Talk:2018 Supercars Championship

The table

The current format of the table is out of step with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. This table arranges the teams based on the lowest number used by a driver, but without a sequential numbering scheme, it's a mess to behold. When a sequential numbering scheme is not used, WP:MOTOR current follows this format:

1. Alphabetically by constructor/manufacturer.
2. Alphabetically by teams within a constructor/manufacturer.
3. Numerically by rounds contested within a team.
4. Where all drivers contest all rounds, drivers are arranged numerically by car number.

This is the simplest model to follow. It minimises redundancies and limits the potential for multi-row cells overlapping. "We have always done it this way" is not a valid argument. It's an excuse (and a pretty pathetic one at that). We should not be making decisions on how to represent content simply because a previous article in a series did it this way.

Furthermore, I noticed that someone made the argument that the 2015 article handled teams using multiple car models without a problem. But there's a small problem with this—the 2015 table is completely inappropriate. The FG and FG X Falcons are two completely different cars, and so the table should show which rounds the team used the FG for, and which rounds they used the FG X.

I should not need to explain this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BRD process does require an editor wanting to make a case for change to something that has been long standing if challenged. Particularly in light of you unsuccessfully trying to get this up previously. So really you do need to explain this.

Looking at similar motorsport articles; 2017 Formula One season, 2017 MotoGP season and 2017 British Touring Car Championship, all list by team / entrant rather than manufacturer. I don't see how the proposed format change will be in any better position to reflect teams using more then one chassis type in a season, short of adding an extra column to denote which chassis were used at which round. But then that would apply to both formats. Memdo56 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"all list by team / entrant rather than manufacturer"

In the first column, perhaps. But that bold column titled "constructor" is the manufacturer. It's impossible to miss.

"I don't see how the proposed format change will be in any better position to reflect teams using more then one chassis type in a season"

Because the system used in the 2015 Supercars article only indicates that two chassis were used. It doesn't indicate when they were use.

"short of adding an extra column to denote which chassis were used at which round"

You don't think the fact that teams are using completely different models of car is worth highlighting? 2017 World Rally Championship does exactly that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of which format is used, a column will need to be added much live the 'Events' column in the 2017 article to differentiate which drivers raced which model at which round. I don't see how the proposed format will get around this as suggested. So unless I am missing something, that is a moot point.

Not saying it isn't worthy of being discussed, but given that a driver could race with up to 3 engine / chassis combinations, we need to weigh up the pros and cons of being informative with bogging it down with excessive information. The 2003 Formula 1 article where teams used multiple doesn't go into this level of detail.

What you are proposing is to split the chassis column into one for the manufacturer and one for the chassis, and then sort by manufacturer rather than car number, and IMO it isn't necessary. Memdo56 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Not saying it isn't worthy of being discussed"

Then why aren't you discussing it? You insist a discussion is necessary, but then you don't participate for days. Yet when someone makes changes to an article, you revert them within hours. It looks like you're deliberately stalling to prevent the discussion from taking place. And I am always suspicious when a relatively new editor claims a working knowledge of Wikipedia policies (although 3RR doesn't work the way you think it does).

"I don't see how the proposed format will get around this"

There is no way to "get around it". I never said there was. If one driver uses two separate models of car, then there will be some doubling-up of information.

"What you are proposing is to split the chassis column into one for the manufacturer and one for the chassis, and then sort by manufacturer rather than car number, and IMO it isn't necessary"

Except—as I have already pointed out&mdash:it is the format preferred by WP:MOTOR and actually bring structure to a messy, un-ordered table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been discussing am am quite happy to continue doing so, just that at this point, am not in agreement with what is proposed. The format you are proposing is used in some motors sport articles, but by no means universally.Memdo56 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"The format you are proposing is used in some motors sport articles, but by no means universally"

It's used by all of the major ones, and that's good enough for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of counter argument (beyond "we've always done it this way", which amounts to "I don't like it"), I have reintroduced the streamlined table format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed format gives the impression that it is a manufacturers championship. see no reason to add complexity to something that is perfectly functional. Impala27 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impala27 — it is not "perfectly functional". It's a mess. The entire table is organised based on the third column when it should be based on the first, and given the non-sequential numbering, it's haphazard at best. If the cars were numbered 1-2-3-4-5-6, it might have some merit, but instead it's 2-22-5-6-55-9. There is no apparent organisation to it, and large parts of the table are redundant because it repeats other parts of the table. The suggestion that it gives the impression of a manufacturers' championship is grossly overstated. And the version that I put forward is not complicated. It's designed to be streamlined; the eye naturally goes from left to right, so the big, broad details go on the left and the specific details on the right. What's more, this is a format promoted by WP:MOTOR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on table format

I'm going to put this to an RfC because this article doesn't get a lot of editing traffic, and is only edited by a handful of editors, many of whom are infrequent editors.

