Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 2

Another flag question
Following the discussion of British flags and the use of regional (Wales, Scotland, etc) flags to denote drivers, I have a similar queue. Should drivers from Hong Kong or Macau be listed under the Hong Kong/Macau flag or People's Republic of China flag? Both regions are technically part of China, although they are special districts that do not conform with the rest of China. Basically, does this special compensation for Hong Kong and Macau extend to their flags? The359 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, another flag debate. Personally, I would like to see if there is a Racing License for Macau...Is there a list of all the possible Racing Licenses on the Web? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't Andre Couto race under the Macau flag? 4u1e 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen him in the backpages to AUTOCOURSE as being Portuguese one year, and Macanese the next. It depends which year and series you use!--Diniz (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The SuperGT website lists him as Portuguese, yet his driving suit has the Macau flag on the belt. The359 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in terms of (partially) answering this question, if he has raced under the Macau flag (i.e. been listed as a Macau driver) in an FIA sanctioned race, even only once, then you can have a Macau racing license.
 * 359 - it might actually vary for drivers, if in F1, then it would depend on the passport situation and I don't know whether you can now have a Hong Kong or Macau passport. Given the relatively recent handover of both colonies, the situation is likely to be complicated. At lower levels I think it only depends on the authority issuing the racing license, which can change quite regularly (I guess this is how Couto has been so flexible!), so you would have to check what was used in FIA sanctioned results for each driver. And if it varied over time, then you'd have to make a decision as to which one to use. Does that help at all? 4u1e 00:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. I think the logical thing to do at the moment is to keep using Macau and Hong Kong flags simply because both of these regions are under special circumstances.  Even though we do not fully know these special circumstances, it stands that the easier choice is to use their regional flags instead of the PRC flag.  This problem could come up, and be solved, in the future most likely.  The359 00:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Winners of the Grand Prix de Pau
Bobbacon has recently split the winners table from Grand Prix de Pau off into a separate article called Winners of the Grand Prix de Pau. Which poses some questions: Perhaps the bit that concerns me most is that the winners for the last 5 years are still listed in the main article, so that information is now in 2 places, which leads to the possibility of the two articles getting out of synch. Thoughts? DH85868993 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this necessary/desirable? Admittedly, the Grand Prix de Pau has one of the longer winners lists (but no longer than that of French Grand Prix) but the article itself is not all that big.
 * Does it set a precedent?
 * Having even a portion of the winners list in two spots is completely unacceptable. I see no reason to split the article when the main article is so short. Royal broil  02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the article is rather 'stubby' at present, there doesn't seem much point to it. We have done similar things (Williams F1) where the article really is very long. 4u1e 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have split it mainly for cosmetic reasons; a user had to scroll down for miles to get to any external links- something I wanted to read as article is only a stub. While some users will be extremely interested in who has won it for the last 80 years, I think the majority will read as far as the first 5 so its is unneccessary to clutter the main article. I think "completely unacceptable" is very strong, but I will leave it up to members of WikiProject Motorsport to decide as I have no knowledge of standards the project has in place. Bobbacon 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A note is now in the wikisyntax requesting people not add any other winners and to refer to the main winners article. The see also link has also been made clearer. This will stop any problems until this discussion is closed. Bobbacon 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Bobbacon that I was too strong in my wording. Having results in two separate places is problematic for the reasons outlined above. There is a valid reason to split an article if it is very long, but that is not the case here. Royal broil  14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you were about right there, RB. That edit is not the way to improve that article; it in fact achieves the contrary. Readers are likely to be interested in the results, since they constitute the event's history. External links are inconsequential in comparison.  Adrian  M. H.  16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In my last post, I apologized for saying the biting term "completely unacceptable". I think you took the rest of my comment wrong. My intention was not to change my original objection comment but expanding on it. I consider external links and references to be mere footnotes and relatively inconsequential. Pushing them down after a 60 row table is no problem IMHO. Royal broil  16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you were disagreeing with the change. Is that not the case, then? I felt that you did not need to retract what is not an unfair term, in my opinion.  Adrian  M. H.  16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I want the articles to be merged one article which includes the long table - the way it was before the breakout article. Also, I would prefer to be called Royal or Royalbroil, not RB. Who wouldn't want to be called Royal, lol?! It is not a big deal though, and I wasn't offended in any way. RB sounds awkward to me. Royal broil  17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A few assessment queries
Just going through a few the WP:MOTOR assessment crieteria and I was wondering where the TLG drivers would come under,
 * Roger Williamson - Won the British F3 championship, a second level series, so should he be at Mid level?
 * Tony Brise - Same as Williamson
 * Tom Pryce - Perhaps the one I think will be argued that most. With a win at the 1975 Race of Champions, an Unofficial Formula One race, should he be considered "High"?

