Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing/Archive 5

Lexmark Indy 300
As Lexmark is no longer the naming sponsor this article should be renamed and any reference in the article to Lexmark Indy 300 (other than past references) should be altered. The race is currently being referred to as the Gold Coast Indy 300 in publications including its own web site []. I could make the changes to the internal references but, as I am unsure of the best way to change the title, I'd rather leave it to someone more capable than me. Steve turtle (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I didn't change all historic redirects, since race names change so frequently. There are no remaining double redirects, and I updated its use in all templates. Royal broil  14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 4
Moved some older talk material to Archive4...linked above in the box. I left several active discussions. Doctorindy (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorsport Library
I've made a suggestion at WikiProject Motorsport for a list of hardcopy references and who holds them, to help with referencing articles. This was prompted by the realisation that I have access to quite a lot of material which I'm not currently using. Please comment here. Cheers. 4u1e 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Podium" for top three in IRL?
Is it appropriate to refer to top-three finishes in the IRL (in the "Career Results" section, e.g., Dan Wheldon) as "podium" finishes? I've never heard a top-three finish referred to as a podium finish in the context of IRL races--is this something that was inappropriately carried over from F1 career results? Instead of "Podiums (Non-win)" and "Top 10s (Non-podium)," should these be called "2nd-3rd" and "4th-10th"? Chuck 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I see now that the IRL's own driver web pages (e.g., ) lists "Wins", "Top 5", and "Top 10". Is 3rd an arbitrary cutoff point for IRL finishes, that should be changed to 5th? Chuck 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "podium" has never been used in the IRL, and also has NEVER been used at Indianapolis. A "podium" (1-2-3) was used during the CART years, as early as the late 80s (perhaps earlier) and throughout the 90s. But IRL only celebrates the winner. The best thing to do would be "top 5s" and "top 10s" Doctorindy 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Podium finishes have been referred to at road and street course tracks in IndyCar since their inclusion; as far as I remember, it was briefly stated on the IMSRN that Marco was aiming for a podium finish ("or even win..." etc) at Watkin's Glen last year, before the incident with Cheever. I then applied it to all page references in general because of three reasons:
 * 1) CART. In the end, anything that can refer to the two American open-wheel series' together, with the same kind of references, would be constructive for people seeking to know information about them, per this being an encyclopedia. CART and IRL (and USAC Indy 500s before them), for all the people breathing fire and hate between the two sides, descend from the same ancestor, American open-wheel racing of the 1970s and previous; they have become different only in very specific technical regulations (as opposed to the massive differences between open-wheel and NASCARs), in what kind of courses they emphasize, and in who controls the groups politically. I believe those differences are insufficient to overcome the number of similarities...heck, that's part of our concept of even having the WP:AOWR. Therefore, the question of taste arises, and this is where things get personal, emotional, and non-encyclopedic.
 * 2) The IRL website tries to appeal to Americans, in general. Americans are used to Wins, Top 5s and Top 10s. This, however, is something done more often in America than internationally; internationally, not only do you have the F1 podium standard, you have the source it came from, the gold, silver and bronze of the Olympic Games. Part of what made me choose the F1 as the preference to have is that the F1 template for driver finishes has the gold, silver and bronze colors for the first three; fourth and fifth are the same color, the light green. In F1, it stands for points finishes, and blue is outside, while purple is retired. As I mentioned previously in discussions about the CART system, they have no blue slots anymore: everything is a points finish, now, with less than 20 cars in...in IRL it's even more so, they award given points to everyone who starts.  Having the color code go from gold to silver to bronze to green (when Top 5s are supposed to be the American thing, mind you), then to purple, skipping over blue, is simply this, to my eyes: ugly. Therefore, I simply made greens be Top 10s; top 10s are understandable to everyone, they're only two more slots than the F1 template of fourth through eighth being green, and they don't give the ugliness of constant greens before skipping over blues. I tried to make the case at the CCWS discussions on it, but it didn't take. And, in turn, I kept the 1-2-3 color code for one reason, reason #3.
 * 3) WP:MOTOR's goal of standardization. Are we going to create a template for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th? Technically, if you look at the ways the words (or semi-number words) are spoken, first, second and third are disconnected from the others, which all end in "th". Are we going to deviate from the completely rational F1 template to be "different, because we're an American series"? Frankly I think that'd sound rather stupid, as the goal is to standardize concepts for ease of comprehension, and yet not be inaccurate. Reporting drivers as finishing in the top three is not inaccurate, and doesn't jar the eye, either.
 * 4) Fourth point: what colors would you replace it with? Back to the system of Dark Green for the winner, and nothing for anyone else? If so, than between the two the F1 one looks much better (and cooler, to be emotional about it), in every possible way. If someone wants to say "that's because F1 IS better," whatever...the point is to be easy to understand, and eye-catching. And if they are made starkly different, to convey six separate colors (1st-5th, then 6th and back, maybe even a 7th, for cars out?), will that inspire international motorsports fans to basically ask, in their minds, "WTH?", when they see the pages? --Chr.K. 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In looking this over, and the attempt to carefully explain my position, I realize that the details might inspire some of the CART/IRL friction to revive, and the hate to "spew anew." Wonderful choices, mine... --Chr.K. 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how the color system is implemented on Wheldon's page: 1=Gold, 2=silver, 3=bronze. It's easy for anyone how knows the Olympics to understand. You said that blue is available. How about using green for 4th & 5th, and blue for 6th to 10th. Then Top 5 will be distinguised from Top 10. We need to be as consistent as possible (point #3). I am fortunately not heated about any of the IRL/CART split issue - I unfortunately stopped watching. I joined the WikiProject because I understand AOWR from the 1970s to the split. Royal broil  04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This leaves the question of what to do with 11th to not running. The purple color in the F1 standard means Out; it is important because finishing low because of mechanical trouble (or even crashing) is different than finishing low due to not being as good as those about you, that day, and gives a decent impression of how good a driver is.  A.J. Foyt IV has a lot of blues right now, Tomas Scheckter has a lot of purples...but Scheckter is overall the better driver, because he regularly finishes better when his car doesn't break on him. Therefore, this is a problem. --Chr.K. 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Robin Miller speaking of achieving podiums in IRL.
 * The difference between any IRL-esque reference is that they are by observers, and not by race officials. Robin Miller talking about "podium finishes" in the IRL is just a synonym for him saying a driver trying to get a "top three." A "podium" finish (as it always has in F1, CART, and the Olympics) means the driver is going to be able to stand on a three-tiered riser after the race is over and be recognized as a top three finisher. F1 and CART even gave out trophies for 2nd place and 3rd place. The status of a "podium" finish has always been known generally as a desireable finish. However, if you watch an IRL race (and NASCAR for that matter), all you see is VICTORY LANE, and the winner. The IRL celebrates the winner only, and everyone else is simply an "also-ran" for the lack of a better term. Only the winner gets a trophy too. Tracks in the IRL do not (or rarely) have a 1-2-3 tiered platform for the drivers to stand onto. I think they did a special podium for the season finale in 2006, but that was for the season championship, not the race itself. We'll see what they do at Watkins Glen this weekend, I'm sure the Glen "has" a platform, but I doubt the IRL will use it. Doctorindy 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They did not have a platform. Therefore, I support the current IRL system for "look" and standardization method. In other words, why make them different when they can be the same? If there are journalistic references to podium runs, then it can be included on Wikipedia, for people to have a single shorthand to think by, thereby making the searchers' jobs easier. If having podium references is unnecessary, then changing from them also is, due to IRL never actually stating POINT-BLANK that THIS is how we measure things. Then again, neither has NASCAR, so far as I know. --Chr.K. 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the last post, but I can definitively say that there is no podium in NASCAR. I have attended several NASCAR Busch Series races at Milwaukee and I have watched hundreds of NASCAR races on TV. It sounds like consensus we should avoid mentioning podium finishes in articles just like we do at WikiProject NASCAR. As for the method of marking the finishing positions, it would be nice to use an established standard like the F1 method, but we should only use it if it makes sense within this WikiProject. Is there another color available for 11th to not running? Are we including a legend on all articles like WikiProject F1 does? Royal broil  03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm against not using podium finishes for open-wheel shorthand when they have been mentioned, "whether or not IRL officialdom concurs," by sports journalists of the two American open-wheel series, when commenting on IRL. Miller has mentioned it, John Oreovicz has mentioned it...even if it's not something that comes up on the website yet, it IS verifiably mentioned in several locations. Why change it, if it is an international motorsports shorthand? (The Sportscar project uses it, too)
 * 2) I do not consider open-wheel and NASCAR similar to each other, in how they do things. Aside from POV angles such as my belief that NASCAR makes **** up as they go, they quite simply have a different Tradition than the open-wheel machines; NASCAR goes back to the beach races on the Daytona sands by stock machines, open-wheel goes back to the first machines of ANY kind (by definition). Just because NASCAR does something a certain way most certainly does NOT mean Americans in general do.
 * 3) So far as I've been able to tell, no, there is not another color. Dividing them between gold/silver/bronze has been specifically tailored to the idea of a top three, not a top five.  What five colors (or four, for 4th and 5th) would be used, after all?  Purple, in all the other WP:MOTOR projects, in total that I have seen, use purple for out, blue for a lower level finish, green for a "points" (higher level?) finish, then bronze, etc., for third on up.  Basically, if we changed the method of identifying the career performances of drivers, we'd be dividing open-wheel from its contemporaries, both internationally but specifically, here, American, not bringing them closer together, when we ALREADY have a link to sports writers calling top three finishes "podiums," in IRL...and, no, we're not using a legend, as basically that would mean we'd need to start from scratch in looking for that new color to somehow fit in. --Chr.K. 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No matter what the IndyCar series do, the Top 3 finishes need to remain gold, silver and bronze since it is an international standard used in the Olympics so everyone should understand it. I agree that stockcars and IndyCars are very different animals that followed very different evolutionary paths. I won't disagree about NASCAR making things up as they go either, but I don't see how that's relevant in this discussion. The only reason to do something the NASCAR way is if it makes sense within the context of this WikiProject. If no color is available, then we should keep things the way they are. I was wonder if we should go outside the box and use another color that is not used in another WikiProject like say orange. Probably not, since as you pointed out, we would need to redo all results. Our time is best spent improving articles. I not a fan of showing all results for a season or a race. Royal broil 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain this, please. Showing career results in a driver's page is something that WP:F1 has shown to be extremely practical, and useful to anyone who wants to know the entire history of the driver's performances. The history of the entirety of results for every race should in turn be placed in each race's page, or divided up into lower sections as has been done for the 500. I do not understand your saying you're not a fan of what would be verifiable statistics. --Chr.K. 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't much care what colors are used, and I didn't bring up the "podium" issue to challenge the colors used in that table. I was interested in the labels "Podiums (non-win)" and "Top 10s (non-podium)." Even if "podium" is occasionally used by commentators reporting on the IRL, wouldn't "2nd-3rd" and "4th-10th" be clearer, simply for the benefit of readers who might not know what a "podium" finish is? Chuck 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People who don't know racing would of course not know that a podium finish is in the Top 3, of course. Using the numbers would be much clear IMHO. Royal broil  18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a page concerning podiums as they apply to racing, and inserting the link into the templates, for people to click and learn about at their leisure? --Chr.K. 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have enough material (more than a few sentences) to write an article. There is even a category in Wikimedia Commons: . Royal broil  13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After extremely long consideration on this subject, I propose including both podiums and Top 5s to the drivers' career results tables, and the listing below them that sums up the entirety of the information. Since Americans think of Top 5s because of their own unique motorsports culture, but motorsports writers themselves have alluded to the podium finishes enough to qualify that reference as valid, both can make it in. I will, therefore, develop "a new color" between the five spots after the top five for top ten finishes, and the green currently there will exist for fourth and fifth. Discuss as necessary. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript: My suggestion for the Top 10 color, 6th through 10th place finishers, is hexadecimal color code CFEFFF, and is currently being experimented with in the Hélio Castroneves page. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CFEAFF, the correct light blue to use. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second Edit, Chr.K. (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Working Solution: An amalgamation between American and International standards of reference. Chose "American Open Wheel" over "IndyCar" due to project name, and part of its vision to avoid potential emotionally-based conflicts between IRL and CCWS supporters. --Chr.K. (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me! It was a good idea to name the key "American Open Wheel" too. Royal broil  23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, then, I'm going to begin changing the driver results templates themselves in accordance with the new aesthetic, including the CART/CCWS ones, as I intend this system to be workable for all grade-one American open-wheel racing events in entirety. If CCWS contributors become upset at the notion of departing the F1 system of green for points, again my own argument is that the American motorsporting community views results slightly differently, and this system is in line with that reality. --Chr.K. (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

