Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Circuit Diagrams

Circuit maps tend to be used for the same purposes for each different circuit but there are a wide variety of different styles being used at the moment. I believe it would look better for there to be more consistency in our map design, and I'd like to start working on standardising the map designs used at present in Wikipedia, but wanted to get some consensus before starting this task as to what we actually want the maps to look like (a 'house style' if you like). Considering primarily 'road course' circuit maps and ignoring ovals and the like, as I see it, there are two primary uses of these on Wikipedia:

1) In a race infobox
 * Generally rendered at a very small size - text and numbering barely visible, hard to make out arrow directions
 * Usually used as a visual identifier for the circuit - doesn't need to go into detail regarding the circuit

2) In a circuit article


 * Can be rendered at a larger size than in an infobox
 * Reader will be more interested in the circuit itself and the image should reflect the extra interest with more detail
 * Corner numbers and names might be referenced in the text, so it's useful to see where they are on a map
 * Useful to see path of other layouts, so long as it's obviously distinguished from the layout being focussed on.

Presently, we tend to use the same image for both purposes. I believe we may be better to use two designs, as the requirements for the images are different in either case. The SVG format makes it easy to remove/add the detail, so this wouldn't create much extra work.

Here's a first draft of a possible design. They are intended to show the level of detail and style (and might not be 100% accurate). These are very similar to one that's already being used, which I believe provides the best balance between looking clean and tidy, being easy to read and provides an appropriate level of detail.

Infobox map proposal:
 * Outline of track layout being used
 * Large graphics for direction of travel and start/finish line
 * No other course layouts depicted



Circuit article map proposal:
 * Outline of track layout being used in black, other layouts 'contained' within the course optionally depicted in light grey
 * Smaller graphics for direction of travel and start/finish line
 * Corner names to be included, where official/commonly known (DejaVu Sans Condensed font)
 * Corner numbers to be included (DejaVu Sans Bold font)
 * Service roads, access roads etc. not shown
 * Data about the layout (date first used, length) etc. not included in the map itself
 * Multiple series will use the circuit so timing sectors, speeds, gears etc. should be avoided as these will be series specific.



