Talk:2008 Indianapolis 500

Name
The 2008 running of the Indianapolis 500 will be the 92nd rendition, but most sources will exhibit its name as the 2008 Indianapolis 500, including the promotional materials, with the 92nd running of a sub-tag to the more prominent one. Therefore, I say the name should be changed, along with aligning it successfully with all previous Indianapolis 500 page names. --Chr.K. 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name as the page title, even if the formal name is different from the most commonly used name.  See WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME. Chuck 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion (it was so quick it went unnoticed), but after considerable work and peer review, all of the Indy 500 pages are correctly named by the year, not the ordinal. It needs to stay that way. Doctorindy (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

More competitive?
As we've seen from the IRL season opener at Homestead, the ex-ChampCar teams are unlikely to be serious competitors in time for the 500. Maybe the included quote needs balancing?--MartinUK (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking St. Pete's results into consideration, I think we should leave it as is...it was a statement made by a "so-called expert" at a recognized site. Doctorindy (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * St. Pete's is a street course, which the ChampCar guys have far more experience of. Only two ex-CC drivers had ever raced on an oval before Homestead. They will need to use the practice time to have any real chance of reaching the first four rows, let alone fighting for the pole or win.

Sections
Taking some guidance from a similair topic style page...Super Bowl XLII...another annual sports event report page, I broke some of the text into a couple new sections Doctorindy (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Time Trial Chronology
From http://indy500.tjs-labs.com/list-qual?year=2008 via the Daily Trackside Reports. I'll leave it to someone industrious to make it match the style of the article --Mycroft.Holmes (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I added a few things in putting the table together: Foyt's non-attempt and Junqueira's attempt (see ), and times and speeds for incomplete attempts (see ). Chuck (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Split practice/quals into separate page?
I wanted to point to my suggestion to split the practice and qualification details into a separate page which I've posted on the Talk:2007 Indianapolis 500 page. Please weigh in there. Chuck (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Once the race is over, it's "old news" really. I think one page for each year's month of May activities is enough. Pages for each Super Bowl are pretty long too, with some of the most important info all the way down at the bottom...much the same really. However, SUGGESTION- when the race is over (and this can be done for 2007 now, is to move the RACE BOX SCORE and RACE TEXT SUMMARY to the top, because that is the most important information.Doctorindy (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of moving the box score and text recap up, because it makes sense to have the events in chronological order, I think. Chuck (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to put my two cents into the equation. I think it needs to be one page. The month of May is reserved for the 500. The Daytona 500 starts in January with practice ending in the two weeks of Speedweeks in February.  The only thing that I don't agree with is having practice speeds on the same page or noted at all. I really think it should be dedicated to what matters, qualifying and the race. What I think should be done is get rid of the practice, make a note at the top about the race, much like the 2008 Daytona 500 page, then qual and race notes. Mustang  Six  Zero  22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference though is that practice for Indy is much more significant than practice for Daytona, or any other race. They have 10 full days dedicated to practice, as opposed to a couple 1 hour sessions. Since we've limited it to a "top 5 for the day" and not much more than a couple sentences, I don't see the practice days as obtrusive. In fact, for 2008 even more than '07, the chronological story it tells (a lot of rain) helps the reader understand the whole story of the month.Doctorindy (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would help greatly if, like the Formula One articles you mention, Practice was summarized in a single section, or at least only mentioning significant events, rather than a significant event for each and every day. Too much emphasis is placed on what should be the shortest section of the article.  I would suggest 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans as an example of a good race report for a long, drawn out event like Indy. The359 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Le Mans practice/quals is a grand total of 3 days. And each day has several paragraphs. Indy has 10 days of practice (and 4 qualifying days), and each practice day has one paragraph or just a sentence. I don't see any reason to change. Doctorindy (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to agree with DoctorIndy. Being a fan of all types of American Auto Racing from open wheel, to closed wheel, to two wheel, no other type of sporting event surpasses the hype and the lead up that the month of May produces for the Indianapolis 500. The whole story of the race is told in the days leading up to the event to include qual and practice.  It is even more important to keep this all together in a year of reunification.  I have changed my mind, keep it one page since the whole month revolves around this one event. Mustang  Six  Zero  14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Mans's "practice" days are qualifying though, so it's understandable for them to be expanded into several paragraphs, especially since they concern the qualifications of four different classes at the same time. Indy having 10 days of dedicated practice does not negate the fact that they are still practice.  Just because Indy has more practice than anything else out there does not make it that important in a summary of the whole month.  There's no need for the Top 5 and reviews for every single day, especially if nothing really happened.  I find the chronology of every single person to make a qualifying attempt to even be a bit much.  The359 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually The359 practice times are important to the INDY 500 due to the way qualifying is conducted. The top speeds for that day help to understand how qualifying pans out.  Indy 500 qualifying is totally different from any other race.  It is based on the average of 4 laps and each team gets 3 runs per day if they choose.  If you don't get in the first day, you go the next.  Due to the way this is set up, you will actually, from time to time, find faster cars in the middle to the back than those in the front.  A chronology of qualifying helps you to understand how a driver got into the race, especially when you have bump day on the last day.  I have seen drivers be bumped out of the race, then bump someone else out, only to be bumped out again.  This style of qualifying is what is unique to Indy, especially when you have upwards of 50 to 60 cars trying to make the field, which was often the case in pre IRL years.  No disrespect, but no race, not even Le Mans can surpass the excitement or grueling course of the month of May.  I stand my ground. Mustang  Six  Zero  20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By that logic, every practice session for every race event should have results and a summary. Because practice inherently helps one understand preperation for qualifying.  But we don't, because it's common sense that practice affects qualifying.  That doesn't mean we need the results for every practice session.  Indy qualifying is not that unique, the practice is no more special than any other practice session for any other event.