Right now, there are two approaches that editors want to take to the table in the "teams and drivers" section: Version A and Version B, and editors are divided over which is the best method of presenting the table. The purpose of this RfC is to draw on a wider range of opinions to better inform the decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Version B for the following reasons:

1. It is more consistent with the style of table promoted by WP:MOTOR, such as the tables used at 2017 FIA World Rally Championship and 2017 MotoGP season.
2. I feel that the organisation of Version A is haphazard, as it organises the table based on the third column; furthermore, as the numbers in that column are not sequential, this organisation is not immediately apparent to the casual reader.
3. Version B is a streamlined version of the table. The broad, general details are arranged on the left hand side, and it gradually works towards more specific details on the right. Furthermore, it contains none of the redundancies present in Version A.

I will leave it to a proponent of Version A to argue the case for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The table promoted by WP:MOTOR is not universally used though, BTCC, ETCC and WTCC being examples where Version A is used. For anybody who would like a bit more background, some of the pros and cons were discussed here. Impala27 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Version B From an outside perspective I find this more visually appealing and easier to follow. AIRcorn (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Version B from someone who doesn't know anything. I do recall years ago teams being talked about in terms of Holden etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Version B definitely, although I think the enduro co-driver column needs to be there as well --John, AF4JM (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has now closed. There is a clear preference for Version B to be used im the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Event sponsors

What, exactly does naming event sponsors add to the article? The Adelaide 500 lost Clipsall sponsorship for 2018, but regardless of who puts their name to the event, the Adelaide 500 is going to go ahead in the same calendar berth and with the same format as it did in 2017. The only thing that changes is the signage around the circuit. Look at 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship for comparison: officially, the Australian Grand Prix is the 2017 Rolex Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix, but the article only gives the name as "Australian Grand Prix" because it doesn't matter who sponsors it. 2017 FIA World Rally Championship and 2017 MotoGP season are the same—they don't name sponsors. It's a detail that is better-suited to the individual race articles: for example, the lead of Adelaide 500 says that it is "previously known for sponsorship reasons as the Clipsal 500 Adelaide"; and Supercars Challenge (event) is "known for sponsorship reasons as the Coates Hire Supercars Challenge, and previously known under various other names"; and Bathurst 1000 is "currently branded as the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 for sponsorship reasons". These details don't affect the championship—they only affect peripheral things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the main reason to leave them there (I see that someone else has now added them again) is to ensure consistency with previous seasons. I think this is more important than matching other motorsports series.SchueyFan (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchueyFan — just because we do something on previous pages, that doesn't mean that we have to keep doing it. The sponsor of an event is completely transient, and a detail better-suited to the event's article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding proper references

@Hiflex480 — could you please try to add proper references to the article? What you're sourcing is fine, but how you're filling out the reference template needs work. This is what the most-recent one you added (Davison to 23Red) looks like:

<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/new-23red-racing-locks-in-will-davison/|title=New 23Red Racing locks in Will Davison {{!}} Supercars|work=Supercars|access-date=2017-11-30|language=en-US}}</ref>

But this is what it should look like:

<ref name=":1">{{cite news|url=http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/new-23red-racing-locks-in-will-davison/|title=New 23Red Racing locks in Will Davison|work=supercars.com|publisher=[[Supercars Championship|Supercars]]|accessdate=1 December 2017|date=1 December 2017}}</ref>

First, you need to use a proper date format. The series is Australian, so the article should use Australian English, and this extends to the date format. It's DD-MM-YYYY, not YYYY-MM-DD, and "1 December 2017" is preferred to "01-12-2017" or the like. Speaking of dates, the date of publication is more important than the date of last access.

Secondly, please make sure you get the publisher's details correct. The "work" parameter refers to where it was published while "publisher" is who published it. In this case, it was published on the Supercars website by Supercars; it was not published on Supercars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice. I'm fairly new to all this, so all help can work so I can do what I can right. Hiflex480 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To-do list

@Hiflex480, @Tvx1, @The V8 Cookie — there's a few things that need to be updated that are kind of labour-intensive, so I'm hoping you might be able to help me out with them:

1. The article lead mentions that DJR Team Penske are the teams' champions, but it still needs to mention the drivers' champion. I've only got sources from Speedcafe, which I feel the article relies on too heavily (also, as a lifelong fan of #17 and experiencing the crushing disappointment of Newcastle in person, I can't bring myself to name the drivers' champion).
2. The 2017 article mentions that Ford are the manufacturers' champions. I'm not aware that there is a manufacturers' championship, but Supercars is fourth on my list of must-watch championships (after the WRC, F1 and F2), so I miss rounds quite frequently; it's entirely conceivable that it is awarded and I have no idea about it. If it is indeed a thing, I think we need a results matrix for it.
3. We also need a blank table for the Enduro Cup. It's probably a long-term thing since it doesn't start until August-September, but blank tables are fiddly jobs.

