Talk:2018 Supercars Championship

The table

The current format of the table is out of step with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. This table arranges the teams based on the lowest number used by a driver, but without a sequential numbering scheme, it's a mess to behold. When a sequential numbering scheme is not used, WP:MOTOR current follows this format:

1. Alphabetically by constructor/manufacturer.
2. Alphabetically by teams within a constructor/manufacturer.
3. Numerically by rounds contested within a team.
4. Where all drivers contest all rounds, drivers are arranged numerically by car number.

This is the simplest model to follow. It minimises redundancies and limits the potential for multi-row cells overlapping. "We have always done it this way" is not a valid argument. It's an excuse (and a pretty pathetic one at that). We should not be making decisions on how to represent content simply because a previous article in a series did it this way.

Furthermore, I noticed that someone made the argument that the 2015 article handled teams using multiple car models without a problem. But there's a small problem with this—the 2015 table is completely inappropriate. The FG and FG X Falcons are two completely different cars, and so the table should show which rounds the team used the FG for, and which rounds they used the FG X.

I should not need to explain this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BRD process does require an editor wanting to make a case for change to something that has been long standing if challenged. Particularly in light of you unsuccessfully trying to get this up previously. So really you do need to explain this.

Looking at similar motorsport articles; 2017 Formula One season, 2017 MotoGP season and 2017 British Touring Car Championship, all list by team / entrant rather than manufacturer. I don't see how the proposed format change will be in any better position to reflect teams using more then one chassis type in a season, short of adding an extra column to denote which chassis were used at which round. But then that would apply to both formats. Memdo56 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"all list by team / entrant rather than manufacturer"

In the first column, perhaps. But that bold column titled "constructor" is the manufacturer. It's impossible to miss.

"I don't see how the proposed format change will be in any better position to reflect teams using more then one chassis type in a season"

Because the system used in the 2015 Supercars article only indicates that two chassis were used. It doesn't indicate when they were use.

"short of adding an extra column to denote which chassis were used at which round"

You don't think the fact that teams are using completely different models of car is worth highlighting? 2017 World Rally Championship does exactly that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of which format is used, a column will need to be added much live the 'Events' column in the 2017 article to differentiate which drivers raced which model at which round. I don't see how the proposed format will get around this as suggested. So unless I am missing something, that is a moot point.

Not saying it isn't worthy of being discussed, but given that a driver could race with up to 3 engine / chassis combinations, we need to weigh up the pros and cons of being informative with bogging it down with excessive information. The 2003 Formula 1 article where teams used multiple doesn't go into this level of detail.

What you are proposing is to split the chassis column into one for the manufacturer and one for the chassis, and then sort by manufacturer rather than car number, and IMO it isn't necessary. Memdo56 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Not saying it isn't worthy of being discussed"

Then why aren't you discussing it? You insist a discussion is necessary, but then you don't participate for days. Yet when someone makes changes to an article, you revert them within hours. It looks like you're deliberately stalling to prevent the discussion from taking place. And I am always suspicious when a relatively new editor claims a working knowledge of Wikipedia policies (although 3RR doesn't work the way you think it does).

"I don't see how the proposed format will get around this"

There is no way to "get around it". I never said there was. If one driver uses two separate models of car, then there will be some doubling-up of information.

"What you are proposing is to split the chassis column into one for the manufacturer and one for the chassis, and then sort by manufacturer rather than car number, and IMO it isn't necessary"

Except—as I have already pointed out&mdash:it is the format preferred by WP:MOTOR and actually bring structure to a messy, un-ordered table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been discussing am am quite happy to continue doing so, just that at this point, am not in agreement with what is proposed. The format you are proposing is used in some motors sport articles, but by no means universally.Memdo56 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"The format you are proposing is used in some motors sport articles, but by no means universally"

It's used by all of the major ones, and that's good enough for me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of counter argument (beyond "we've always done it this way", which amounts to "I don't like it"), I have reintroduced the streamlined table format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed format gives the impression that it is a manufacturers championship. see no reason to add complexity to something that is perfectly functional. Impala27 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impala27 — it is not "perfectly functional". It's a mess. The entire table is organised based on the third column when it should be based on the first, and given the non-sequential numbering, it's haphazard at best. If the cars were numbered 1-2-3-4-5-6, it might have some merit, but instead it's 2-22-5-6-55-9. There is no apparent organisation to it, and large parts of the table are redundant because it repeats other parts of the table. The suggestion that it gives the impression of a manufacturers' championship is grossly overstated. And the version that I put forward is not complicated. It's designed to be streamlined; the eye naturally goes from left to right, so the big, broad details go on the left and the specific details on the right. What's more, this is a format promoted by WP:MOTOR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on table format

I'm going to put this to an RfC because this article doesn't get a lot of editing traffic, and is only edited by a handful of editors, many of whom are infrequent editors.