Anyway, I had a few more, but I would just like to put these guys forward and see where it goes from here. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Motorsport in Switzerland
Just a quick note to those that weren't aware, last week the ban on motorsport in Switzerland was lifted after 52 years. There are quite a few articles that still need to be updated so if you come across one, please update it. For a reference, this will probably do the job. AlexJ 10:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we assume that hillclimbing will be the most popular choice? :D 4u1e 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This site suggests that so far the change has only progressed through the lower house of parliament and still has to get through the upper house, which won't happen before September at the earliest. DH85868993 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and the Blick article suggests that hillclimbing was never banned in the first place. Pyrope 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which presumably means that it was circuit racing, rather than motorsport, which was banned in the first place? Contrary to what we all think we know. 4u1e 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it didn't cover hillclimbs as they're timetrials as opposed to racing. AlexJ 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It did not cover hillclimbs since there is only one car in an area at a time. Swiss the 1955 Le Mans disaster was caused by two cars coming into contact, they banned sport where two cars would compete alongside another. The359 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Le Mans Circuit Map
I was wondering if anyone who has worked on the current crop of SVG maps for F1 circuits would be able to redo the map of the Image:Circuit de la Sarthe.svg for the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The current map is quite plain and I believe actually outdated. The addition of names for some of the turns would be helpful as well. The359 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AlexJ has been doing stirling service in converting the smart new circuit plans to SVG format (see here for example) and he would probably be the best person to ask. I've left a message on his talk page asking him to think about it, I just hope he doesn't mind me volunteering him! Pyrope 09:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no problem I'll give it a shot. Will let you know when it's done. AlexJ 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, quick response. Thanks for that. Pyrope 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a first version. I'm not too sure about the corner numbering, if someone can find the correct number let me know. Also please point out any other mistakes/problems/feedback. Note that although I've included some of the more established corner names, I decided to leave out those which change yearly due to sponsors. AlexJ 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent Alex. Is that the MotoGP circuit in grey? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep indeed it is. Officially known as the Bugatti Circuit. AlexJ 11:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would actually eliminate the numbers just because I believe there is no official numbering. Because of the size of the circuit and numbering, almost all the turns are just refered to by name.


 * However, I can point out one mistake is that this map is still the outdated one. The section between turns 2/3 and 4/5 was replaced in 2002 with more Esses for a better entrance to the Bugatti Circuit.  It can be seen here:


 * I'd also suggest adding the Ford Chicanes and the Esses to the labeling, as well as pit lane possibly? The359 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea where to draw the pit lane, it doesn't seem to be on any circuit maps I can find. I've made the changes to the track layout although the source wasn't totally clear. Added the Ford corner label and dropped the numbering. AlexJ 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I figure that it might help to see the real thing, so here is the track on Google Maps. You can see the pit lane's orientation (the sportscars use the exit before the Dunlop Curve, motorcycles use the one that exits in the middle of the chicane) as well as how the Dunlop Chicane and Esses are situated.  Hopefully this will be a lot more helpful (and make sense).


 * Also I wonder if you could possibly do a version with English names for the turns? The359 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do a version en Anglais it that would be preferable. Just to check, clockwise from start/finish we've got Dunlop Curve, Tertre Rouge Corner, Mulsanne Straight, Mulsanne, Indianapolis, Arnage, Porsche Corner, Ford Chicanes. Correct? I'll add the pit lane at the same time. AlexJ 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Virage du Tertre Rouge is Red Hill Corner. Readro 13:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Between the Dunlop Curve and Tetre Rouge are the Dunlop Chicane and the Esses. Other then that, you have it correct.  And Tetre Rouge keeps its name in English just because I believe there is a pub near it called Tetre Rouge, from which it got the name. The359 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to doing the changes, now the pitlane is added and the names are in English. Third image to the right. AlexJ 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick query: I have usually heard/read of the Porsche Curves rather than Corner, because there is more than one turn there. Is that correct?  Adrian  M. H.  16:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would seem to be what the majority of sources refer to it as. I've modified the image to correct this. AlexJ 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate nitpicking because I know you've done some good work on this and I'm sure it takes some time. However, I realize the pit entrance is difficult to understand, especially since there are about 3 different ones (one for the Bugatti Circuit, one for Circuit de la Sarthe, and a third just for pace cars).  The one you have now is the one for the pace cars and not used at all by the race cars.  The full circuit entrance starts to the right of the Ford Chicanes, with a slight left-right chicane where the entrance crosses over the Bugatti Circuit.


