Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Other project talk pages: Formula One NASCAR World Rallying US Open Wheel Racing Sports Car Racing GP Motorcycle Racing British Motorsport Australian Motorsport Taskforce talk pages: History of Motorsport Touring car racing A1 Grand Prix Formula E Superleague Formula

Colors in tables

If I could bring attention to a matter underdiscussion involving several 2015 Indycar articles which feature some usage of colored in cells in tables, for example, 2015 Firestone 600. Any opinions on the matter would be welcomed. --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Holy hell, those have gotten far worse than they used to be! I was against them when they were just text and a background, but this is ridiculous. We're not a spotter's guide, the colors add absolutely nothing to an article about a race. This seems to be yet another case of thinking just because we have information we must include it. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That a pretty blatant abuse of colour. How could anyone think that was acceptable? There are quite a few more WP:COLOUR issues across Indycar/American championship articles once you start looking. Take a look at the average season article and every table seems to have something highlighted or bolded without much justification. Our American racing articles might require a systematic de-colourisation. QueenCake (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to write post winners in an article of a race edition. And rookies don't need colors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Colours look awful to me, trying to make a pretty silk purse from a sow's ear. But, standards have already plummeted with indy/nascar articles. Need an example. Check out the article 2015 Firestone 600 which Falcadore mentions above. The lead sucks, and the prose describing the race is -- um, I'd better not say it. Moriori (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Should have seen it when the subject was brought up two weeks ago. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

? ? Link? Moriori (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I bet it was this. Oh goodness, my eyes. Zappa24Mati 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh. If as much effort went in to improving text as to creating hideous colours, articles would improve exponentially. I wonder how many indy/nascar articles have reached GA status. Moriori (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the difference between writers and table editors. You can be both. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of the articles on the 2005 until 2015 Indianapolis 500 are still littered with these colored numbers. And something needs to be done with the coloring of rookies in season articles. In the season article QueenCake linked to, Carlos Muñoz's cell being colored yellow in the result matrix makes it difficult to see his Colombian flag. Tvx1 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not use (R) after the driver, like the Teams and drivers section? That way we could do away with the color problem completely. As for the color background for car numbers, that should go as well. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be much better. I'm sure I have seen a similar approach in other sports articles. Tvx1 01:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The tables are entirely grey... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are. You're a month late to the party, changes have been implemented. --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Figures... ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"The tables are entirely grey...". Not really. Many of the articles on American Open Wheel Racing still contain excessive color. Calendars contain colors to denote the type of circuit of the event, which are difficult to distinguish even for the visually unimpaired. Teams and drivers tables and results matrices still contain colored rookies. Indy 500 articles are littered with color numbers. And so on. Tvx1 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Track lengths

Bit of an odd question, but how are track lengths measured? I don't mean in regards to tape measures, but what route do they take? Do they take the racing line, the inside edge, or measure both inside and outside and take the average? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Modern tracks would come straight out of the 3D design model in the computer and would be measured along the tracks centreline, like any other road design anywhere in the world. Beyond that? Up to the track themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite all this, the organizers are never agree when measuring the length of a track. For this reason, I have edited some Wikipedia article about oval tracks a few days ago. Here is an overview of the different measurements:

Track	CART/CCWS	IRL/ICS	NASCAR
Auto Club Speedway	2.029 miles (3.265 km)	2.000 miles (3.219 km)	2.000 miles (3.219 km)
Twin Ring Motegi	1.549 miles (2.493 km)	1.52 miles (2.45 km)	1.549 miles (2.493 km) (*exhibition event in 1998)
Las Vegas Motor Speedway	1.50 miles (2.41 km)	1.544 miles (2.485 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Kansas Speedway	-	1.52 miles (2.45 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Chicagoland Speedway	-	1.52 miles (2.45 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Homestead-Miami Speedway	1.502 miles (2.417 km)	1.485 miles (2.390 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Texas Motor Speedway	1.482 miles (2.385 km)	1.455 miles (2.342 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Kentucky Speedway	-	1.480 miles (2.382 km)	1.50 miles (2.41 km)
Nashville Superspeedway	-	1.30 miles (2.09 km)	1.333 miles (2.145 km)
Gateway International Raceway	1.27 miles (2.04 km)	1.25 miles (2.01 km)	1.25 miles (2.01 km)
New Hampshire Motor Speedway	1.00 mile (1.61 km)	1.025 miles (1.650 km)	1.058 miles (1.703 km)
The Milwaukee Mile	1.032 miles (1.661 km)	1.015 miles (1.633 km)	1.000 mile (1.609 km)
Nazareth Speedway	0.946 miles (1.522 km)	0.935 miles (1.505 km)	1.000 mile (1.609 km)
Iowa Speedway	-	0.894 miles (1.439 km)	0.875 miles (1.408 km)