At least for the first 3 races this year, the IndyCar Series has used a podium. Eddie Gossage at Texas has said in past interviews that he hates podiums so I don't know if we'll see one there, but I think it's definitely justified that we're using that term now that it appears at least a majority of IndyCar races will use them. -Drdisque (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A "Podium Finish" is a commonly accepted racing term for a top-3 finish. Whether an actual podium is involved is irrelevant, just like a "Pole Position" doesn't involve a pole or a "Maiden Win" a maiden. Kenhullett (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

British flag issue once again
Someone unregistered changed the British flags in the 500 winners article (and possibly elsewhere, haven't checked) back to English and Scottish flags. Because of the potential for a revert war, I again propose supra-national, then sub-regional flags to be attached to drivers, if applicable. I know the American state flags for the NASCAR pages look idiotic, but the issue isn't going away, nor should it, since given media (like CBS, in broadcasting the American Le Mans Series) have also used the sub-regional tags, rather than the international license one. Thoughts?--Chr.K. 11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not informed on the topic, so I choose to not comment. We should use the discussion at our parent WikiProject to answer this problem. You can find it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_1. The problem affects other motorsport such as F1 too, which is why the discussion took place at WP:MOTOR. Royal broil  13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The concensus choice was to go with the British Union Jack for the drivers in question. And in turn, the British flag was changed back to English and Scottish for the drivers in question. --Chr.K. 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then revert it back, pointing to the discussion at WP:MOTOR. Urge the contributor who is reverting you to bring up their points at WP:MOTOR. Royal broil  04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yates/Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing needs to be split into two articles.
Yates/Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing in NASCAR is a diffrent team then Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing in Champcar. Yates has nothing to do with the CCWS side, and the CCWS team does not bear his name. It would be best to either create two seperate articles, or change the current article to further explain that they are two completly seperate teams. Thanks, Fisha695 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

CART race infobox
Is there a race infobox useable for CART races? The present Champ Car box works only for seasons since the creating of the OWRS. If not, does anyone mind the creation of one based on the CCWS infobox? --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I counter-propose the creation of an American Open Wheel race infobox, which could then be split into covering the four main sanctioning bodies, AAA/USAC/CART(CCWS)/IRL(ICS). The boxes already there should in turn be compatible with such a universal standardization. Also, given its considerable "über-standing" among its fellow events, Indianapolis 500 races should receive a special kind of box, to contain the kind of information regularly given throughout and at the end of the IMS Radio Network broadcasts. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Helpful, and yet not closer to a conclusion. In the lack of conflicting arguement I will create one. --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Race abbreviations, and other matters
Not sure if I brought this up before, but I think we need to decide on a universal set of abbreviations for the locations that have been competed at already, and a set of standards to determine them for any future occasions. As it stands, the CCWS and IRL contingent driver results templates have got to have at least ten different examples in which the three letter assignments given are either slightly or markedly different; i.e., FTW for "Fort Worth," for CCWS, "TXS" for Texas, with IRL...both describing the venue of Texas Motor Speedway; SUR for Surfers Paradise, Australia, by other CCWS writers, SRF by, admittedly, me, when writing the 1980s information for Michael Andretti and others (trying to flow as closely as possible with the sound of the words that are spoken, my reasoning). Likewise, should names be after the facilities, or after the locations? RIC could stand for Richmond, but then it looks more like the sound "Rick" (as in Mears, etc.). RIR is the letters used on the facilities webpage...thereby being one of the major reasons I prefer RIR over RIC for the abbreviation.

