps is as bad as no nowraps is ridiculous. No nowraps will cause one word per line cells. Select nowraps will allow cells to be limited to a maximum of 2 or 3 lines of text (realistically 2) instead of just one.Will the reduction of nowraps increase vertical scrolling for readers who read by column? Depending on the device and how far we take it: Yes. But right now, readers who read the table buy row have to do significant horizontal scrolling. I think it is a perfectly reasonable compromise to introduce a little vertical scrolling to reduce horizontal scrolling. I really don't understand why you are opposed to a little compromise. SSSB (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's no compromise involved, either the text wraps or it doesn't. There's no middle ground where we're all a little bit happy, either we get what we want or you get what you want. 5225C(talk•contributions) 13:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is a middle ground: the text wraps, but we insert no wraps strategically to avoid excess wrapping. It's not complicated. SSSB (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your "middle ground" sounds a lot like "Option A (Allow text wrapping)", which would be to the exclusion of "Option B (Maintain fixed formatting / Status quo)". 5225C(talk•contributions) 01:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just because you refuse to see this as anything other than black-and-white, it doesn't mean that it is black-and-white. Just because you oppose the compromise as much as the absolute, it doesn't mean that the compromise doesn't exist. We can introduce text wrapping whilst still maintaining a reduced level of fixed formatting. SSSB (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No we can’t. Strategic no-wrapping DOES NOT WORK! Whether that appears fine for a given reader is utterly random depending on the device size and screen resolution. You cannot guarantee that strategic no-wrapping works for everyone. You can only judge it for yourself on your own personal screen. Why can you not understand this simply thing?? Tvx1 11:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I can't guarantee that it works for everyone. Nor have I made the claim that I can. Nothing will work for everyone becauce some people (like you) don't want wrapping at all and other editors and readers do want wrapping. I have explained that multiple times. Why can you not understand that simple thing? SSSB (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why can’t you understand thay your proposal will make things worse. It’s not better than what we have now anyway. I never claimed that the current situation is ideal for everyone, that’s what you claim of your propsal. The current version was achieved through thorough discussion which determined this works best for most of the readers. Tvx1 12:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because I don't agree that my proposal will make it worse/not be a general improvement (not necessarily a universal improvement). Since you keep insisting that we provide evidence - why don't provide some for the claim it will be worse? SSSB (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Option A Long time reader, just dipping my toes into editing. Strong support for doing away with excessive nowraps. Let the users browsers handle the scaling properly. When you are viewing most pages online these days, text blocks and tables scale automatically to the size of the screen/browser window. The help page the OP shared is pretty clear: "Nowrap in tables should be avoided. It can cause all kinds of problems in different screen sizes." CartographicGnome (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Option A: I agree with doing away with the excessive no wraps too. In my experience, horizontal scrolling does reduce readability and, at times, even reader interest as a result. Alternatively the compromise @SSSB suggested whereby we use strategic no wraps is also a good middle ground. MadelynnSienna (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The claim is "in my expirence". What evidence are you looking for exactly? You are also coming across as rather hypocritical, given that you haven't exactly provided any evidence for any of your claims either. SSSB (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Delving in personal attacks now? The evidence I’m looking for is evidence that reader interest was lost by anyone. And why are you even replying to me here? My question was NOT aimed at you at all! Tvx1 12:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I said you are coming across as a hypocrite. I didn't actually call you a hypocrite. And if I have a response to your comment I can make it, even if the comment is not directed at me. SSSB (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 24 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The problem of violating international rules and showing Ukrainian Crimea as russian has still persisted over the years. I feel like if a certain Cherkash user wants to use F1 Wikipedia to push his poltical war supporting views, he should be banned from editing materials about the compretitions. RMN120501 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not done – A driver cannot withdraw from an event they did not enter. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:41, 19 August 2026 (UTC)