 * Other then that though, the rest of the map looks alright, so there should be no other changes. The359 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay no problem, I just picked that because it looked the most like an entrance on the Google Map satellite image. I think I can see the one you described above and have now (hopefully) corrected the image. AlexJ 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's as close as it's even going to get, so thanks a lot. I'm adding it to the relevant articles now. The359 18:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of family relations in auto racing
I recently created a List of family relations in Formula One in my userspace. After discussions with the WikiProject Formula One, the list was moved to a List of family relations in auto racing. With the subsequent expansion of the list comes a problem: when is a racing driver notable enough for inclusion? It's obvious that we shouldn't include every well-meaning local driver. But from which racing "levels" do we include drivers? Formula One, NASCAR, IRL, Le Mans, A1 GP and Champ Car are imo obvious. GP2, Formula 3000, Indy Lights and Formula 3 are also pretty straight-forward. But Formula Renault? Formula Ford? Formula Holden? Kart racing? National formula racing championships in notable countries? Which are notable countries for that matter? A ecis Brievenbus 23:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to add the Suenaga brothers (Masao and Naoto) from D1 Grand Prix, which I left it out, even though drifting is motorsport but not really auto racing, unless you prefer, like some people to call it drift racing. Which for that case, would it be wise to retitle it List of family relations in motorsport or should I leave that out, in case somebody opts to add that in and cause an edit war. Willirennen 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I used "auto racing" instead of "motorsport" is that motorsport is currently a redirect to auto racing. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I had just had been thinking, motorsport could be used to describe motorcycling sport, aircraft sport or powerboat racing. Would that would make it too big as I know of a few motorcycling families (Roberts, Aoki, Dunlop) and another to consider is spouse (Pat Moss and Erik Carlsson).Willirennen 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer calling it motorsport and adding motorcycles, powerboats, and aircraft families. I was gonna point out married racers too - like NASCAR's Patty Moise and Elton Sawyer. As to the notability standard, I suggest the following: If the drivers/racers are notable enough to likely pass notability standards and survive an AfD (Articles for Deletion) nomination, then they should be included. I was unfamiliar with Formula Ford and Formula Holden. After reading the Formula Ford article I say "Notable" for professional Formula Ford national champs and major world contenders (maybe Top 10 in points). It turns out I saw at least one Formula Ford race at Road America! I thought the name sounded familiar. Now I understand why they didn't have a Formula Chevy series race! Also the champions for Formula Holden would be "Notable". I say "Notable" for karting national and world champions, and "Notable" for formula racing champions in ANY country. Royal broil  02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would work. The racecar drivers are roughly in the same ballpark. If we add motorcycles, powerboats and aircraft, the list could become a massive jumble of names. I would suggest creating several parallel lists, such as List of family relations in motorcycle sport, etc. They could be covered by the umbrella List of family relations in racing, which could even cover List of family relations in horse racing. See the list of nationality transfers in sport (e.g. #Athletics and #Chess) for an example. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have created the section #Spouses. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Willirennen 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about movers and shakers of auto racing, say the France and the Hulmans, I had to put that on hold when I was beginning to get carried away. Willirennen 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. On the one hand they are definitely notable and relevant within auto racing, as would for instance Patrick Head and Flavio Briatore. On the other hand, including them might open up the way to Paul Newman and David Letterman, to name two people who are important in auto racing, but are not primarily notable for it. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Willirennen was suggesting the inclusion of families involved in motorsport administration, such as Bill France Sr & Jr, and the various members of the Hulman family, rather than individuals such as Head, Briatore, Newman and Letterman. DH85868993 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable levels
Two discussions seem to intertwine in the above discussion: one on the scope of the list and one on the notability criteria. I believe it would be better to split the two discussions, and use the above discussion to establish which forms of racing should be included in the list. This thread can be used to establish which racing classes/formulae are notable within those forms of racing. As it stands, the following leagues definitely seem to qualify: The following may be notable enough: Any suggestions/additions? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Formula racing
 * Formula One
 * Formula Two
 * Formula Three
 * Formula 3000
 * GP2 Series
 * A1 Grand Prix
 * AIACR European Championship
 * American racing leagues
 * IndyCar
 * Indy Racing League
 * ChampCar
 * Indy Lights
 * All NASCAR-sanctioned series
 * Touring Car racing
 * Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters
 * World Touring Car Championship
 * British Touring Car Championship
 * Endurance and GT racing
 * 24 Hours of Le Mans
 * American Le Mans Series
 * FIA GT Championship
 * Kart racing
 * Karting World Championship
 * Formula A
 * Formula Ford
 * Formula Holden
 * Formula Vee
 * Formula Renault


