Talk:Istanbul Park

Logo
The logo is wrong i think. Because you can see the official logo in the official web site. May somebody change it? --88.233.96.130 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
I corrected the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth (using an overlay photograph of the circuit).--Ciroa 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--

Factual accuracy
"In 2006 with the smaller 2.4 liter V8 engines (instead of the 3.0 liter V10s of previous years) the fastest cars reached 320 km/h, this is not down to power, however, the tyres were a major let down for all participating teams in the 2006 venue." What is this supposed to mean? Smaller engines equal lower top speeds, nothing to do with tyres. 07 tyres are harder yet straight line speeds are higher than they were last year. I don't recall teams complaining about the tyres last season, where is this info from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.78.244 (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2007

Also the kinked back straight does not resemble Eau Rouge in the slightest. Eau Rouge is a fast chicane, not a tame kink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.78.244 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2007

Circuit Map
What are those things marked with dark grey? For me they look like possible alternative track configurations. There's just this one problem that as far as I know, such routes just don't exist. However, there is a shortcut from near the 6th corner to the back straight, which is missing from the map.

Of course I may be wrong because there's not much material available online, but all the few aerial photos lack those dark grey track sections. Therefore I suspect that this track map is at least partially invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.189.62 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2007

Images
I don't wish to engage in an edit war with the anonymous user over the images on this page, but I do wish to see this page at its most useful to the reader. I have used the gallery cleanup template instead of removing the images again in the hope that we can work together to achieve a better result overall for the article.

My dispute with the images is that at the moment they lack context. Though they depict the facilities at Istanbul park, and could technically be called relevant, there is no information provided in the article as to what they are actually showing. Therefore I believe the majority of readers' responses on seeing these images will be something along the lines of "So?". They need to be given some kind of context in the article beyond a simple image caption, otherwise I feel they fail to meet this Wikipedia policy guideline. I appreciate that these images were obtained at expense, and graciously made freely available for use here, but that alone is not justification for their inclusion. They need to contribute to their host article by illustrating something discussed explicitly in the text.

For example, with regards to the, what is going on here? Was this a major part of a race weekend? Was this part of Coca-Cola's corporate hospitality? Did anything noteworthy happen at this stand?

To take another example: what does depict? Is it the main entrance? The entrance to the grand stand? To Petrol Ofisi's hospitality area? Why is that GP2 car there? Can something be mentioned at this point about Petrol Ofisi's sponsorship of the F1 race? (Also, are two images of this one area really necessary?)

What shouldn't now happen is to have weak and undetailed text quickly rushed onto the page with the sole purpose of justifying the images. What should happen is to have detailed, useful, notable and where necessary, referenced information added to expand the page, and the images used to illustrate what is discussed in this text. Feel free to comment and discuss here, as I only want to see the page improved, and if anyone has any input, it is just as valuable as mine.

Lastly, please don't engage in any personal attacks, as happened in an edit summary recently. I don't own this article, and neither does anyone else. The only party we as editors have an obligation to is the reader, for whom the page should be made as useful, informative and clear as possible. Tbone762 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Show some good will. I'm an "inclusionist" and I don't enjoy when someone removes content according to his/her personal opinion. You're not a journalist, magazine columnist or a talk show host, i.e. you don't have to care so much about your presumed "readers/audience" because you don't have any. Wikipedia's goal is to share information and fill in the gaps of the "information puzzle" in the universe. The more you contribute~and help solve the "puzzle", the better. 151.57.157.162 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with you about the audience of the article, and the audience of Wikipedia. Its goal is to create an encyclopedia about everything that everyone can use. While the infinite nature of that task makes it impossible to achieve that goal, what is not impossible is the continual improvement of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean the continual adding of information, with no thought for the reader. If you researched it enough and found enough information, you could fill an entire encyclopedia on a comparitively small subject as Istanbul Park, but a reader wouldn't find it very useful. On Wikipedia, the majority of articles are kept shorter by the principle that the article has to be useful to the reader. Pages upon pages of facts, figures, images, reports and data are worth almost nothing when compared to a shorter, more summarised, still detailed, but most importantly clearer article. So yes, we do have an obligation to the reader, and no it is not simply a case of "the more you contribute the better", unless you clarify that with "in a clear and useful manner".


 * With regards to this particular situation, I initially removed the images simply because I didn't see any context. That isn't my personal opinion, that's Wikipedia policy. However, having discussed the images further, I now believe I was wrong in that instance and that they do have a place on the page, but not in their current format. They need context, not simply to be placed on the page and to let the reader figure out what they are supposed to be showing. As the person who created the images, I feel you may be better qualified than me to create that context.


 * PS I know the template said to move them to the commons, but as I have explained above, I don't feel that is the best solution here. I didn't create the template, I simply placed it there to highlight the fact that the gallery needs attention. Tbone762 (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Subsections
Do we really need a separate subsection for every F1 and MotoGP race held at the circuit? DH85868993 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intercity Istanbul Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010100156/http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/Pages/truck.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/Pages/truck.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intercity Istanbul Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312165546/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33874 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33874

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Intercity Istanbul Park → Istanbul Park – WP:COMMONNAME. The WP:OFFICIALNAME is Intercity Istanbul Park, however the common name neglects to include "Intercity" (which is simply advertisment for the owner). The following sources provide evidence for the commonname of Istanbul Park:official f1 site, planetf1, race fans, thechequeredflag, the independent, BBC, sky... SSSB (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per nominator, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom as WP:COMMONNAME. Speedcafe also uses just "Istanbul Park", eg in this article . A7V2 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Not very much to say which hasn't been already. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:DDA:D67F:428F:41C7 (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Going through Autosport's articles from the past day or so the circuit is overwhelmingly referred to just as "Istanbul" with a few uses of "Istanbul Park" (usually to differentiate it from the city) and no references at all to "Intercity". 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:183B:9A80:C175:A5D6 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Support. After 2013 the the name rights of track sold. Also Intercity İstanbul Park is common; Formula1.com, Official Site of track, AA.com, Sabah.com, dha.com, ntvspor.net... Anyway a redirect and mentioning official name on introduction may helpful... chansey  msg?  14:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  No opinion , but I may have a new opinion after the race is held, just like our discussion over at 70th Anniversary. Admanny (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * changed to Support - there is barely any reference to the use of "Intercity" in the name even in the F1 broadcast, so COMMONNAME is good enough. Similar scenario to "CM.com Circuit Zandvoort" that I tried to change earlier. Admanny (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a week, close this off? Very clear support for dropping Intercity. Admanny (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per commoname, Reuters is also using just "Istanbul Park". Snowflake91  (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.