 * A chronology of qualifying is too much detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a database of every conceivable measure and time in regards to the Indy 500.  The average ready cares about who qualified, where, and who didn't qualify.  They don't particularly need to know many attempts it took, who failed to complete an attempt, etc.  Yes, a driver being bumped and getting back in, or a driver withdrawing and moving up a large number of spots is nice, but it'd be better to simply describe these events rather then present a chart which can, to the average reader, be confusing.


 * And just in case you seem to be confused on this, I've been attending Indy since I was around 10. I know how Indy works and I know how big it is.  Chart after chart after chart isn't excitement, and practice sessions where nothing happens is not excitement either.  If it were, it'd be on television and covered in depth by the sports media.  The359 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be right that a qualifying "chronology" is a lot, but Wiki is also an almanac. And a lot of people do a lot of work to make it such. In addition, there is plenty of internet news sources covering the practice and qualifications. The only reason practice is not on TV anymore right now is because ESPN decided to allocate that money towards HD equpiment for race coverage. At the same time, extensive coverage of time trials is still on TV. This is the FOURTH year we have been doing detailed pages for the Indianapolis 500, and we've gone through these decisions already. Indeed some might be new to the work, but this stuff has already been debated to death in previous months of May. The Wikiproject AOWR has already established a long since accepted way of doing things, and putting 'extra emphasis' on the Indianapolis 500 is a cornerstone of the whole project. Doctorindy (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is not an Almanac. Per WP:NOT, Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader.  A written description of what happened on Pole Day mentioning major moves by drivers, teams, and drivers who were bumped, would be 10x better than a simple list detailing every little event, some of which, honestly, do not merit mention in a summary.  First and foremost, your graph does not offer any description of Graham Rahal's third and final attempt at qualifying, nixed by his team's mistake in not bringing new tires.  So quite honestly, you're not telling the story well at all.


 * The amount of work put into it does not make it worth having on Wikipedia. And practice for the 500 has rarely, if ever to my memory, been given much air time beyond reviews.  Certainly nothing like qualifying or the race.  This goes back to long before HD even existed.


 * Previous decisions do not mean that they are set in stone. It does not mean it cannot be debated again.  WP:AOWR's emphasis on the Indy 500 is fine and everything, but that does not mean you may not have overstepped the bounds of what is too much emphasis, and what is too long of an article.