 * How are Formula Ford and Formula Renault less notable than A1 GP? Kimi Raikkonen moved from F Renault straight to Formula One if I remember correctly and most drivers in open wheel racing start in Formula Ford... --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Add V8 Supercars to Touring Car Racing, it's definitely in the same class as those listed. AlexJ 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If Formula Ford is allowed then Formula BMW should be there as well. Also, all the old similarly-ranked series such as Formula Vauxhall etc. Off the top of my head, there should also be Le Mans Series, BPR Global GT Series, World Rally Championship, pre-F1 Grand Prix motor racing, Land speed record people, Dakar Rally, European Touring Car Championship, Voiturette racing, Formula Junior, etc. That's a good list to start with. There's probably a load more I've forgotten. Also, remove karting. There are too many people involved in that for them to be notable. Readro 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only added the top karting leagues, Formula A and the World Championship. The drivers there are all professionals, meet WP:BIO and are probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I agree that we shouldn't include well-meaning amateurs, but I think that's not the case with these two karting formulas. Which drag racing levels/leagues/classes are notable btw? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if we've got any drag racing specialists though. Readro 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For drag racing in the U.S., it definitely needs to include NHRA. Many time champion John Force and his rookie daughter Ashley Force are quite notable. Her notability has been greatly increased because she looks like a model, and her article gets a fair bit of vandalism. IHRA should be included too. I agree with the professional-level karting comment above. Royal broil  16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like these to be added, though from experience, the last 2 of the first four is bound to cause some debates. But do please be open minded about it, after all, it is motorsport. They are Super GT, Formula Nippon, D1 Grand Prix and Formula D.


 * The first 2 are Japan's premier racing series, Super GT are notable for having a worldwide fanbase (they even show highlights in Europe) and once held an exhibition round in the US. Formula Nippon is much like F3000/GP2 with a different sets of rules, D1GP and Formula D are premier drifting series in its respective countries (any others wouldn't come any closer). D1GP are notable with in its worldwide fan following, as it has hosted exhibition rounds in both the US and UK, there was even a point scoring round held at Irwindale. The series had its own domestic series in Malaysia and US and who both had its only season, the UK and New Zealand. Formula D is its US equivalent series with a different rules. The next 2 can be added on without hopefully any questions, Grand-Am, V8 Supercar.