Any help that you can offer would be very much appreciated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Triple Eight wildcard

The Triple Eight wildcard was proposed as a means of testing the then under development V6 With that program officially on hold, although possibly cancelled altogether, the appearance of a Triple Eight wildcard is at best doubtful, so we should not include until such time it appears likely to happen. This article listing all co-drivers including TBAs does not include, so appears Speedcafe are of the opinion it is off. That is further backed up by Triple Eight stating it has pulled all resources from the project. Fecotank (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To reaffirm, Triple Eight has stated, post the V6 cancellation that is is solely focussing on development of the ZB Commodore now the V6 program has been shelved. The wildcard was only proposed as part of the now aborted V6 project, so now this has been shelved, so too the reason for the wildcard entry. Fecotank (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide specifically state that the wildcard has been cancelled. What you are doing is a combination of synthesis—because you are drawing on multiple sources to come to a conclusion supported by none of them—and speculating because you are trying to anticipate what the future looks like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fecotank — you absolutely need sources to prove your claim. Right now, we have a source that says T8 intend to enter a wildcard, but we don't have one that says the wildcard has been shelved. No matter how likely we think it is that the wildcard plan has been abandoned, we can't say it without a source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And what you are doing is point blank resfusing to even think about is practically, instead relying on cites from before the major announcement, that has seen the goalposts move. To include we should be reasonably certain something will occur, and after the cancelation of the core reason for the wildcard entry, that is no longer the case. I notice you haven't refuted with any cites post the announcement. Fecotank (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of "practicality". It's a question of what we can prove with reliable and verifiable sources. Believe it or not, I agree that the wildcard is unlikely to happen—but I don't have any sources to support that. The only claim I can support is the claim that the V6 programme has ended. None of the sources that you provided and none of the other sources that I can find support the claim that the wildcard has been abandoned.

And I don't need to provide a source to refute to claims made post-announcement because none of the sources provided claim the wildcard has been cancelled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Motoring.com.au states:

The engine was due to make some wildcard race entries later this year but, obviously, they now won’t happen. [1]

Auto Action issue 1730 states:

Dane (as in team owner Roland Dane) confirmed the proposed wildcard entry at Bathurst would not proceed.

So right from the horses mouth, it has been cancelled. Cwr09 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, removing it is entirely justified. But there is a big difference between having a reference where Roland Dane says "the wildcard plan has been cancelled" and an editor with no source inferring that it has been cancelled because it was tied to something else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys and Cwr09: While it seems like you may have come to some sort of rough agreement here (based on the last reply), a WP:Third Opinion was requested, and I am willing to provide one if it is still required.

Think issue has now been resolved, thanks @Cwr09: for the cites, @Menaechmi:, I don't think the 3rd opinion is now required, thanks for offering though. Fecotank (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just glad you all got it sorted out menaechmi (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Menaechmi — I take a slightly different view. The issue wasn't so much the content as to how the original edits were justified. The original plan was for Triple 8 to enter a third car—a wildcard entry—in one race, using it to test the new V6 engine. When the V6 project was cancelled, this was used to justify removing the wildcard. However, none of the original sources describing the V6's cancellation said anything about the wildcard. Triple 8 could still enter that wildcard without a V6 engine. To me, this was a clear case of synthesis. There was no mention of the wildcard's cancellation in the sources, only the editor's assumption that the wildcard and the V6 were mutually inclusive—that because the wildcard was proposed to test the V6, the cancellation of the V6 automatically meant that the wildcard was cancelled despite a lack of a source.

Although new sources have since emerged showing that the wildcard has been cancelled, I think the underlying issue still needs to be addressed: how editors go about selecting sources and presenting content in articles in line with Wikipedia policies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: First, let me apologize for not pinging you originally, because I missed that a third editor had chimed in, and had pinged them instead of you. I will give a brief third opinion to this statement. Please remember that Fecotank is a brand new editor, and had yet to be autoconfirmed when they initially made the revision, so getting a few things wrong is forgivable on their part.

While I agree with you, that there was a little bit of synth in spirit, Fecotank was just being WP:BOLD, and removing content per the editing policy (which states "on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content"). A more experienced editor might have added a note to the table that says "* Development of this engine has ceased" with the provided links, or raised the issue on the talk page before making the edit, but removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors is not WP:OR. Ignoring the synth policy in this case was a good thing, because it improved the encyclopedia, and in addition (hopefully) helped educate a new Wikipedian on what constitutes synthesis. menaechmi (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)