In the end, my call for standardized format is simply that keeping them separate, between the two series, defeats the point of universality/respect by the project toward anyone, be they pro-IRL or -CCWS or both...as well as defying the overall intentions of the parent project, WP:MOTOR, which I can hopefully assume with safety would have little if any emotional, subjective outlooks on the AOWR split. Thoughts as always invited. --Chr.K. (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea to have a standardization. Would you expand start the table below with all of the tracks listed so that we can discuss? Let's keep them alphabetized. As a starting point, I agree, in general, with using the abbreviations that the track uses to describe themself (like RIR). Royal broil  18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Las Vegas to the table. Both Champ Car & the IRL ran at the Las Vegas Motorspeedway and Champ Car ran on a street circuit in 2007. --Apmiller (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POLITICS, to keep everyone appraised:
A "major announcement," concerning something, is scheduled for this Thursday, February 21, 2008, apparently just announced on WFNI, 1070 ("Home of the 500") SportRadio, Indianapolis. This could be It; bulletins as events unfold. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to update things... --Chr.K. (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's about time! Royal broil  14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so fast... Chuck (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, story has changed. Hooray! Chuck (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Champ Car merger into IRL deal signed
http://www.indycar.com/news/story.php?story_id=10557

Confirmed primary source, not second-hand from a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unification!...of the driver results legend for all the AOWers thus far up...
The list from Archive 2 is merged into one standard. The remainder of the 2007 500 field to follow, but a template listing for drivers, in alphabetical order, I'll soon introduce either here or on the main project page. --Chr.K. (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template Merger Requested for Template:Champ Car World Series --> Template:IndyCar Series
As we know the 2 series has merged with each other as we now have this problem with a template for the 2008 season of Champ Car World Series that list all the teams and track of the 2008 season. However becasue the IRL merger this season wont happen in that style so I suggest that the Template:Champ Car World Series should be redirected to Template:IndyCar Series. The Template:Champ Car World Series seems pointless to have right now in its current Format. If that template is to be kept without a merger to the other one then please suggest what to do about it. My rationial is to merge it with Template:IndyCar Series.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nom and Support Merge Per Above  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone can find a template to add to those template pages that this discussion is taking place can you please put them up there on those 2 templates. I had brought this here first as RoyalBroil has been giving me grief about placing stuff in mainstream discussions without discussing to the projects first.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support after removal from CCWS pages. Thanks for bringing it up! Another way to deal with WikiProjects would be to leave a message at the relevent WikiProject that you want to merge the templates, and provide a link to the main discussion at the template. My main problem was that you were doing things at affected many WikiProject NASCAR articles without bringing it up at the WikiProject. Discussing things to determine consensus is very important at Wikipedia. Royal broil  13:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The reality of the name of American Championship Car Racing going back to well before the term "Indycar" (roughly about the late 1970s-early 1980s) will eventually cause a confusion about pages that relate to drivers of far past decades, and how they technically weren't "Indycar" drivers in the strictest sense of the term...and judging by how SOME fans of the CCWS side continue to absolutely despise Indycar with a passion approaching that of the Eastern Front...I think it might be necessary to make sanctioning body subsections to an overall "Template:American Open Wheel." Thoughts? --Chr.K. (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Template:IndyCar Series only refers to current IndyCar Series teams, drivers, and tracks. The name of the series is the IndyCar Series, so it's completely factually correct. If anyone has a problem with calling a series by its correct name they need to really get over what happened the last 12 years and just start enjoying racing again. -68.31.49.201 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Suggest putting the teams and drivers who only competed at Long Beach on a separate row, or in a different colour or something. I would also suggest not including the cancelled Champ Car races (e.g. Champ Car Grand Prix of Spain) in the merged template. DH85868993 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the Long Beach race paid points just as much as Motegi or any other ICS-sanctioned event, I support such a separation of rows only in the event that we develop the same or a similar kind of technical-spec details to the driver results tables as are currently being employed by WP:F1. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Temp:AOWR up for possible speedy deletion...
...I think I dealt with it in the way they were calling for, but be ready to fight over this issue, please. The F1 template information is NOT sufficient to deal with all the AAA/USAC/CART/IRL ways of thinking on car classification, finishing, points allocation, etc., most of it in fact preceding the development of, say, the modern motorsports podium. --Chr.K. (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

USAC article NPOV
An anon has brought up concerns about how the articles bashes the IRL in the IRL/CART split. I commented and stated that I would bring it up here. Here's the discussion: Talk:United_States_Automobile_Club. Royal broil 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Template Former Champ Car driver infobox
What's the point behind Former Champ Car driver? It's link to few articles. A new contributor attempted to "fix" the Al Unser article to include his starts before 1979, but they ended up making a complete mess. User:Inamino, with several hundred edits, made a poor response by deleting the whole infobox since it was a redlink. We don't appear to have a driver's standard infobox. Are we using Infobox racing driver? Royal broil 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been using Infobox Racing Driver because it is much more flexible and can be adapted to refer to for example Both CART/CCWS starts and can be used to separate CART/CCWS, IRL, and USAC stats. It also has optional fields meaning that if you leave something out the line item disappears. The Champ Car Driver templates are not written that way and are very restrictive to use and look bad if they aren't fully filled in. I personally suggest abandoning the Champ Car driver templates and using Infobox racing driver for everything.  -Drdisque (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indy Lights/IPS
As you may know, today the league officially announced that the Indy Pro Series will now be known as Firestone Indy Lights. As you also may know, there was a different and completely unrelated CART-sanctioned Indy Lights series that ran from 1986 to 2001. Should we merge these two articles? Should we treat the series as one unified history (which is more doable because they don't have any overlapping years, unlike IRL/CART)? This should probably be taken care of rather quickly, so I'd like to reach a consensus. My personal feeling is that the the pages should be merged, but written so as to make it clear that they were two completely different series that now share a common name and that the IPS/Firestone Indy Lights was not simply a continuation of CART Indy Lights. -Drdisque (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't merge and disambiguate They are separate topics, 2 unrelated series, in my opinion. Too much time has elapsed. Other articles need to link to the correct series, and a merge defeats that capability. The current use should be placed at Indy Lights with a WP:HATNOTE to the former series. Royal broil  18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest for the old series? Indy Lights (1986-2001)? Indy Lights (CART)? -Drdisque (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, with slight preference to the second one. I will abide with consensus/majority, of course. It's good to see you around here in Wikipedia, Drdisque! Royal broil  02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I say for simplicity, MERGE Keep them in two seperate sections, and clearly explain the differences. Breaking them into two (really 3 w/ disambig page) different pages just makes more too many clicks to get to the info. The reasons are this....
 * 1) Yes, they are different series, but, they are to the everydayman, the "same" thing....the lower-level support series for the Indy cars.
 * 2) Since the 86-01 Lights actually came to an end (and do not still exist), the series we know as the IPS is indirectly a new replacement for it. Kind of like the Washington Senators that moved away, and were replaced by a "new" Washington Senators.
 * 3) Note that IRL bought the rights to all of the former CART/CC/CCWS historical records, so don't be suprised if IRL doesn't start collectively adding the stats together anyway.Doctorindy (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or Hatnote Indy Lights I support the merge as the IRL did buy the rights to the Cart history including the old Dayton Indy Lights Series. Wasn't the the Indy Pro Series formed as a result of the Indy Lights Series going under? Anyway if you guys belive they should be kept seperate please do not make a disambig page for Indy Lights Series, but rather a hatnote. Also plase move the Indy Pro Series page to the current name. (Ethier Firestone Indy Lights Series or Indy Lights Series)  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the first race of the season is a day away, I'm going to go ahead and move Indy Pro Series to Firestone Indy Lights Series and add a hatnote to Indy Lights. We can decide to merge the rest of them later. -Drdisque (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that consensus says that you should merge (despite my position), so you can merge if you have the time. Royal broil  16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On that note do we support the mergification of Category:Indy Lights drivers and Category:Indy Pro Series drivers? -Drdisque (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mergification? sounds like a word that comedians would attribute to George W. Bush!. Royal broil  19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at combining the seasons infobox...splitting them up into seperate groups accordingly...This can be used for all CART years ARS and CART Indy Lights, IPS, and IRL Indy Lights years Doctorindy (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have combined the articles into a single page at Firestone Indy Lights Series. Feel free to edit as needed. -Drdisque (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It ought to be at Indy Lights as per WP:COMMONNAME. Readro (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TrueSports
I'm going to start working on pages for Truesports and Jim Trueman. I have several sources to work with. Doctorindy (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Petersburg photos
Flickr has a nice album of photos from last weekend's St. Petersburg event, including pictures of the IRL, IndyLights, and ALMS. They're all licensed under CC-BY-2.0, so we can use them. I've already gone through most of the ALMS pictures for Commons, but I figured you guys probably know how to handle the IndyCar photos better, so I thought I'd point them out to you.

