Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing/Archive 3

Would like to create Open Wheel to-do task box
The F1 Wikiproject has a task box that lists what is on the to-do list, and I'd like to make one for the Open Wheel project.

It would look a lot like this:

 [edit] WikiProject Formula 1 Open Tasks 

and would be based off of the code here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Task_template&action=edit

What do you think? (I might just go ahead and do this anyway in the near future if I remember, but I thought input would be good as well). Guroadrunner 12:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I acted boldly and made something. See WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing/Task template. It looks like this:

 [ edit ] WikiProject Open Wheel Racing  Open Tasks 
 * Looks good. That should help anyone who's looking for something to do! Royal broil  22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to it at the bottom of the to-do list. I need to fix the "Edit" link before the code is openly released (see the hidden code in the to-do list). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Somebody should give the user Albinomonkey from the F1 project a barnstar, as she/he fixed the edit link for the AOWR task box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * YOU should award the barnstar since you are most familiar with the situation. You can find more information here: WP:BARN. Anyone can award a barnstar. Royal broil  04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Langhorne (AAA 1930-55, USAC 1956-70)

 * In the Langhorne Speedway article, I was able to add a lot of Race of Champions history and some NASCAR Grand National history, but the Indycar material is lacking (other than the results tables) and I didn't dig for sources in that area. Can anyone here start expanding that section?  Thanks. Barno 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