Right now, there are two approaches that editors want to take to the table in the "teams and drivers" section: Version A and Version B, and editors are divided over which is the best method of presenting the table. The purpose of this RfC is to draw on a wider range of opinions to better inform the decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Version B for the following reasons:

1. It is more consistent with the style of table promoted by WP:MOTOR, such as the tables used at 2017 FIA World Rally Championship and 2017 MotoGP season.
2. I feel that the organisation of Version A is haphazard, as it organises the table based on the third column; furthermore, as the numbers in that column are not sequential, this organisation is not immediately apparent to the casual reader.
3. Version B is a streamlined version of the table. The broad, general details are arranged on the left hand side, and it gradually works towards more specific details on the right. Furthermore, it contains none of the redundancies present in Version A.

I will leave it to a proponent of Version A to argue the case for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The table promoted by WP:MOTOR is not universally used though, BTCC, ETCC and WTCC being examples where Version A is used. For anybody who would like a bit more background, some of the pros and cons were discussed here. Impala27 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Version B From an outside perspective I find this more visually appealing and easier to follow. AIRcorn (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Version B from someone who doesn't know anything. I do recall years ago teams being talked about in terms of Holden etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Version B definitely, although I think the enduro co-driver column needs to be there as well --John, AF4JM (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has now closed. There is a clear preference for Version B to be used im the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The table doesn't seem to handle Matt Stone Racing switching manufacturers very well, necessitating 2 separate sections. Old one would have handled better. Memdo56 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Event sponsors

What, exactly does naming event sponsors add to the article? The Adelaide 500 lost Clipsall sponsorship for 2018, but regardless of who puts their name to the event, the Adelaide 500 is going to go ahead in the same calendar berth and with the same format as it did in 2017. The only thing that changes is the signage around the circuit. Look at 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship for comparison: officially, the Australian Grand Prix is the 2017 Rolex Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix, but the article only gives the name as "Australian Grand Prix" because it doesn't matter who sponsors it. 2017 FIA World Rally Championship and 2017 MotoGP season are the same—they don't name sponsors. It's a detail that is better-suited to the individual race articles: for example, the lead of Adelaide 500 says that it is "previously known for sponsorship reasons as the Clipsal 500 Adelaide"; and Supercars Challenge (event) is "known for sponsorship reasons as the Coates Hire Supercars Challenge, and previously known under various other names"; and Bathurst 1000 is "currently branded as the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 for sponsorship reasons". These details don't affect the championship—they only affect peripheral things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the main reason to leave them there (I see that someone else has now added them again) is to ensure consistency with previous seasons. I think this is more important than matching other motorsports series.SchueyFan (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchueyFan — just because we do something on previous pages, that doesn't mean that we have to keep doing it. The sponsor of an event is completely transient, and a detail better-suited to the event's article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding proper references

@Hiflex480 — could you please try to add proper references to the article? What you're sourcing is fine, but how you're filling out the reference template needs work. This is what the most-recent one you added (Davison to 23Red) looks like:

<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/new-23red-racing-locks-in-will-davison/|title=New 23Red Racing locks in Will Davison {{!}} Supercars|work=Supercars|access-date=2017-11-30|language=en-US}}</ref>

But this is what it should look like:

<ref name=":1">{{cite news|url=http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/new-23red-racing-locks-in-will-davison/|title=New 23Red Racing locks in Will Davison|work=supercars.com|publisher=[[Supercars Championship|Supercars]]|accessdate=1 December 2017|date=1 December 2017}}</ref>

First, you need to use a proper date format. The series is Australian, so the article should use Australian English, and this extends to the date format. It's DD-MM-YYYY, not YYYY-MM-DD, and "1 December 2017" is preferred to "01-12-2017" or the like. Speaking of dates, the date of publication is more important than the date of last access.