Unfortunately a lot of the shots of the IndyCars are through fences, but at least it's something. The359 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to use a few of the pictures, especially of the Indy Lights cars. -Drdisque (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Career results subsections
The "Career results" sections of numerous ChampCar/IRL driver articles (e.g. Dario Franchitti, Sébastien Bourdais, Danica Patrick) contain subsections entitled "American Open Wheel" (or "American Open-Wheel"). I propose that these subsections should be changed to "American Open Wheel racing" because (to me) the words "American Open Wheel" on their own don't make sense (Consider that this project is called "WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing", not just "WikiProject American Open Wheel"). But before making the changes, I thought I'd consult with others about the preferred capitalisation and hyphenation of the words "Open Wheel", i.e. should it be "American Open Wheel racing" or "American Open-Wheel racing" or "American Open-wheel racing" or "American open wheel racing" etc? Bearing in mind what WP:MOS says about use of capitals in section headings:
 * Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

Also, if a driver has only been involved in one form of American open-wheel racing, do they necessarily need the "American Open Wheel [racing]" heading at all, e.g. could Sébastien Bourdais' career results section look like this:
 * 6. Motorsport career results
 * 6.1 Career summary
 * 6.2 Champ Car
 * 6.3 Formula One

rather than this:
 * 6. Motorsport career results
 * 6.1 Career summary
 * 6.2 American Open-Wheel
 * 6.2.1 Champ Car
 * 6.3 Formula One

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the MOS American open wheel racing would be the most correct heading and no, I don't see why a driver who has only competed in one type of AOW has to have that heading, although I also don't see the problem with leaving it in articles that have it. -Drdisque (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Drdisque articulated my thoughts. Royal broil  03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to combine the templates of all Open-Wheel forms, namely AAA, USAC, CART/CCWS and IRL/Any-new-name Tony George has been considering of late, so that it gives the name of each series in each year (sometimes both in one year) but not by dividing them up. Michael Andretti's lower results table (after the chronologically-based template break of his departing for F1 then returning) is an example...even though I don't yet have it precisely the way I've figured would be best, which would be the merging of the annual year numbers into one, and the sanctioning body links taking people to that individual year in each series; that and the presentation of results with different teams in single years, like done with the A.J. Allmendinger results template. Discussion on these aspects invited (including whether the column lines should remain or not).


 * Regarding the Motorsports Career Results section, I was calling it AOW instead of AOWR because it felt redundant to say "Motorsports" and "Racing" in the same section; what else would it be, if it's in a motorsports section? However, if I had a choice between changing the overall MCR title and changing the AOW to AOWR, I'd choose the latter, as the former can encompass everything the way it's currently written, ranging from F1 to AOWR to MotoGP, etc.


 * (Inserted after post)
 * On putting all the CART/CCWS or IndyCar subsections underneath American Open-Wheel (or by the new title I suggest herebelow), the idea was Standardization; if any driver had CART/IRL separated underneath AOW, I decided to do so to them all. The reasoning, that simple.