British vs. English/Scottish
Just wanted to point out that Pc13 has opened discussion about the use of British flags vs. English/Scottish flags over at the parent project, for anyone who's missed it. Chuck 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Indy 500 drivers and Category:Female Indy 500 drivers
Are Category:Indy 500 drivers and subcategory Category:Female Indy 500 drivers intended to include only drivers who actually started the race, or are they also intended to include drivers who attempted to qualify? I notice that someone recently removed Desiré Wilson from Category:Female Indy 500 drivers on the basis that she never actually drove in the race. Whatever the decision is, it's probably worth explicitly documenting it in the category articles. -- DH85868993 02:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that you have to actually start (or to say more explictly "be the driver of record") in the Indy 500 in either case. I would support the decision to remove her from the cat. Royal broil  03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of interest (and not suggesting it should influence the decision in this case), at WP:F1 we've taken the opposite approach, and Category:Formula One drivers includes all drivers who have attempted to qualify for an F1 race, regardless of whether or not they ever actually started a race. (Although I see that, contrary to my own advice above, it doesn't explicitly state that in the category description - will fix!) -- DH85868993 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I question even having a male/female differentiation at all, but for some fans who root for Danica (or Sarah or Milka) specifically because of their femininity. As it stands, I support DH, on the inclusion of all who've ever turned a practice lap, and insodoing at least took thought of attempting to qualify for the 500. --Chr.K. 01:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1916 Indy 300/500
It would appear that the 1916 Indianapolis race was planned (and run) as a 300 mile race rather than the usual 500 miles (Just Google for "1916 Indianapolis 300" to find lots of references). So, should 1916 Indianapolis 500 be renamed as 1916 Indianapolis 300? Note that I would recommend retaining 1916 Indianapolis 500 as a redirect. -- DH85868993 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The race was indeed scheduled for 300 miles...titled the "International 300-mile Sweepstakes." Supposedly, the reason they made it 300 miles was because of WWI they made it 500 kilometers. True the conversion isn't exact, but it's relatively close, and close enough for the day. It's NEVER referred to as, say, the "1916 Indy 300," it has always been simply footnoted that it was "scheduled for 300 miles." Neither is it ever excluded from the statistics of the annual 500-mile race. For that matter, I don't really see any reason to move it, since it is such a minor blip on the history's radar. Doctorindy 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see it as the 1916 Indy 500, but it is a weak preference. I set up a redirect from 1916 Indy 300 to 1916 Indy 500. An article can always be moved to what redirects to it. Royal broil  23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the article to retain it's current name, as described above. I just thought I'd ask the question. I've added "International 300-mile Sweepstakes" back into the list of Previous Names in the Indianapolis 500 infobox; it had previously been removed on the assumption that it was vandalism. DH85868993 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The race was scheduled for 300 miles mainly due to the need for wartime conservation for many of the foreign teams; if not for WWI, I doubt it would have been shortened at all. Later, in 1976, a race that was scheduled for 500 miles went 255 because of rain; 1916 can basically be accepted as a distance shortened by special circumstances instead of the usual reason. Keep it as the 1916 running of the Indianapolis 500. --Chr.K. 01:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Project picture
Can we please change it from something DanicaMania-oriented, and which isn't even up-to-date, anymore? Say, a picture of the Hornish/Andretti finish at Indy, 2006...? Maybe one of the Marmon Wasp, Foyt's 1961 car, and Hornish's '06? Any ideas outside of Danica-at-[insert], Danica-looking-frustrated, Marco-talking-to-Danica...i.e., legitimate stuff, would be welcome. --Chr.K. 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just uploaded a number of 2007 Indy 500 images from a flickr friend to Commons. You can find them here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_Indianapolis_500 . There's a nice image of Marco and Michael Andretti side-by-side - it would appeal to new and old school people. Let's make a gallery and vote. Royal broil  05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the picture, but Michael is hardly "old school" to people who've been attending the 500 since the early '70s and before. The roadsters, for one example, are legendary American open-wheel icons.  Should the new picture thus reflect the history? --Chr.K. 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No insult intended, as I started watching the Indy 500 on TV in the 1970s. I meant "old school" as someone who is not a current weekly driver. The WikiProject pic for other motorsports WikiProjects show current cars, so I'm more inclined to use something current. There is a reason to use an older image though: It would be nice to use something before CART/IRL split to keep everyone happy. Please propose some historic (read prior to split) free use images to the gallery below so we can continue this discussion. I am opposed to using the image of any driver. Royal broil  05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would take some serious touching-up to mix images of the Ralph DePalma image to one of a roadster, then in turn of a modern winged machine. If nothing else is voted for, I agree on the Michael/Marco pic. --Chr.K. 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some basic photo editing skills, so I gave it a try. I can edit the original image if you have any suggestions/changes. Royal broil  04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the original Project Info Box...along with a lot of other "start-up" duties (it was a lot of work, and I originally had very little help), and for the record, the picture had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Danica-mania, an agenda, or the like. It's just a picture. Wiki is strict about making sure the photos are not copyright violations, so just about every photo that gets posted has to be a picture one of us took personally. I actually had that photo, which I took, loaded to be displayed on Danica's page. I needed a photo of an Indy car to place in the Project box, so I grabbed that one. Feel free to edit the picture as appropriate. Like I said, I needed a picture, and that's one I already had...I feel it's time to change it too anyway. Doctorindy 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort, Doctorindy. I like the picture! Since it seems like time to move to an updated or at least different picture/image, what are your thoughts? Royal broil  16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the picture of Marco & Michael is nice, however, I really think it would be fitting that if we have to pick one photo, and since Indianapolis is by far the most important event of all AOW, I think we should at least pick a photo of someone who has won Indy (preferrably a picture of him winning the race). I don't think it's bad that the picture be "recent," because (looking at the DePalma picture) although we may consider it, the common fan doesn't immediately think "1910's & 1920's front engine cars" when they AOW. Doctorindy 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon consideration, I concur. The cropped Dario image is the best; it wouldn't be a hard stretch to change it every June for the new winner...both for its own sake, to show any others that the project is definitely keeping up with things. Only problem I have is that Champ Car fans might get pissed, as half the project is dedicated, with good reason, to "their side" (for those who have them...I've seen enough vandalizations of the Indy 500 page to know some rather venomous ones still do). Perhaps...the previous year's 500 winner (Dario, for 2008) and ChampCar season champion, in split higher/lower images? EDIT: Incidentally, had meant no disrespect on the image; have just gotten tired of hearing the NONstop Danica coverage, oozing out given EARS, when completely deserving drivers are overlooked due to sexual politics. In any case, glad to hear you agree on "time for a change." --Chr.K. 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like #4 the best too. I didn't have time to comment yesterday, just upload the pic. I stay away from the split issue, because I was one of the fans lost in the split. My interest has been rekindled a bit lately. I'm fine with either just the Indy 500 winner or a split image as proposed. Royal broil  12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added another picture of Dario to consider, looking from the outside of the track, just another view. Would need to be cropped. Doctorindy 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think #4 remains the best Franchitti shot, based on clarity and color of the picture. Underneath, a cropped image, hopefully of equal clarity, should be placed of Bourdais' car in a recent race. --Chr.K. 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the #4 picture better because the orange is brighter. My camera does even worse with orange! I combined Franchitti with Bourdais for #6, which I love (I love the #6 combination image). It gets my vote. A fair way to deal with the IRL/Champ split issue. Royal broil  03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Might need another Bourdais shot; having it directly from the side makes his car look slightly bulgy next to the "Mark XII Dynamocam" (aka, brilliant) shot of Franchitti... --Chr.K. 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)I saw the problems with the Bourdais shot too. I think we need to use this shot anyhow because I doubt we'll find anything better. We shouldn't wait. We will want to change if we find something better. Excellent shots like the Franchitti picture don't come to Wikipedia very often. Royal broil 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor then, provided we have the third "triumvirate" (*grins*) member's agreement. --Chr.K. 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go with it...I say let's get it done Doctorindy 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking ahead, btw, with an eye toward constructive progress, I say we should stick to the 500 winner for the IRL side, rather than championship winner, in any subsequent alterations. Upon conceivable reunification, the split image should remain, 500 winner over national champion, given that the former has always had first emotional billing over the latter. --Chr.K. 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as long as we have images of each to use. There was a number of Wikipedians who took images at Indy this year, so we likely will have an image of the 500 winner each year. Royal broil  12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Andretti Curse on articles for deletion
You can give your opinion on the merits of the article here: Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. Royal broil 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