Secondly, please make sure you get the publisher's details correct. The "work" parameter refers to where it was published while "publisher" is who published it. In this case, it was published on the Supercars website by Supercars; it was not published on Supercars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice. I'm fairly new to all this, so all help can work so I can do what I can right. Hiflex480 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To-do list

@Hiflex480, @Tvx1, @The V8 Cookie — there's a few things that need to be updated that are kind of labour-intensive, so I'm hoping you might be able to help me out with them:

1. The article lead mentions that DJR Team Penske are the teams' champions, but it still needs to mention the drivers' champion. I've only got sources from Speedcafe, which I feel the article relies on too heavily (also, as a lifelong fan of #17 and experiencing the crushing disappointment of Newcastle in person, I can't bring myself to name the drivers' champion).
2. The 2017 article mentions that Ford are the manufacturers' champions. I'm not aware that there is a manufacturers' championship, but Supercars is fourth on my list of must-watch championships (after the WRC, F1 and F2), so I miss rounds quite frequently; it's entirely conceivable that it is awarded and I have no idea about it. If it is indeed a thing, I think we need a results matrix for it.
3. We also need a blank table for the Enduro Cup. It's probably a long-term thing since it doesn't start until August-September, but blank tables are fiddly jobs.

Any help that you can offer would be very much appreciated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Triple Eight wildcard

The Triple Eight wildcard was proposed as a means of testing the then under development V6 With that program officially on hold, although possibly cancelled altogether, the appearance of a Triple Eight wildcard is at best doubtful, so we should not include until such time it appears likely to happen. This article listing all co-drivers including TBAs does not include, so appears Speedcafe are of the opinion it is off. That is further backed up by Triple Eight stating it has pulled all resources from the project. Fecotank (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To reaffirm, Triple Eight has stated, post the V6 cancellation that is is solely focussing on development of the ZB Commodore now the V6 program has been shelved. The wildcard was only proposed as part of the now aborted V6 project, so now this has been shelved, so too the reason for the wildcard entry. Fecotank (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide specifically state that the wildcard has been cancelled. What you are doing is a combination of synthesis—because you are drawing on multiple sources to come to a conclusion supported by none of them—and speculating because you are trying to anticipate what the future looks like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fecotank — you absolutely need sources to prove your claim. Right now, we have a source that says T8 intend to enter a wildcard, but we don't have one that says the wildcard has been shelved. No matter how likely we think it is that the wildcard plan has been abandoned, we can't say it without a source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And what you are doing is point blank resfusing to even think about is practically, instead relying on cites from before the major announcement, that has seen the goalposts move. To include we should be reasonably certain something will occur, and after the cancelation of the core reason for the wildcard entry, that is no longer the case. I notice you haven't refuted with any cites post the announcement. Fecotank (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of "practicality". It's a question of what we can prove with reliable and verifiable sources. Believe it or not, I agree that the wildcard is unlikely to happen—but I don't have any sources to support that. The only claim I can support is the claim that the V6 programme has ended. None of the sources that you provided and none of the other sources that I can find support the claim that the wildcard has been abandoned.

And I don't need to provide a source to refute to claims made post-announcement because none of the sources provided claim the wildcard has been cancelled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Motoring.com.au states:

The engine was due to make some wildcard race entries later this year but, obviously, they now won’t happen. [1]

Auto Action issue 1730 states:

Dane (as in team owner Roland Dane) confirmed the proposed wildcard entry at Bathurst would not proceed.

So right from the horses mouth, it has been cancelled. Cwr09 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, removing it is entirely justified. But there is a big difference between having a reference where Roland Dane says "the wildcard plan has been cancelled" and an editor with no source inferring that it has been cancelled because it was tied to something else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys and Cwr09: While it seems like you may have come to some sort of rough agreement here (based on the last reply), a WP:Third Opinion was requested, and I am willing to provide one if it is still required.

Think issue has now been resolved, thanks @Cwr09: for the cites, @Menaechmi:, I don't think the 3rd opinion is now required, thanks for offering though. Fecotank (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just glad you all got it sorted out menaechmi (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Menaechmi — I take a slightly different view. The issue wasn't so much the content as to how the original edits were justified. The original plan was for Triple 8 to enter a third car—a wildcard entry—in one race, using it to test the new V6 engine. When the V6 project was cancelled, this was used to justify removing the wildcard. However, none of the original sources describing the V6's cancellation said anything about the wildcard. Triple 8 could still enter that wildcard without a V6 engine. To me, this was a clear case of synthesis. There was no mention of the wildcard's cancellation in the sources, only the editor's assumption that the wildcard and the V6 were mutually inclusive—that because the wildcard was proposed to test the V6, the cancellation of the V6 automatically meant that the wildcard was cancelled despite a lack of a source.