Your suggestions please. AlexJ (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Those maps look very good. :) I'd like to see a north arrow, and a scale. I recommend 200metres / 1/4 mile. I'd put major alternative courses in the infobox, for example the National course in Silverstone, but not the Stoke course. SVG all the way of course. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having done a couple of these myself I'm all in favour of most of your suggestions, and those of NaBUru38. I raised a few points that you've mentioned with Will Pittenger when he was putting a lot of his maps together and his reasoning for a lot of the choices he made was that he was developing the images for use outside Wikipedia and just uploaded them here as a service to the community. It doesn't explain his bananas choices of scale bars or the use of serif fonts and badly kerned text, but it does at least show why many of the more cluttering features are there. This has a direct bearing on possibly your most important observation: that many of these images are rendered small in infoboxes. Here, we could combine your "Infobox map" with the full circuit diagram by using the "Link" parameter in the image syntax options. By simply adding "|link=page" option to the image name in the infobox you could make a small infobox image link through to the full circuit diagram, thus:
 * [[Image:Proposal_InfoboxCircuitMap_AlexJ1.svg|link=Image:Proposal_CircuitMap_AlexJ1.svg|150px]]
 * That would allow us to be very flexible with just how basic (at one end of the scale) or detailed (at the other) we wanted to get. How's that sound?  Pyrop e  22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best of both worlds for the infoboxes - uncluttered when shown at thumbnail size but with the detail easily available. I think the scale and north arrow could neatly fit into the corners of the detailed version, without it looking too crowded. AlexJ (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Example scale bars and north arrow added. AlexJ (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the msot important thing is that the maps are consistent across Wikipedia. The Formula 1 pages are notoriously inconsistent - some of them (namely the old Singapore one) even looked half-finished. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we do need to decide on what that consistent design should be. AlexJ (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that those of us wanting to debate this further and work up a proposal for a set of uniform formatting guidelines ought to take this off to a Taskforce subpage (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Circuit Diagrams ?) rather than clog up this talk page with endless back and forth and detailed discussion. We can then bring it back here once the basics have been thrashed out. How does that sound?  Pyrop e  19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed out the first ten Grand Prix of the 2012 F1 season to what was discussed so far. I'd welcome any feedback before going any further. AlexJ (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they need to be larger. The Buddh map is a good size. In fact, I think the Buddh map (and also Port Imperial) is a perfect example of what the maps should be. They should be re-oriented to fit a 3:2 portrait size (as best they can), north needs to be clearly marked (these are, after all maps), the pit lane should be visible, and corner numbers won't hurt. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a lot to get into a small space, which generally hasn't worked so far (text tends to be unreadable etc.). The Buddh map is a good size from the point of being able to see the details, but while it may be a reasonable size for the article on the circuit itself, it seems excessive for a map to take up the same amount of space as the rest of the infobox combined in a race report. It's size in the 2011 Indian Grand Prix article, means that at my screen resolution the Race Winner is 'below the fold', making the infobox kinda-useless for providing all the essential facts at a glance. One alternative would be to hide the circuit map altogether behind a Show/Hide toggle, but I'm not convinced that's a better option than an outline map that goes high-detail when clicked. AlexJ (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Corner numbers and the pit lane could be sacrificed if need be, but the maps certainly need to be bigger than what you've produced, even if they're not as big as the Buddh map. You could get rid of the connecting roads that allow for different circuit configurations as well, since they don't apply to Formula 1. At the very least, they should be a 3:2 landscape (though portrait is best), with the diagram oriented to fit this (as opposed to being oriented to point north) and the width of the infobox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm struggling to defend the design I'm testing, I'm not a fan of rotating the orientation - I did a test in my sandbox (User:AlexJ/Sandbox10) and found that on my screen in order to have the infobox down as far as the podium show when the page loaded (i.e without having to scroll) required meant shrinking the size to 140px. Sure, resolution of each screen is going to vary, but this is on a fairly typical 22" widescreen monitor. Having it at a size that fills the width cuts off the infobox at the Pole Position details.  AlexJ (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The version you have created is still far too small, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's try and find the compromise.




 * AlexJ (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any opinions on if any of these would work? I think the second one along could work nicely in a race report infoboxes (linked to the full one (#4)). The full design could also be used for the primary current layout in line for circuit articles, with older layouts shown at the third size? AlexJ (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would work just fine. I could also live the third size, but without turn numbers.

I do, however, think we need to re-orient the images to portrait size. I understand your issues with it, but I think that 3:2 portrait size is the right way forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise YMMV on this depending on screen size etc. but as a visual comparison, the below is how infoboxes with a similar size graphic in both portrait and landscape first show on my screen:
 * F1 Infobox Test.png
 * I can't see the benefit of going portrait other than to gain that whitespace that I've highlighted with the red hatchings, but I can see a downside which is the increased likelihood of the race winner (and other useful at-a-glance info) being cut off the page. Maybe there's something else I'm missing? AlexJ (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The benefit is in making the presentiation identical. That might seem like a purely cosmetic thing, but when you have a variety of layout types, it looks really shabby. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the next question is, what's the benefit of uniformizing to portrait? Why not landscape, or 45degrees top-left to bottom-right? AlexJ (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to rustle up some support for a similar project to this a while ago. I was told that portrait was the best layout to use. I believe that this is because a lot of circuits will fit best into a 3:2 portrait orientation and will have the arrow indicating north pointing upwards. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Italian user interested in this work
Hi, I'm an italian user of it.wiki and I want to know how the work procede. Are there other maps in addition to the above ones? Will it be useful if I ask some help to the Italian graphics? Because I can show you some sources that I found about historical tracks, but I'm the worst graphic in the world so I can't help too much with the creation of circuit maps. :-) Restu 20 18:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)