F1 races held in the USA
Over at WP:F1 we've (pretty much) decided to change all instances of "United States Grand Prix West" to "Long Beach Grand Prix" and instances of "United States Grand Prix East" to "Detroit Grand Prix". The only thing we still have to decide, for each location, is whether to to have separate articles for the F1 and CART/ChampCar/Indycar races, or just the one article covering both categories. Members of this project may care to participate in the discussion. -- DH85868993 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lotus 96(T)
Was the 1980s Lotus Indycar called the "96" or the "96T"? Up until recently there was an article called Lotus 96 which internally identified the car as just the "96" (i.e. without the "T") but in the past 24 hours PaulGreasley has: It's fairly obvious (to me) that there should only be one article (with the other as a redirect perhaps), but I'm not sure which is the correct name. Google produces a lot more hits for "96" than "96T". -- DH85868993 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * substantially updated Lotus 96 (including changing all instances of "96" to "96T"), and
 * created Lotus 96T, which is very similar/identical to Lotus 96.
 * I didn't remember that Lotus had a IndyCar in the 1980s - I thought it was F1 only. The two should be merged, except if they were two completely different cars that share no evolutionary history. Would you propose the merge by tagging each article? I will take a guess that the article without the T should be kept.  Royal broil  04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys,

The correct naming of the Lotus Type 96 is in fact the 96T. I have checked this with Clive Chapman of Classic Team Lotus. The inclusion of the suffix "T" denotes to the car being Turbocharged. I believe the 96T was to run on Garrret turbochargers. I have also clarriefed this with numerous books on Lotus. I apprecaite that Google is a useful search toll on this matter, but unfortunately it is type-wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs)

Hello again, I have no problems with the articles being merged. And Im sorry if my actions have casued people to be upset. I am however happy that wikipedia can provide some more information on this very rare - but very attractive car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not upset, I just want it done right. Sounds like we have the solution - use Lotus 96T and setup a redirect to it from Lotus 96. Royal broil  13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I requested to Paul that he should merge the text that he erased from the former Lotus 96 article. The text is located at Talk:Lotus 96T. Royal broil  13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Champ's template
I see this was made...I think we should make one for IRL as well. It could probably use a little reformatting here and there, but it's a work in progress. Doctorindy 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I think I can get a book that shows all the AAA and USAC national title winners, as well, so two more could be created. --Chr.K. 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone already has it online, in which case by all means, get it up. --Chr.K. 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyres at Indy 1950-1960
Can anyone confirm/deny (or better yet, provide a source) that Firestone supplied all the tyres at Indy from 1950-1960 (i.e. when it was a round of the World Drivers' Championship)? Thanks. DH85868993 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunlop was there only four years later, and was the tire responsible for the suspension failure on Clark's car, so I would find it highly questionable that NO other tire type was used. However, if it can be shown, in statistics, what brand was used in given years, please show me the link: we need it for a Tire section on the more detailed Indy 500 box scores (the ones for 1911 and '12). --Chr.K. 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Every indication is that Firestone was the only provider from 1950-1960. I do not think that they had an exclusivity contract, it was just that they were the only provider. All 33 cars in every race from '50-'60 used Firestone. There's no clarification if anyone practiced with another tire, however. In 1961, 1 car (Jack Brabham's rear-engined car) used Dunlop. It's a personal site source (iffy as far as Wiki's source rules) but here's a summary Doctorindy 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doc. DH85868993 02:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2
Created a second archive of the talk page. Link is above. Doctorindy 18:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