 * Also I would like to add in these defunct series, Trans-Am, Can-Am, IROC, IMSA Camel GT, World Sportscar Championship, Japanese Touring Car Championship, All Japan Sports Prototype Championship, Deutsche Rennsport Meisterschaft, Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft, Australian Touring Car Championship, Super Touring, Italia Superturismo Championship. Depends on how you think is notable, its just I happened to have heard of them all. Willirennen 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about drifting. While it's definitely motorsport, I think it qualifies more as auto acrobatics than as auto racing. It would be akin to the difference between speed skating and figure skating. I would like to emphasize that when I listed the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, I also meant it to cover Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft. I believe the other levels/classes can be added as well. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added most of the levels to User talk:Aecis/List of family relations in auto racing. If consensus is reached on the inclusion of a class/level/league/formula, you can add it to the list. If you feel that a highly obvious class is missing, you can be bold and add it. When you edit the list, please sign your name below my signature at the bottom of the list, so that we can keep track of the progress of the list. When we have a consensus on the scope and the inclusion criteria, I think the list is ready to be moved to the mainspace. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 10:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the World Series by Renault? Obvious enough to be bold, or not? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold - it's at least somewhat international. Royal broil  14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth adding on is hillclimbing, especially the renowned Pikes Peak International Hill Climb. I also want to add on NIRA (National Import Racing Association) before that was sold out to NHRA's and became its own Sport Compact Racing Series, it was also namechecked on The Fast and The Furious, another notable US import dragracing series worth mentioning is the Battle of the Imports. Willirennen 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was expecting by now, somebody to bring up Sprint car racing, including World of Outlaws, just trying to bring it up before I get beaten to it. What do you think of adding British stock car racing (BriSCA) as it had some decent TV coverage in the 1980's and Rallycross which became popular for allowing the banned Group B cars to race in. As for rallying, there is plenty of national rallying series that is worth bringing up. Willirennen 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one, 2 major national touring car series, Super Tourenwagen Cup (STW) and Championnat de France de Supertourisme. Willirennen 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I should have thought of the World of Outlaws (WoO). Good call. Royal broil  04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the Team Infobox
I had a go at using the team infobox for Carlin Motorsport and I was wondering if we should have a Manual of Style for the infobox and if I had done it right and attractively ;-). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I have only used it on Trident Racing and Team Rosberg thus far. With Rosberg, I just listed the quantity of titles, but I actually like your approach. Although we might need to leave out the drivers' names, as that could get too squished.  Adrian  M. H.  15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially when a certain Alan van der Merwe takes up two lines... --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 15:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport in
What do we think about adding motor racing teams and racecar constructors into the relevant "Motorsport in " category? Several are already included, but the majority are not. If we think it's a good idea (as I do), then would we prefer to see them included directly into the category, or into subcategories such as " racecar constructors" and/or " auto racing teams"? If we go with the subcategories approach, they could tie in with some other existing categories as follows - consider the example of Ligier:


 * Category:Motorsport in France
 * Category:French auto racing teams
 * Ligier
 * Category:French racecar constructors
 * Ligier


 * Category:Auto racing teams
 * Category:Auto racing teams by country
 * Category:French auto racing teams
 * Ligier


 * Category:Racecar constructors
 * Category:Racecar constructors by country
 * Category:French racecar constructors
 * Ligier