 * Regarding spellings, I've usually seen it written "open-wheel" rather than "open wheel" in most of the die-hard serious publications I've seen...but, that said, I've also seen it written as the "American formula" cars, by European entities used to formula as a name for the 'metal thoroughbreds'. To choose between ALL of them?  "American formula[e]" would be my choice; this, when combined with merged templates, would unify (wonderful word, that) all in proper fashion. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Champ Car race categories
Now that we're starting to get quite a few individual Champ Car race report articles, I propose the creation of race-based categories into which to group them. There are some races where I think the category name is fairly obvious, but others where there are several options to choose from. Please indicate your support for the various options in the table below (and feel free to add other options). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed things lately close enough to comment. Whatever gets decided is fine with me, except if I comment. Royal broil  03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed those either much, but just an observation...why do some of the Champ Car races even have individual "report" articles. I know the F1 races have had them (and that's more significant), but having them for the (now-defunct) CC series seems rather superflouos. If anything, perhaps the content should be merged into the CC seasons' pages, and the "reports" articles themselves removed. They have an aura of "orphin-ness" nowadays. Just 0.02... Doctorindy (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the main author of most of the recently created Champ Car race reports I'll pipe up here. I took up the project to go back into history after helping to contribute to the 2007 CCWS race reports, the 2006 race reports having been in existence when I set upon this task, months before the "merger" happened.  As a self-admitted "fanatic" I'd rather not see the history of what was once the most significant North American open wheel series lost to the ages when the ccws.com website inevitably goes off the air.  To show I'm not a hopeless fanatic, I'll admit the post-CART era was generally less significant than the IRL.  I myself always thought the IRL-style of putting top 5 summaries of each race (save the "only race that really matters" (Indy-centrism being but one of the things that made me a "fanatic")) in the season page was rather stingy in the details and much preferred the F1-style full results format.  As per the race reports "orphanness", note that I am linking the race report to driver result tables as well as adding new result tables for old Champ Car guys who didn't have tables before (ala Patrick Carpentier or Michel Jourdain, Jr.), so these pages don't exist in a vacuum (or won't...note that i have yet to finish off the links for the 2004 reports).  Apmiller (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (Re-edited for clarity) Apmiller (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Know that I didn't intend it as a criticism per say, as I am always apt to "allow" on Wikipedia more than others. There's nothing I hate more than people getting power-hungry and abusing the "pages tagged for deletion" tools. I will chime in about the IRL top-5 boxes, which was discussed a bit in late 2006/early 2007. For previous years, as well as the "Such-and-such Year in NASCAR," the history had been a top ten of each race in list form. List forms to me are very sloppy for applications such as box scores, etc. I suggested tables, and we came to a quick solution to do so (note that NASCAR editors quickly copied the good idea, I started it, not them ;) ). But showing the top 10 for every race made the page very long...in addition, with only a lowly 17 cars per IRL race at the time, finishing in the top 10 was seem by some as...well...not such a notable accomplishment at the time. Finishing in the top 5 at least meant you beat a dozen cars. So we came to an agreement to only show the top 5, then link to the official Indycar.com box score for the rest. Unfortunately, some people got behind (or lazy) and stopped linking to the official reports. It doesn't seem to matter. Anyway, carry on. Doctorindy (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Commentary from another (admitted fanatic). American open-wheel racing, regardless of the sanctioning body, goes back a LONG time, and a lot of people (specifically a lot of ancestors, these days) have been involved in given races throughout the decades, et al. For any of those descendents, nevermind the proverbially random researchers interested in this or that given race, wouldn't it be nice if a detailed race report/page were to exist someday for the races their so-and-so participated in, if it was a National Championship level event, so long as the page was completely factual, sourced, etc.? Maybe I'm being influenced to the Talk of Gasoline Alley callers-in to Donald I hear each year, but the notion of such and such a race "not mattering", not being notable, is something I can never agree with. With this in mind, CART/CCWS races should be treated with the same integrity as any AAA-sanctioned event: it happened, it was significant for the top tier of American open-wheel motorsports, and authenticated detail should always be welcome. It is only subjective opinion that could claim all F1 races to be important, but given AOWR races not, no offense likewise intended. Chr.K. (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but is Wiki the place for it though? Major races such as Indianapolis, Daytona, Le Mans, etc. are all universally "notable," just as World Series games, Super Bowls, Stanley Cup playoff games, etc. But we don't typically see regular season baseball, football, hockey games detailed unless they are playoffs, or part of universally accepted Lore. But again, I almost always ways favor a "save" position for Wiki, and feel those could find themselves somewhere. Doctorindy (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As precedent for major American race series, I'll point out that individual race result pages for every ALMS event dating back to 1998 (at present) have been created. Apmiller (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A situation I greatly support, upon learning of its existence. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration of this matter, I would support a lesser degree of exacting detail regarding motorsports in general, on Wikipedia, only if a viable alternative wikia, dedicated to the subject, existed. By this rationale, I would argue that it would need to live up to the levels race fans in general on Wikipedia have already achieved, via the multiple projects, before these races be removed. In other words, I would be in favor of Wikipedia having sub-wikias dedicated to given genres, etc., of the "full sum of human knowledge" that it/they claim to wish to compile. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone spends the time to create an article on a specific race, they should list the complete results of the entire field. It's okay to list the starting positions.  Royal broil  00:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lakewood Speedway
A relatively new user started an article on the track. That track has a lot of history! I have nominated it for DYK after greatly expanding it. It should be featured on the main page in about 2 days. Would you add information about the USAC history/races of the track since I don't have sources?  Royal broil  17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I would be very greatful if anyone could find a reliable source for the speedway's role in the film Smokey & the Bandit. I can watch the movie, but that's not enough. I'd love to see one of my favorite movies on the main page! It would be even better if you could propose the alt hook at T:TDYK. Check out an article on DYK that I co-authored in the next Wikipedia Signpost (FCDW/April 28, 2008).  Royal broil  18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sid Collins
Some obvious know-little proposed speedy deletion of the Sid Collins article. Granted it does need some expansion, but I'd appreciate a little backing on this one. We need to KEEP and EXPAND. Doctorindy (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just commented on the page discussion, since I don't see the link to the SD discussion itself. --Chr.K. (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD
Hi there, WPAOWR. I recently closed this AfD as keep. He's a driver, competed once at Indy. Passes notability, but the article is unsourced. Being a BLP, I thought I'd bring Tom Klausler to your direct attention to see if you had any good sources/quick fixes that could verify the info, and perhaps expand the stub? Thanks in advance, Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregard, did it myself. Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IndyCar vs. Indycar
User:Cmjc80 made a request for an "uncontroversial" move and an admin moved it over the redirect (it had a history). The article's talk page was not notified of this move. I disputed this move as controversial and wrong, so I moved it back. You can comment on this move on the article's talk page.  Royal broil  03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indy 500 Race, Official Results templates...
...should be written in the format that I think I've finally got pretty much perfected in the 1911 page. I will shortly begin work on getting 1912 and 1913 to equal format, but the current 1911 page has the best, and "correct," version. --Chr.K. 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The correct version now also contains the use of cross footnotes (†) followed by mathematical sub-notation if necessary (1, 2, etc.) after the flags of the nationalities of participants who were born in separate countries than their accepted nationalities. I submit this as the format to be used for all future similar notations. --Chr.K. 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1912 now complete, and with the Qualification Results template established. --Chr.K. 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a problem with what you have done, I want you to become aware of an ongoing discussion on using flags in articles at Use of flags in articles. Check out the article's talk page too. Royal broil  04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I respect their position on not wanting to over-clutter articles, I find that enough questions concerning drivers' nationalities and birthplaces are posed to Donald Davidson on the annual WIBC talk show The Talk of Gasoline Alley to warrant the methods used in the tables, namely the nationality they identified with at the time of victory, but a footnote detailing their place of birth, if such was different. On the whole, I believe it is a duty of this project to compile statistical information regarding the racing in question that people have shown interest in. The current system is an expression of that perceived duty. --Chr.K. 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wish me luck: I'm going to begin applying the new format to every single Indianapolis 500 race page. Also, if at all possible, the stat format of such detail could be established for all other forms of American open-wheel as well, but that would likely require discussion and/or consensus. --Chr.K. 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial to link to chassis and engine manufacturers. -Drdisque 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should the chassis and engine manufacturer links have flags preceding them, to identify the nationality of the make, as is done in several WP:F1 examples? And, if so, merely copying the F1 format, or developing one of our own? --Chr.K. (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indy 500 Race Report template
Couple of points about the template (Infobox Indy500. Firstly, the field "Location" seems pretty redundant, if it's required, then surely it's not necessary to be a variable! Second, the TV fields, and some others such as Rookie could probably do with being optional as they don't apply to the early years of the race. AlexJ 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good observations - I agree. Go for it! I do think that the location field should remain, and it should be hard coded to IMS. Royal broil  19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1919 Indianapolis 500 was briefly threatened to be held in Cincinnati, Ohio, just so you know, due to Fisher demanding that hotels in the Indianapolis area stop trying to gouge incoming patrons at racetime. Thankfully, the issue was resolved before the 1919 rendition, but for awhile, the International 500-Mile Sweepstakes Race was not necessarily confined to Indianapolis alone. Also, there needs to be a reference to who broadcast it on radio, as, despite the fact that it's "of course" the IMSRN today, for a long time it was the Mutual Radio Network, and back in the early '20s, many different stations gave brief updates live from the track as the race slogged on. Rookie of the Year has existed for over 50 years, long enough that it should read No Award prior to the first in 1952, just like the singer of Back Home Again in Indiana won't apply in the list as a "position" until 1946, even though there should be a reference that the crowd sang it at the end of the race after Wilcox won in 1919. Thoughts, these. --Chr.K. 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really know your stuff! Royal broil  12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In case it went unnoticed, I added a "chronology" line on the bottom for quick foward and backward navigation, as well as adding the "honorary starter" line, since it seems to have become an expected position for a celebrity (every year since 2004 now). Still no word yet on the 2009 Indianapolis 500 logo, so we can leave the infobox off of that page until it's released. Doctorindy (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the "chronology" part is necessary, since it duplicates the functionality of Indy 500 Walker, which already exists at the bottom of each Indy 500 race report. DH85868993 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1984 #82 car??
Does anyone know who raced the #82 California Cooler car at Long Pond (Pocono) in 1984? My flickr contact has a free use image available, which I'm happy to upload, if we can figure out who it is.  Royal broil  04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.champcarstats.com/races/198410.htm it was Gary Bettenhausen. -Drdisque (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Project photo update
Any else in favor of looking into updating the split-photos of the Franchitti/Bourdais cars with one of Dixon's, given that he's now the reigning champion over both? --Chr.K. (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - alternatively to be more CART-sensitive, we could use a current Dixon photo as well as a CART shot from the pre-split era (preferably of a champion). -Drdisque (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dixon is the champ, so his current photo should be used. I disagree that a split image is needed since they are unified.  Royal broil  04:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this...

Despite the wing covers, this is one of the best Dixon car photos available Doctorindy (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - The covers make his car "look tech," i.e. showing a potential emphasis on the advanced sophistication of open-wheel motorsport. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree  Royal broil  02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Honored I took that picture in 2006. -Drdisque (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