McNamara chasis??
We are working on improving Mario Andretti's article to Good Article status. He is listed as driving a McNamara in some Indy 500s in 1970 and 1971. It's wikilinked, but to a disambiguation page, and none of the options there seem relevant. Should this be de-linked, linked to some other article I don't know about, or red-linked to a new McNamara (constructor) type page? I think red-link to McNamara (constructor), but I know little about chasis articles or chasis in general. Royal broil 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it. Oddly, it was a short lived German single seater constructor, run by an expat American. See here and here. 4u1e 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Season page names
"(Given year) in IRL" does not have the same panache as "(Given year) CART World Series/CCWS Season." We need to realign the IRL season pages appropriately. --Chr.K. 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's totally necessary, but it should be noted that since 2003, it could/should be referred to as the 200? IndyCar Series season Doctorindy 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur on the names past 2003. As for necessity, anything that can add to the professionalism of the presentation of the project is worth pursuing. --Chr.K. 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, I propose moving the following changes...


 * Optional...
 * 1996 in IRL ---> 1996 Indy Racing League season
 * 1996-1997 in IRL ---> 1996-1997 Indy Racing League season
 * 1998 in IRL ---> 1998 Indy Racing League season (note...was actually Pep Boys Indy Racing League)
 * 1999 in IRL ---> 1999 Indy Racing League season (note...was actually Pep Boys Indy Racing League)
 * 2000 in IRL ---> 2000 Indy Racing League season (note...was actually Indy Racing Northern Light Series)
 * 2001 in IRL ---> 2001 Indy Racing League season (note...was actually Indy Racing Northern Light Series)
 * 2002 in IRL ---> 2002 Indy Racing League season
 * Confirmed...
 * 2003 in IRL ---> 2003 IndyCar Series season
 * 2004 in IRL ---> 2004 IndyCar Series season
 * 2005 in IRL ---> 2005 IndyCar Series season
 * 2006 in IRL ---> 2006 IndyCar Series season
 * 2007 in IRL ---> 2007 IndyCar Series season

I say change the ones since 2003, since they are most recent, and most relevant for the continuity. Doctorindy 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say move all of them. We just went through this discussion at WP:NASCAR, and the "in" part is awkward. Skip the Pep Boys part for consistency. My $0.02 - Royal broil  01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur...move all of them. I agree about leaving out Pep Boys and Northern Light...just call 1996-2002 (xxxx Indy Racing League Season)....call the ones since 2003 (xxxx IndyCar Series season)....Is there some sort of Bot that will go through and help us change all of the redirects when it comes to "xxxx in IRL" because there are a lot now. That might be usefull. Doctorindy 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, for the ones since 2003....the proper way to spell it (according to official IRL letterheads and media paraphernalia is one word, with the "I" and the "C" in "IndyCar" and the "S" in Series all capitalized, while the "s" in season, per Wiki rules, would not be capitalized...for example...2007 IndyCar Series season Doctorindy 14:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could do it with my AutoWikiBot. Yesterday I noticed on someone else's talk page that updating the redirects is actually not preferred - you should only do it if its a double redirect. Here's the explanation of the feature: How to rename (move) a page. I was always changing the redirect up to this week. Royal broil  14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You two should both consider getting the semi-automated bot. It's actually called AutoWikiBrowser, not AutoWikiBot. It's very helpful and easy to use. Also, Doctorindy, please give your opinion on the image for the article template found up several section. Royal broil  14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC), amended 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first step has been completed. Pages from 2003-2008 have been moved. The "seasons" template has been updated with the new page names, as well as various race pages. That is not entirely an issue, as discussed, only the double redirects. As time goes by, the corrections will be made Doctorindy 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)