 * I was not the one to originally raise the point that this article is too long. I have suggested ways to fix this, shortening the length of the article, by eliminating things which do not need emphasis and which can be eliminated without changing the "story" of the month of May and at the same time help steamline the article. The359 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's inaccurate to talk about Graham Rahal's third "attempt" on pole day when his car never even made it onto the track for such an attempt. It's not included in the qualifying chronology chart because there was no third attempt.
 * You are completely right that the qualifying chronology chart doesn't tell the whole story, because it doesn't include things such as that. But no one here is suggesting that the only the charts should be included, to the exclusion of a textual description of the events.  Be bold and add a mention in the text of Rahal's inability to make a third attempt on pole day due to his team's failure to provide new tires! It's certainly relevant.
 * Your argument seems to basically boil down to "a textual description would be better than charts" which is certainly true, but is not a reason to delete the charts, since that would rely on the false proposition that we can have charts or we can have text, but not both. If the current textual description is insufficient, the solution is to expand the text, not to delete the charts--after which the text would still be insufficient.
 * Also, note that Wikipedia is, in part, an almanac: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I think the "specialized encyclopedia" is also relevant here: Wikipedia goes far beyond the limitations of a general encyclopedia.  The fact that the "average reader" would not be interested in all these details is not relevant, because Wikipedia content is not limited to that which is only of interest to the "average reader." By design, Wikipedia includes much information that is only of interest to the reader who wants to explore a topic much more deeply than the "average reader" does. Chuck (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that it has correctly been pointed out that the article is incredibly long, and will continue to get longer in the coming week. Some things, inherently, have to be changed or removed so that the article does not become too massive.  I still think that practice should be summarized in a single point and that the top 5 for each practice day can be done away with.  As can the Qualifying chronology based simply on the fact that it is a complicated chart, and inherently repeats information already available in the qualifying results.  Yes, Wikipedia can contain more information, but you must also remember that the average reader is still reading the article, and has to be able to understand it.  It also means that we do not inherently include all information that is too trivial or has little bearing on the description of the topic.


 * For comparison, the 2007 race article is 78 kb in size. 2008 Formula One season is 81 kb for an article covering an entire year.  I know Indy is damn important, but I think the article is simply too big and too poorly planned out for a proper Wikipedia article. The359 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that the Qualifying chronology should be removed and I wouldn't be opposed to moving the practice speeds into a separate article. The writeups for the individual days of practice should be combined into one semi-coherent narrative and there should be a combined practice report for week 1 and week 2 (say maybe top 10 or 20 speeds of the week). I think that's a good compromise between inclusion and keeping it manageable and putting the emphasis on the important parts of the month. -Drdisque (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems after all back and forth discussion, all it boils down to one person thinking "this article is too long." The 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans article was offered as an example of a "better planned" article, and as I look at it, the 2007 Indianapolis 500 and 2008 Indianapolis 500 follow it practically to a t! Same structure, ...general info, followed by rules/news, entry list, practice, quals, race text, race box. With that in mind, I noticed that the ENTRY LIST was added to the Indy 500 page this year, and to me, that's relatively unnecessary because that information is already available on 2008 IndyCar Series season. I suggest deleting the entry list, and instead adding a like to the Team & Driver Chart on the season page. That would really cut back on the size and "scroll length." As far as Wiki policiy is concerned...tables and lists, references, are not readable prose, and any article size issues are exempt in those parts.Doctorindy (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So that we don't continue this rather meaningless debate all race week, I'll go ahead and lend support to adding 2008 Indianapolis 500 practice and qualifications as long as no tables or information are deleted. In the spirit of "Information should not be deleted", and taking an example from another page with a lot of text and a lot of tables to accompany it...2008 Dem Primary...(which was broken off into a sub-page with more details "results" listed), I'll support that change if it ends this debate. Doctorindy (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that "Information should be not deleted" does not apply to irrelevant information. The debate here is how relevant some of the information is, or how it could be better displayed or written.  I'm not for splitting the article into two pages, I just feel it can be better displayed here with keeping it on one page. The359 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one who feels practice & time trials are "irrelevant." I feel if we put it to a vote, the regular editors of this page will find it to be "relevant." For the record, my vote is Relevant and add sub page for practice & quals. The erroneous claim that the page was "incredibly long" as already been aleviated a bit by removing the chrono chart, and suggesting the dropping of the entry list. Doctorindy (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain I am not the only one who has expressed the belief that some things can be deleted in order to shorten the article, or that some things can be reorganized. Including the Qualifying chronology and the Top 5 from each practice day.