IndyCar article, new section "History of the IndyCar name"
User:GoldDragon started this new section in the disambiguous page. Please check it out and comment on its talk page. I bring it up because it is unusual to have a much text in a disambiguous page, and now there is a large section of text. It will probably get challenged, so we should determine consensus now. Royal broil 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Moves
As you may have noticed User:VNAF Ace has moved the 2004 to 2008 IndyCar Series seasons from 200X IndyCar Series season to 200X IndyCar Series. I oppose this move as the precedent for including the word season has been instituted by WP:F1 and affirmed by WP:NASCAR to a point where it is now customary on WP to do so. I would like others opinions. -Drdisque (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree on this. I'd recreated all the moved pages as redirects, since for some reason they were deleted during the moves, since I figured there were going to be a bunch of broken links. But I don't think the change actually made any sense, and have no problem with moving them back.-- SonicAD (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Move them back. The moves don't make sense to me.  Royal broil  18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "200X IndyCar Series" already refers to the 200X season. 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, for example, doesn't have "season" at the end of the title.  It seems redundant to add "season" to the end of "XXXX IndyCar Series" or "XXXX Champ Car World Series."  VNAF Ace (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the difference is that the official name of the series is IndyCar Series while the official name of the NASCAR series is Sprint Cup. If you leave nothing after the name of the official series name, then the NASCAR article would be 2008 Sprint Cup which sounds odd. I (and and the others that agree with me) tend to feel that just saying "2008 IndyCar Series" sounds odd and that there is no good reason to move all the articles, especially when you don't do the move properly in that you blanked the old pages and did not fix any of the double redirects. -Drdisque (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series logo. The official name is "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series."  Why to we have to add "season" to the end of "XXXX IndyCar Series" or "XXXX Champ Car World Series."  Again, it seems redundant.  VNAF Ace (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series refers to the series, but does not refer to non-series races like the Lowe's All Star race for example. A 'season' tag encompasses every race meeting and associated event throughout the calendar year. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The move was wrong. A title such as "2008 IndyCar Series" does NOT have the definitive meaning as, for instance, Super Bowl XLII. The name of the competition entity is "IndyCar Series," therefore a descriptive noun of what the article represents is missing. WP guidelines offer little insight, however, it seems to be a LONG established WP guideline in all other sports to use the word "season" in their titles. 2008 NFL season, 2007–08 NBA season, 2008 Major League Baseball season, are just a few examples. The without the word "season," it implies a different style of sports organization, perhaps as if each season does not represent continuity from the previous. IROC I, II, III, etc. is the only motorsports exception to speak of. Doctorindy (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Race of Two Worlds
I've been working on an article for the Race of Two Worlds since the end of May, and now that most of the text and results tables are done, I figured it'd be nice to have some AOWR eyes on the article. Since this is the first Open-wheel article I've written from scratch, it'd be nice to have some input. I plan to add all the citations soon (most of my sources are simply listed at the bottom), but any additional resources will be appreciated.

I also have several pictures to add from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway of the two winners, Jimmy Bryan's Dean Van Lines Special and Jim Rathmann's Zink Leader Card Monza Special (although this might be a better photo), as well as the event trophy. If all goes as planned, I'm going to nominate this for Good Article status in the near future. The359 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want a peer review at the GA level? I've done several GA reviews and I could review this article. I'd like to see the referencing completed first.  Royal broil  03:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mostly looking for any old USAC information which would be relevant, since I know little about the old Champ Car days. Things about American teams, cars, and engines, that can be expanded, etc.  I was going to go t a general PR for some outside input after I had everything ready, then go straight from PR to GAN. The359 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the article, but not in depth at the GA level. I don't see any obvious USAC information that you missed. Some general comments: 1) You could improve the race infoboxes by adding the driver's normal series/genre and a legend is needed, 2) you switch back and forth between Imperial and Metric units. I realize that data was probably recorded in different units depending on the application. It's best if you provide the data with the conversion. 3) Wikilinks on names. I agree that the article is almost ready for PR then GA.  Royal broil  12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, unit conversion was another element I had to complete. The references switched back and forth a lot as well, so I just used what was available at first.  Since it's a Europen event, I'll go for Metric first, Imperial second.  I think I might try some color coding for the results charts, just for something different, but there will be a key, yes. The359 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AOWR driver results legend, Part 2
"Recycled" the section from above, in raising new matter.

"Rpl" color coding
I'm adding a new category under the driver results legend, to be classified under the red color, previously used only for DNQs: driver Replacement (or syntactually accurately in the template, simply "Replaced"), to be abbreviated to "Rpl" (not all letters capitalized, just as "Ret"ired is not); this change was inspired by the user who added a plus symbol beside Jay Howard's DNQ at Indianapolis, signifying his replacement by Roth Racing with John Andretti after Howard had participated in practice but before he had taken a qualification attempt. As an example of this additional definition would not apply to only one situation, driver change made before the race, for whatever reason, after another had qualified; Indianapolis examples include Mike Groff's situation in 1992, and the prior agreement between he and Derrick Walker for Scott Goodyear to race Groff's car if Groff had qualified but Goodyear had not, and Howdy Wilcox II (no relation to 1919) in 1933, where a revealed diabetic condition led to him not being medically passed to compete, and Mauri Rose substituting (and in fact, this being the original 500 situation requiring a car to move to the back of the grid if the driver changed between qualifications and the race).

In other words, I believe there are enough "Rpl" situations to warrant a secondary abbreviation, in the driver results legend, to the otherwise DNQ red color. Discussion invited if necessary. --Chr.K. (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon reconsideration, it's better to have the color be white, not red, since no competitive attempt is actually made, in those situations. I.e., business situations shouldn't get a "rainbow color" ranking. --Chr.K. (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One issue: If we ever get into doing these sort of color legends for the 1960's to early 1980's, it is very difficult to differentiate between a Rpl and a DNQ. It was quite often the case that an owner would bring an older borderline uncompetitive car to the Speedway and allow every driver without a ride in the paddock to practice it, allowing the one who drove the fastest to attempt to qualify. Would those other drivers be considered "Rpl"? Something to think about. -Drdisque (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any driver who made at least one attempt to qualify, in any entry, but did not succeed, would be DNQ. One possible final coding abbreviation could be NQA, "No qualification attempt", but that's iffy; if the car has been entered, theoretically it's DNQ even if they never try to make a run, no? NQA would be equal with DNS or Rpl, in my book. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per my norm in steady consideration, I note well after the fact that WP:F1 already has a color for this, namely what I will call Cloud Blue, for "Practiced Only." Other than potentially redesignating it "No Qualification Attempt" (NQA), I would have that be the color, etc., for drivers who only practiced in such entries. Any begun qualification attempt on record would earn the driver a red DNQ at the least. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since someone, I'm still looking for who, removed the Jay Howard "Rpl" reference on the 2008 season page, and the comparative White-color reference on the right-side legend, I'd like to figure this out swiftly. Someone didn't want Howard's Indianapolis reference, on his page, to simply be blank, or DNQ, having a full asterisk attached to explain how he was replaced by John Andretti. I for one don't like asterisks attached to driver results pages, as they are most often used to think of things that are not "on the level" (Barry Bonds' 756*, by far the most famous case in recent years). Driver replacements, whether Howard's or anyone else's, are just as legitimate as jockey replacements. Therefore, trying to find the Happy Medium, came the invention of the White-background "Rpl". It would signify, once again, a driver who has practiced at a race in a given entry, has not attempted to qualify, whether in that or any other entry, and is not assigned to the car at the end of whatever the event's alloted qualification period. Some could argue this is obscenely too much detail, and they might have a point, whether or not some of us might be sticklers for such detail...but just changing/eliminating the reference without working out why it's being eliminating it...rankles me.