Thoughts? DH85868993 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this proposal, but I think we should extend the categorization by one step, by applying Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams to all Formula One teams, present and past. Category:Ligier Formula One drivers would contain e.g. Jacques Laffite, Olivier Panis, Jean-Pierre Jarier, etcetera. To use Michael Schumacher as another example: he could be categorized not just in Category:Ferrari Formula One drivers, but also in Category:Jordan Grand Prix Formula One drivers and Category:Benetton Formula Formula One drivers. Takuma Sato could be categorized in Category:Jordan Grand Prix Formula One drivers, Category:British American Racing Formula One drivers and Category:Super Aguri F1 Formula One drivers. Etcetera. Such a categorization would be akin to the subcategories of Category:Footballers by club. But looking at the category names, and the subcategories of Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams, I think I prefer Category:Formula One drivers for . My suggestion would obviously apply to similar racing classes as well. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *Raises hand for third vote in favor.* --Chr.K. 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Universal time and speed format
Previously on the IMS page, the format of track records for AOWR, NASCAR and F1 events were separate, with the first two reading with colons between both hours and minutes and minutes and seconds, but the F1 template read with a single apostraphe between minutes and seconds. If this was/is an example of standard FIA-oriented Wikiprojects' format for timing, I propose encouraging standardization of all track record, race, qualifying and/or practice times and speeds, in all motorsports pages, to a 0:00:00.000 time format, and a speed reference to both mph and km/h (or vice versa, outside England and America), as shown in example on the List of Indianapolis 500 winners page, or the IMS page itself under the Records section. Professional use of the multiple colons in timing records is visible in the history section of the IMS programs for both the 500 and F1, and can also be found in numerous professional scientific publications. Thoughts? --Chr.K. 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * Over the past few weeks, I've been going through the F1 race reports, updating the times to match www.formula1.com (the nominal source of the race result information). As I've been doing so, I've been changing time formats from 0:00:00.000 to 0:00'00.000 (a) for consistency with www.formula1.com, and (b) for internal consistency among the F1 race reports (I did a quick survey before I started and the majority of the F1 race reports seemed to use the 0:00'00.000 format). My personal belief is that the "apostrophe" format is "more correct" than the "colon" format, but if the consensus here turns out to be to use "colon" format everywhere, I'm happy to comply.
 * I believe it would be incorrect to always quote number of seconds to 3 decimal places. I think the number of decimal places needs to reflect the accuracy of the original measurement, e.g. if a lap time was originally measured as 1'24.5 (i.e. it was only measured to the nearest 1/10th of a second), then it should always be quoted as 1'24.5, not 1'24.500.
 * DH85868993 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with the guideline on this one. Manual_of_Style says "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language; none is more “correct” than the others" and "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". So the article should reflect the method used in the country most closely tied to the article IMHO. Royal broil  03:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But apostrophe versus colon isn't a national variety of English issue, is it? I was under the impression that apostrophe means "minutes", and that quote means "seconds". DH85868993 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to nationality, for WikiProject Sports Car Racing I've used mph/miles for North American series information and km/h/km for European series. However all have used the time format of 0:00.000 or however many decimal places I am given. The359 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Chr.K. proposed the most common usage in the U.S. 0:00:00.000. It is less common to use 1'24.505" but not unheard of. It's an older style that is becoming less prevalent. I had the misfortune of land surveying at my former workplace, and the angles use the 1' 24.505" format for 1 minute and 24.505 seconds. In other words, I think there are minor differences between countries, so the article should reflect the most common preference of the nation. I graduated with a math major from a college, and they drilled into our heads that the degree of accuracy of the measurement should be always be used, not a fixed number of decimal places, so I strongly agree with Chr.K on that topic. Royal broil  05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience is consistent with Royalbroil's comments. Barno 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Royalbroil wrote "the degree of accuracy of the measurement should be always be used, not a fixed number of decimal places, so I strongly agree with Chr.K on that topic" But isn't Chr.K suggesting that we should use a fixed number of decimal places? DH85868993 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't use more decimal places than the data are already quoted to, as you imply a greater degree of precision than is justified. I agree that a maximum of three is sensible, but you can't impose a minimum. As for apostrophe vs colon I would back apostrophe, simply because there is less chance for confusion, especially where all three factors are not quoted (e.g. 1:20 for one hour twenty minutes, and 1'20 for one minute twenty seconds). Pyrope 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me DH85868993. I should have attributed the comment to you. I like how Pyrope worded the degree of accuracy - it should be 3 digits maximum with no minimum. Royal broil  00:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd mention that the IRL are using timing equipment that measures to 4 decimal places. Readro 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the standard should be to use the same precision that was officially recorded, which (except for the very earliest races) ranges from tenths of a second to ten-thousandths of a second. I prefer the colon separator rather than apostrophe, because in various forms of North American motorsport (and most USA reporting of F1 and Le Mans) I have usually seen all colons.  Many people haven't been exposed to the ' notation and might think it referred to longitude or an angle, or might think it was a typo. Barno 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree with Barno's that the precision should always be the same as the official measurement. I agree with his assessment that many U.S. people will be confused by the ' notation. Royal broil 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks like number of decimal places issues is settled then. Regarding apostrophe versus colon, I did a quick scan of Wikipedia for precedents: Marathon world best progression, 1500 metres, World record progression for the mile run and Kentucky Derby all use colon to separate minutes from seconds, so it looks like that's the de facto standard. WP:MOS suggests colon (insofar as it suggests against using " to denote seconds), but note that it's describing how to record a time-of-day, not an elapsed period. On that basis, and the other arguments presented above, I'm happy to go with colon. How about you, Pyrope? DH85868993 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is what is generally preferred then so be it. Pyrope 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of decimal places the finish for the interval of the finish of the 2006 Indianapolis 500 was recorded at 0.0635 seconds, down to four decimals (especially since the advent of so many tight finishes, IndyCar/IRL scoring has gone deeper in precision of late). Which then should it be in Wikipedia's rendering, 0.0635 or 0.064?...because if we go to four for one scoring, I say we should go to four for all, and vice versa with three. As it stands, I could settle for 0.064, and have three decimals universal standard, period. --Chr.K. 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the amount of decimal places should be decided by the degree of accuracy of the scoring system. For instance, 0.14 means that the actual time is between 0.135 and 0.145. To put 0.140 would be inaccurate because we are not certain what the third digit actually is. Readro 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Readro is correct. This topic came up often in college, as I was a math major. If anyone has any doubts or questions, you can read the article Significant figures. The article False precision is an interesting read - talks about claiming digits of accuracy that you don't have. Royal broil  19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Readro explains it best, when you have 0.136 seconds, what that means is it's between 0.1355 and 0.1364 but not necessarily 0.1360. We should always give the most accurate figure available which is to the number of decimal places provided by the timing system, but never 'add' accuracy. AlexJ 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)