Talk:IRacing

C-Class

Quoting from the Quality_scale on the C-Class criteria:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

More detailed criteria:

The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

So regarding souces, the difference between Start and C, is that Start ha no reliable sources ( lacks adequate reliable sources ), while C has at least some.--Sum (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Track list

Is there a source for the list of tracks that are not yet available? --Wean0r (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Track/Car List

Reversed the deletion of those due to the special importance such material has for a simulation. What's being modeled is at the heart of what a simulation is and they're not just irrelevant list with no real importance to the reader. unsigned comment

I agree, and have reverted a good-faith deletion. I agree that large tables as we have now seem inappropriate. Most other racing games either list their content in sentences within a paragraph (ie. Live for Speed, rFactor, F1 2010 (video game)), or have a separate article purely for the (generally lengthy) list (ie. List of Gran Turismo courses, List of Forza Motorsport courses, List of Forza Motorsport cars). It seems the car list is short enough to be rewritten as a paragraph, while the track list is large enough to warrant separation (though notability might be an issue for a stand-alone article).

I suggest rewriting the cars paragraph, with one sentence each for the free base-content cars, road cars, oval cars, and upcoming cars. The track list is both important enough to warrant mention, but not consistent enough to be described in a sentence. While other games can simply state, for example, "All 19 circuits on the 2010 F1 calendar are included in the game", iRacing does not have complete schedules for any major series. The simplest way to present the information would be a wikitable as now, the question is how to handle the admittedly large amount of screen real-estate it occupies. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Series information

This main iRacing.com article isn't the right place for detailed information about series winners, etc. The article was already getting really bloated, and the situation would only get worse with every new series and season. If a series is notable enough to be covered in secondary sources, it can have its own article on Wikipedia. Currently this only applies to the NASCAR series and perhaps to some degree the road racing world championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavaticovelia (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this as well. Perhaps instead of wholesale removal, these results should be moved to a separate article, as commonly happens for other race series (see 2010 IndyCar Series season or List of NASCAR seasons). The list for IRacing need not be as detailed, but I think the format of separating race and season results from the article on the sanctioning body is worth repeating here. Along with those common formats, #1 racers from each premier series season could be left in this main article. Separate articles for each series can be considered if that article becomes too large, or if the series receives significant attention. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists - keep or not, and if so, how can we agree?

Hi

I just restored the lists for two reasons.

1. I believe that "fancruft" is incorrect
2. I like them and feel they add to the article

Firstly, I am fairly neutral about this one, with my opinion moving to and fro in both directions.

I cannot agree to describing it as fancruft, as that really applies to articles as a whole, or to those articles which are mainly comprised the irrelevant or undesired material.

There are other options we can consider, and I would like to propose hiding them in a drop-down, with it defaulting to "hide" on page load.

This will give the option to look if interested, and to hide again once read.

That would satisfy my 50/50 mind, and hopefully both those that may want it in, and those who may think it clutters the article? Chaosdruid (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Tracks

I think you're missing the point - we don't actually need to tell people every car and track that's in the game, especially when it's such a long list. This isn't Gamespot. It's simply not notable that a racing game would feature Silverstone and Daytona. Maybe include a handful of the really notable tracks, or ones that aren't available in any other game (ie "track X made it's debut in iRacing"). Or maybe something like "the game features many European and American favourites, such as Monza and the Nurburgring, combined with a selection of Australian and Japanese circuits".

We run the risk of making the article too long - we should focus on stuff like important cars that aren't anywhere else (eg "Car Y is the oldest car to feature in a videogame"). Maybe summarise by giving the numbers (ie "39 oval courses and 46 road courses") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.41 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

* Do we seriously need to tell people in this article that there are 8 road courses at Oulton Park? Where will it end? Mention the handful of notable ones. We MUST cut the long explicit list. Undue weight, not of interest to the casual reader, etc.