See also my question: Portal_talk:Motorsport#Length_of_Racetracks_.28especially_oval_race_tracks.29 --Mark McWire (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, the FIA measures tracks in meters. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course. The FIA is an international organisation headquartered in France. They are already required by (EU-)law to use the SI unit system. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season

FYI, 2017 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. Tvx1 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jacques Villeneuve

The naming of Jacques Villeneuve (the uncle) is under discussion, see Talk:Jacques Villeneuve (elder) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

TCR regional series

I had big doubts about self-notability of the 2015 TCR Italian Series season, 2015 TCR USA Series season, 2015 TCR Portuguese Series season and 2015 TCR Russian Series season. They are not even the series. They are just subcategories of the Italian GT Championship, Russian Touring Car Championship, etc. And I think it will be a better decision to make a general article 2015 TCR Series seasons where we include all these "series" (like 2009 Formula Renault seasons). Corvus tristis (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Formula Three and British Formula 3 Championship

Users involved in the discussion to date. @QueenCake:, @Corvus tristis:

The British Formula Three Championship page has recently been moved from *Formula Three* to *F3*. This seems a reasonably important move but took place without discussion, the rationale being that the UK championship was known only as *F3* not Formula Three. The move has produced some anomalies where Formula Three (linked to the page about the racing class) and Formula 3 appear close together on the same page and others have felt that the two terms are interchangeable. Wiki uses Formula One & Formula Two as racing class page titles (as well as Formula Three) and to change an article about one (albeit important) series lacks consistency, to my mind. Eagleash (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong that incosistency started after renaming to the British Formula 3 Championship, we already had Masters of Formula 3 (created in 2006), Australian Formula 3 (created in 2007), Formula 3 Sudamericana (created in 2007), North European Zone Formula 3 Cup (created in 2009), Austria Formula 3 Cup (created in 2009), Formula 3 Euro Series (renamed in 2010), etc. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody actually made that assertion. The page move edit summary unequivocably stated that the British series 'never' used the word three in its title. Where has that information come from? I just looked through some old programmes from the 1960s & '70s. Some had 'Three', some '3' and some even 'III'. So the name seems changeable at best. Eagleash (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Update; individual season articles have been changed also. Eagleash (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody? So, it was not your words "Wiki uses Formula One & Formula Two as racing class page titles (as well as Formula Three) and to change an article about one (albeit important) series lacks consistency, to my mind."? P.S. May we should move Formula 3000/5000 pages to the Formula Three Thousand/Five Thousand then? For more consistency. :) Corvus tristis (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the title of the championship is Formula 3, why in the world would we change it to Formula Three? Consistency? We don't change the name of proper titles for consistency, and this is not a case of common title. The title of the category used in the series has no bearing on the correct title of the series. The FIA GT1 World Championship used Group GT3 cars in 2012, we don't change the title to FIA GT3 World Championship.

I'd be fairly certain that the FIA refers to the category as "Formula Three" and that the British championship is stylized as "British Formula 3" (I quite well remember the logo when Stephane Ratel took over the championship). Hence these pages have the correct titles as is. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are drawing an inference which does not exist. No comment was made as to when inconsistency started, merely that this page move seemed inconsistent with the way formulae are usually described in the major articles. You've still not said where your assertion that the term was never used came from or commented otherwise on what is a mass-change without seeking opinions or consensus, which is the way this works and the intention in starting a discussion, (to see what others think). Eagleash (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the table. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@The359: The title did include Formula Three until a very recent series of page moves which have caused some (minor) anomalies. The question is not whether it should be moved to Formula Three but to establish a consensus for the moves away from that designation. Eagleash (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has ever called Formula 3000 "Formula Three Thousand", because that's just ridiculous. Formula Three however is used often, as you can ascertain through a browse of historical sources. You'll note it's used on Wikipedia as a page title for the German Formula Three Championship, French Formula Three Championship, All-Japan Formula Three, and previously the European Formula Three Championship, before it was unilaterally changed by Corvus tristis, so there is certainly no common use of Formula 3 on here.

"Formula Three" and "Formula 3" (or perhaps Formula III) are indeed interchangeable. As Eagleash notes, over the years the race organisers have used both regularly, either due to the branding changing over the years, or perhaps more accurately simply what the person writing the programme decided to use that day. Usage in the media again varies. All major publications covering motorsport will have a style guide, which decides upon using either the number or the letter, while other books or those magazines from a more amateur era will use whatever the writer or editor decides upon. Even then, usage still varies over time; for example Autosport.com currently uses Formula 1/2/3, while an older magazine I'm looking at has Formula One/Three. This all makes it very difficult to standardise on one form on Wikipedia, or make such a bold statement that the British series never used the word three.

Without any firm sources, it's really down to us to decide upon which form to use. I do believe we need our own style guide, and my personal preference is to stick to Formula Three for all series. That is what we use for the category page Formula Three, and it better fits with the manual of style - Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)