So. Which will it be. I say Keep. --Chr.K. (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ret" or finishing position, with the violet color coding?
The summary of finishing positions for the first race of the season, on the 2009 IndyCar Series season page, brings up a point for debate: should Did Not Finish marks contain the finishing position for the driver, or simply read "Ret" as in the WP:F1 standard? I bring this up for more than just exacting aesthetic standardization, since the manuals of style generally accepted as "canon" for Wikipedia state that color alone should not be used to provide vital information, since red-green color blindness can make it difficult for some to determine what exactly they're looking at. A violet-colored "23"rd finishing position, given the red necessary in a violet tone, could theoretically be confused with a dark blue one, and thus requiring one to look at the race itself (if any page is even available as yet) to find out if they finished. For this reason, I favor holding to the F1 standard, and writing "Ret" for each applicable case. --Chr.K. (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm torn either way, but I say keep the current method because changing all the templates would be a major headache. -Drdisque (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 1291 articles are assigned to this project, of which 140, or 10.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver
So, I posted a comment there a while ago...okay, about a month ago... calling attention to the fact that now that the unintentional red border issue has been resolved, these people infoboxes make it look like all the drivers are dead, to put it bluntly. Please take a look at my previous comment for explanation and weigh in with your thoughts. Thanks. Zue Jay (talk)  21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Series season templates
I intend to combine the multiple infoboxes involved into an overall American Championship Car Racing Seasons template, which would name each different kind, ranging back to AAA and USAC as well as the divided CART/ChampCar and IRL/IndyCar years, all in one singular box at the bottom of season pages and elsewhere...similar to how the Indianapolis 500 infobox is divided into many subsections. If anyone has any objection, please voice it here. --Chr.K. (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that you should also have "split" CART/USAC seasons for at least '79 to '83/'84 (last non-Indy 500 USAC race was held in September 1983 as part of the 1983-1984 season that consisted of 2 races). Alternatively we could combine the '79 to '83/'84 USAC seasons into one page since they were so haphazard and really tell a single story - also complicated by the fact that the 1980 USAC season consisted of the first five races of the 1980 CART season. -Drdisque (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the rational choice is to have a "middleground" section of the infobox dedicated to both at the same time, USAC and CART (in order of each body's age). Thus, AAA would be from 1905-1955 (and if only they'd stayed around, none of this other complicated stuff would've ever happened... ...), USAC, alone, from 1956-1978, USAC/CART together from 1979-1983, CART alone (with an asterisk, maybe, like the Indianapolis 500 infobox has beside the word in the sanctioning bodies section, to indicate what that one already does) from 1984-1995, CART/IRL from 1996-2003, CCWS/IRL from 2004-2007, and IRL alone, 2008-present...or, "ChampCar" from 1984-1995, and then overlapping with the IRL from 1996-2007. Comment invited as always. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Project page in mainspace category
Transclusion of Template:Champ Car Seasons into WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing causes the page to be included in, which probably isn't desirable. If nobody else cares, I'll leave it as is, but if other people think it should be fixed, we can discuss methods. DH85868993 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar to the issue discussed one category up. In the end, something on the order of the name of American Open Wheel Racing must transcend all the subsections of it, because of all the different sanctioning bodies and types of formats that have existed in its century-plus long history...and beneath American Open Wheel Racing, I think American Championship-Car Racing, as opposed to the ChampCar or CART organizations, must be an overarching term for the AAA, USAC, CART/CCWS and IRL/ICS races, "which A.J. Foyt has still won the most of," as an example statement. Maybe a subset of Champ Car seasons could still be in place, but American Championship-Car Racing seasons would be a better choice, so as to be able to flow between the different eras much more easily. Thoughts, these. --75.2.25.29 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This was me, by the way. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing so esoteric I'm afraid - all I was trying to highlight was a page in the "Wikipedia" space (WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing) being included in a mainspace categeory, which is generally undesirable. DH85868993 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mario Andretti nationality issues
There has been edit warring and lots of discussion about how to present Mario Andretti's hometown since it was part of Italy when he was born and it later went under Yugoslavia control which caused his family to emigrate to the U.S. I was very close to full protecting the page. There are two nationalistic editor going back and forth on the topic, and I've been both trying to keep it cool yet voice my opinion on the topic. Please review the comments at Talk:Mario_Andretti and give your opinion on how present his hometown. Feel free to disagree with me (of course).  Royal broil  23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Offenhauser
I just noticed the Offenhauser article has no references whatsoever and tagged it. I believe an article about one of the most successful engine manufacturers in the history of Indycar racing should be a priority. I was hoping somebody had any books on the subject so it could be properly sourced. --Pc13 (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Team Nationality
Should the national flags on the season pages be based on the nationality of the owners or where thebase of operations is for the team? It seems like this is inconsistent from page to page in the project.Froo (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Be very careful with flags - they should only be used in limited circumstances. You can find out about them at MOS:FLAG.  Royal broil  18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, teams have a racing license just like drivers. It depends on which ASN they were registered. So if you don't have a source, it's best not to use a flag at all. --Pc13 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott Brayton Award/Trophy
Is it the Scott Brayton Award or the Scott Brayton Trophy? The succession boxes say "Award" but the Scott Brayton article says "Trophy". "Award" returns 816 ghits, compared to 83 for "Trophy". DH85868993 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Scott Brayton Driver's Trophy" The IRL awards the trophy, you can find an explanation for it on their official website at under ALEX LLOYD (No. 16 Rahal Letterman with Chip Ganassi).  Royal  broil  14:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 Champ Car Race reports
I notice recetly that a bunch of Champ Car race reports have appeared. The much older 2003 Lexmark Indy 300 report has been mated up to the format of the rest of the 2003 reports which I have no real problem with, except that car has been removed. There is no longer any indication which drivers were driver Reynards or Lolas. I can't imagine series like MotoGP, Formula 1 etc having race reports that did not state who was driving what cars. Having put a lot of effort into creating the history of the Australian champ car event on Wikipedia I'm also concerned that this important detail is going to be removed from other race reports. I would very much like to see this detail restored. --Falcadore (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Be Bold and either revert the edit that removed it or dig up the old version that had it and re-add it. -Drdisque (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the editor can recognise the essential detail without getting into another edit war. --Falcadore (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Falcadore, you have our support. If someone does an edit war, then you have consensus and the 3 revert rule.  Royal broil  03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my case, you're preaching to a nut who is trying to determine whether all the old Indianapolis 500 race reports should show, in the finishing results tables, both the main driver and any and all relief drivers of any entries that competed. By the time the exhaustively detailed reports reach the 1950s, one year will have one entry with six different drivers to it. Yes, I fully support all the verifiable detail possible, especially the multiple chassis makes. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Falcadore, I notice you're not yet a member of WP:AOWR. You're invited, here and now. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Added "other matters" to the original section title, to bring up the fact that in the Justin Wilson page, which I'm currently working on, flags exist alongside (or soon, on top of) the abbreviations, marking the nations they're taking place in. I'm not sure if we want this or not...because, while in something like CCWS, showing the numerous countries could be a good thing, in IRL they'd almost all be (barring the current highly-publicized discussions of reunification in the works) American flags. Also, WP:F1 does not use such flags for their driver templates, despite the fact that any two races in the same country is the extreme exception rather than the rule for them. In any case, the flags issue is now "in play." --Chr.K. (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Flags appear to be frowned upon by many Wikipedians, so we should remove all flags. Royal broil  18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not ALL flags should be removed. Having them before a driver's name in a rundown, (1911 race), is a practice employed, and which should be employed, by both WP:F1, ourselves, and etc. Also, take a look at the Justin Wilson page again; now that I see it THAT way, I am wondering if it would be better to have them in. But, again, up for debate: where and when to "deploy" them. --Chr.K. (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on the abbreviations: ASN because of the obvious connotations of ASS. Rather than CHA or CHR, I suggest CLT (their airport code). IND for Indy 500's, IMS for the Pro series races on the road course. IOW to reflect the dominant syllables in the state's name. I suggest just LS for Laguna Seca. LGB, again for the airport reason, but I can see using LB. MTY because it avoids all confusion with Montreal. MTL to avoid confusion with Monterrey. RIR as it is a very common acronym for the track. SJO for San Jose, SNR for Sanair. SUR because I can't see any confusion on that. TXS, virtually nobody calls the track "Fort Worth". -Drdisque (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When we had the "standard race abbreviation" discussion at WP:F1, we set up a table so editors could vote for their preferred abbreviation. It seemed to work well enough. You may care to employ the same technique here. DH85868993 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think for AOWR, we're going to need to take into account a combination of several naming conventions, given that the races are divided by city or venue, and less by nation (somewhat obviously, being American-based). The tables for voting, though (and already beginning to be used, here), are a good idea. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the IMS abbreviation, I think that the 500 should have something different for it, than any of the other races. By the time we go WAY back (someday) to the 1909 and 1910 seasons, there's going to be a LOT of meets in the lower classes for IMS. IND, on the other hand, would allude in my mind to "INDy," as references in the Rationale section. Thoughts, anyway. --Chr.K. (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm won't be upset if my first choice doesn't get used - if CAL gets used instead of CA, IND instead of IMS for the 500, etc. I love this voting table concept! Royal broil  19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion/don't care about Surfers Paradise and Watkins Glen. Royal broil  01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I've commonly seen Texas written as "TMS." Doctorindy (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, so I changed by vote. Also, SUR reminds me too much of the country Suriname. Royal broil  03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that California Speedway just changed their name to Auto Club Speedway last week Doctorindy (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote accordingly, and more in line with concensus thus far. This list is soon going to get a whole lot bigger, I've found plenty of other conflicts... --Chr.K. (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I want to change the three-letter IND abbreviation to four-letter INDY. It would immediately bring the eye there when looking for it, and would be only one extra letter to bypass any confusion, or ambiguity about how it should be worded. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of nationalities
Drivers get them, of course, but should Car, Entrant, Chassis and Engine makes get a nationality marking? WP:F1 regularly does so, so I don't think it a frivolous notion. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a touch frivolous in a control chassis or engine situation, when it is. --Falcadore (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On List of IndyCar Series teams I have the owners with flags, however, I think putting it on the teams is a little silly. Firstly, they are all based in the United States (they all have their shops there) and if you would go by the owner's nationality then what do you do in the case of a team with owners of multiple nationalities like Andretti Green or KV? It's not like F-1 where a team has to declare a nationality. -Drdisque (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indianapolis 500 pages will have entries from other nations; Peugeot in 1913 was French; the Honda engine program of modern times would obviously be Japanese, in turn, not American. Talk of Audi, Porsche and others entering in 2011 also brings up the subject. Even if it be seemingly superfluous, if all the entries of a given year got the same flag, I would see that only as standardizing all the information: that year might have only one make, but another year might have as many as five, six, etc. --Chr.K. (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Honda does not have entries. I think that we should not make classifications that the league itself does not make. The league doesn't and never has classified teams, chassis, or engines by nationality and I don't think we should either. -Drdisque (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We need a centralized listing...
...on all the races and drivers in American open-wheel racing history, so as to determine which still need to be gotten to. The scope of either is vast, and getting to them in a catch-as-catch-can basis is, to put it brutally, an incredibly simplistic (read: naïve) mindset. In fact, we need a centralized listing, and rating levels given to each article, of what we've gotten to and what we haven't on basically ALL the subjects involved in the project...as opposed to having, as we currently do, a "To-Do List" (EDIT: open-task list). Discussion obviously invited, here. --Chr.K. (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - great suggestion. WikiProject NASCAR made a list of every driver with a start, and we should do the same. What should be the scope of this list? I suggest that we only include drivers from the premiere open wheel series - AAA, USAC, CART/Champ Car World Series, IRL. We should (at least initially) skip drivers from sprint cars, midgets, Indy Lights, etc. The races should include all Indy 500 races and tracks from these premiere open wheel series. I suggest that the location of this list should be in a subpage of WP:AOWR. Any thoughts for this location? Where can we find this information? Is there an online database/website that can be used to create this list? Before someone would decide to create this data manually, I'd like to look over these location(s) to see if that data can be created with computer assistance. I have lots of background with data manipulation and some with programming. Royal broil  21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After about a month, my reasoned suggestion[s] would be to title the page as WP:AOWR's Project Progress Report; in a fashion similar to the good article template shown on the main project page (which itself is based on the even more impressive WP:F1 original), I propose going still further, and establishing, likewise on the main project page, a template (actually templates, plural) that defines all the parameters (on the top, classifying row) of what is needed for the pages' improvements, and for each to be color-coded (eventually absorbing the information from the notable pages section) according to what rank of article it is...and color-coded, in my thinking, in accord with the ranking levels of the season statistics templates.
 * I.e.,
 * Purple=Stub: Unacceptable lack of information, required that the article be improved.
 * Dark Blue=Start: Bare minimum achieved, but article can be extremely improved.
 * Light Blue=B-class: Acceptable degree of information, article can still be greatly improved.
 * Green=Good Article: Good degree of information, improvements of writing style and extreme detail remain achievable.
 * Bronze=Great Article/A-class: Excellent degree of information, covering all bases to resounding degree, but deeper links to similar pages and overall sense of the subject still possible.
 * Silver=FeaturABLE Article: Current Great Article that is going through or has gone through, even if not winning, nomination for Featured Article Status; these must rank among the best motorsports-related articles on the entire Wikipedia.
 * Gold=Featured Article: Self-explanatory; has achieved Featured Article status on the Wikipedia, and articles that have been placed on the front page as the feature should have a star, of whatever sort, attached after their name, stating when the event occurred. This/these would be the equivalent, for our project, of winning one of the ultimate motorsports events.