 * Please remember that this is not a vote, and that consensus is required. "Regular editors" to the article do not have more say, as they do not "own" the article, and any opinions are welcomed on Wikipedia.  Yes, your suggestion has been to remove the Entry List, but other suggestions have been made, so no, the problem has not been fixed.  The359 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"And practice for the 500 has rarely, if ever to my memory, been given much air time beyond reviews. Certainly nothing like qualifying or the race." One person's personal memory does not replace fact. ESPN/ESPN2 covered practice LIVE from 1993-2006. In some years it was upwards of two hours a day. It was scheduled to be covered via live reports in 2007, but the money was, a last minute, allocated elsewhere.
 * I don't recall ever stating that my memory replaced fact? The359 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm going to recommend that you read WP:RECENT and WP:SHRINK and think about them for a minute. Pc13 (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing us to those two essays. I especially liked the "benefits of recentist articles" section in the first one. Chuck (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With "Recentism" in mind, it should be noted that the individual Indianapolis 500 pages have been part of a (long) ongoing effort to be expanded one-by-one. Starting with the impressive expansion of 1911 Indianapolis 500 and 1912 Indianapolis 500, to name a couple. Doctorindy (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Entry list
I don't think it's necessary to have the "Tires" column in the entry list table. Firestone is the sole tire supplier, and has been since 2000, and will be for at the very least the next couple of years. They used to have the "C/E/T" on all entry lists, box scores, etc., but that's when they had Goodyear and Firestone entered. We've removed the tires from the season page entry list as well. I think a blanket footnote at the bottom of the table will suffice for the tire make. Doctorindy (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chrono List
Being bold I removed the chronological chart. I know someone worked hard on it, but it is too long and unneeded. All info can be seen in the official reports tab and other websites. I agree with the current format of the article (all in one for now) and like the summary and chart mix. However, this chart I removed was an eyesore to that mix. We need the results and a nice summary, not every step along the way. Even combine the results and summary with a chart if you like, but this chart is too much. The only info given on the chart not alreay included in the article would be small. If it was big enough, it would be given in text already. Do we need this long overbearing chart just to tell us that the green flag was not waved on x attempt and it did not count? NeuGye (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we break off a seperate sub page.....2008 Indianapolis 500 practice and qualifications....I suggest adding it back. Both I concur, it should be removed from the main page for now. Doctorindy (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished it up and put it over on my sandbox for now in case we decide to put it back, either here or on a separate page. Chuck (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Know that your work is appreciated.Doctorindy (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't want anyone to think that I favor its inclusion because of the work involved (which was less than you might think, anyway). The chart should stand or fall on its own merits. I happen to think it merits inclusion in 2008 Indianapolis 500 practice and qualifications, but that's because of the useful information it provides, not because of the work involved. Chuck (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the qual chronology is important and interesting. If a separate qual page is NOT created, then this table should be added back to the article. --Mycroft.Holmes (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entry list backup
For the purposes of dropping the entry list, now that time trials is over, I've dumped it here. Note that a link to the official Entry List on indy500.com is also included. Doctorindy (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Entry list current as of May 15, 2008.
 * All entries utilize Firestone tires
 * (R) denotes race rookie
 * (W) denotes former Indy 500 winner

Final race results
Even the qualifying sessions have summaries on this wikipage, but not the final race. That looks odd. I was expecting some prose on how Dixon won the race and a few words on the crash that knocked out a few cars. The section looks unfinished. I hope someone familiar with the race can fill in the missing texts. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not done soon...I'll take care of it. Doctorindy (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an issue with the laps lead in the box score - the total of all the laps led in the box score equals 201 laps. Someone is being credited with a lap they did not lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.47.253 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Briscoe's Nationality
It's reported in the results section that Ryan Briscoe is from the United States, even though he is Australian. I'm just pointing this out as i dont know how to change the flags next to the names so hopefully that can be fixed.Baggers89 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Indycar series directv.png
The image Image:Indycar series directv.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2008 Indianapolis 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603001748/http://www.indystar.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/SPORTS0107/805310435/1052/SPORTS01 to http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/SPORTS0107/805310435/1052/SPORTS01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2008 Indianapolis 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090605113044/http://www.indystar.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/SPORTS0107/80509042/1217&GID=pUvVoBjqubqIqDUDX4WdEu/4H7Bs8/zxW029zm7WkFQ%3D to http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/SPORTS0107/80509042/1217&GID=pUvVoBjqubqIqDUDX4WdEu/4H7Bs8/zxW029zm7WkFQ%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)