 * In conjunction with these color-codings in the background, like currently seen in green on the main page Notable Articles section, we should then divide these templates up according to overarching subject matter (alphabetical where applicable) :
 * People (Drivers, Miscelleneous prominent individuals, Owners, Race Officials, et al)
 * Events (races most prominently, whether sanctioned or outlaw, points paying or not)
 * Facilities (tracks of all series in question, private testing locations, and team business headquarters, to name a few), and
 * "Technology" (articles relating to the science of automobile racing, name is optional and open for debate)
 * The list can continue where needed, obviously.


 * These, thoughts on methodologies to use for WP:AOWR. Comment invited as always. --Chr.K. 13:44, 14 Februrary 2008 (UTC)

All-time IndyCar/Champ Car/Championship Car winners table

 * Discussion moved to new page.....Talk:List of American Championship Car winners

Indianapolis 500 race result tables aesthetics
Right now there are two possibilities with how to present the Indianapolis 500 page race results tables...one with, and one without, color coding to the car numbers columns. The 1911 page has the color coding inserted, similar to the methodologies of the later 2000s race pages, such as 2008. 1912, on the other hand, has the colors removed, and the only addition being the numbers written in bold (which makes it easier to see, I say). I have one opinion, from someone I know (non-Wikipedian, this one), and asked for their opinion regarding, that the 1912 page, without the stark car colors, is easier to read and kinder on the eyes. However, I am also someone who wants standardization, and with the 2000s having them in, there is that concern to ponder. Topping it off, the WP:F1 Grand Prix pages, whether of the past or modern years, do not have car color coding in their race results sections, giving impression of what the, overall, most professional of the motorsports wikiprojects does. As an aside, one will see the finishing positions color coded to the driver results legend template, but on display to the aforementioned reviewer, that was easy on the eyes, and "nice to see," so I call for that part to remain. Debate on aesthetics here, then, comment invited. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the 2008 table, and I did it that way to be consistent with previous years. I actually like the 1912 format better. First of all, the color contrast is sometimes difficult to read in the 2000s tables. Second, it would probably be difficult to find the color schemes used by every team each year. I don't think the colors add anything to the table. I think we should concentrate our time on more important things like developing articles, rather than spending time on adding or subtracting a color format to articles. So my opinion is we should leave everything alone and don't strive for consistency. If consistency is important enough to spend the time, then we should format it like 1912. It took too much time to add the colors to the 2008 article.  Royal broil  14:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My preference would be not to have any shading at all (but then, I tend to like things "plain"). My second preference would be the "1912" format. As Royalbroil says, I think it could be difficult to find the colour schemes used by every team each year. I also wonder whether the car number shading adversely affects the "printability" of the page. DH85868993 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the shading of positions to be useful for helping the eyes to quickly determine what level of finishing position there is for an entry. In any case, I've adjusted 1911 and 1913 to the 1912 format (agreed to begin with, incidentally, feeling it the better option), and will carry it forward...all the way into the modern races, in fact, so if anyone has a problem with the bypassing of the colors, here's the place to still voice it. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another aesthetic consideration: when someday arriving at future races such as the infamous finish to 1989, should the color of the finish, namely silver for second place that year, take precedence, or should purple (Out/DNF)? I ask because in some modern races, most famously the touching of the wheels, a high place finish could/can obviously be salvaged upon flagging at the conclusion, in a way that it never could in the early days when everyone had to run to the very end, or at least everyone in the top ten, or if there was any competitor still racing them. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The color of the finish, silver for second place finish.  Royal broil  01:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet he was out. The F1 standard would identify him as retired from the event, and standard, in turn, would identify that lack of finishing as purple. --Chr.K. (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was out. But he got second place points and he finished second. My opinion is that priority goes to finishing position over retired in the case of a high finish like this. I disagree with the F1 standard, at least for this WikiProject's articles. F1-related items appear to me to be very different than most other types of motorsport - the series has a very different attitude and feel.  Royal broil  03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With the introduction of driver podiums into the winner's circle standard for all but two of the races (Indy and Texas), it seems to be going more in certain F1 directions. Also, the F1 standard here on Wikipedia has been the colorization template for ALL the other forms that I've seen; our having a Top 10 color (which I'm in favor of keeping, for obvious reasons) is in fact one of the strongest differences I've seen thus far between us, and most all the rest. Also, I suppose I like seeing weird imagery, if it helps mark an occasion as out of the ordinary. A purple shade for second place finisher (only occurrance in history) would certainly qualify. --Chr.K. (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)