Although new sources have since emerged showing that the wildcard has been cancelled, I think the underlying issue still needs to be addressed: how editors go about selecting sources and presenting content in articles in line with Wikipedia policies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: First, let me apologize for not pinging you originally, because I missed that a third editor had chimed in, and had pinged them instead of you. I will give a brief third opinion to this statement. Please remember that Fecotank is a brand new editor, and had yet to be autoconfirmed when they initially made the revision, so getting a few things wrong is forgivable on their part.

While I agree with you, that there was a little bit of synth in spirit, Fecotank was just being WP:BOLD, and removing content per the editing policy (which states "on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content"). A more experienced editor might have added a note to the table that says "* Development of this engine has ceased" with the provided links, or raised the issue on the talk page before making the edit, but removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors is not WP:OR. Ignoring the synth policy in this case was a good thing, because it improved the encyclopedia, and in addition (hopefully) helped educate a new Wikipedian on what constitutes synthesis. menaechmi (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Menaechmi — I disagree. The original inclusion of the Triple 8 wildcard was supported by a reliable and verifiable source. Therefore, its removal should also be supported by a more recent reliable and verifiable source, even if it is only on the article talk page. The original removal did not have evidence to support it. Ignoring SYNTH is not acceptable because it opens the door to OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The primary problem is that Prisonermonkeys seems to thrive on conflict, his extensive block log is testament to that. He is correct in stating the cites were correct when published, but there had been a seismic change since that threw the relevancy of these into doubt. If the project for which the wildcard entry programme was being conducted was aborted, then the chances of it occurring were always going to be doubtful. A bit like deciding not to sit an exam at school but still studying for it anyway, not going to happen. Fecotank (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Prisonermonkeys seems to thrive on conflict, his extensive block log is testament to that."

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

"If the project for which the wildcard entry programme was being conducted was aborted, then the chances of it occurring were always going to be doubtful."

While true, it's completely irrelevant. If you don't have the source to back up the claims, you cannot make the assumption. That's original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

The model is the Falcon, the type is the FG X. It is not a Ford FG X. Stop changing it. 2001:8003:3C0E:BC00:A1FE:2CD6:243C:CEAD (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The car is consistently referred to as the "FG X Falcon". It's s style of naming that goes all the way back to the BA Falcon. 1.144.105.225 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Such an inference is incorrect. You don't see the the new Mustang referred to as the "S550 Mustang". You don't see Mercedes listed as "C-Class Mercedes" or "E-Class Mercedes". The model type comes after the model name to better relate them back to their higher-level groupings; e.g. Ford Falcon (AU, BA, BF, FG, FG X) as opposed to Ford AU (Falcon), Ford BA (Falcon), etc. 2001:8003:3C0E:BC00:A1FE:2CD6:243C:CEAD (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The correct use of the name for this years models is "Ford Falcon FG X", "Holden Commodore ZB" and "Nissan Altima L33". It has been written the incorrect way for years now however event articles starting this season have seen a move towards the correct nomenclature. Similar to how Shane van Gisbergen's name has recently been corrected to using a lowercase 'v' when his full name is in use. Holdenman05 (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies. The car is consistently referred to as the "FG X Falcon" in third-party sources. Case in point this source:

"Matt Stone Racing has released the livery of the ex-DJR Team Penske FGX Falcon"

And also this one from the unveiling of the FGX, which is even titled "Prodrive Racing Australia unveils FG X Falcon". 1.144.105.134 (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

wp:commonname is often used as a basic argument and is very much misconceived because it simply doesn't apply as often as people think. If you read the article you've linked, you'll notice it applies only to people (e.g. Bono instead of Paul Hewson), places (The Hague instead of 'sGravenhague), science/nature (household plant names over scientific names) and organisations (FIFA over Fédération Internationale de Football Association). It does not apply to higher-level groupings, and if you were to look at the articles of each individual vehicle model on Wikipedia you'll notice that the model type follows the model itself. As a further note, when Ford themselves sold the car it was referred to on their website as "Falcon 'model type'". Holdenman05 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Most third-party sources give the letters before the model name—ie "FG X Falcon", not "Falcon FGX". The article should reflect what the sources say. 1.129.105.55 (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Simply not true. The source that you have provided (Speedcafe.com) shows continuity error often. They have also used "Falcon FG X" elsewhere, such as here and here. Regardless, as a general rule, Wikipedia sticks to continuity within its own articles to lower the risk of confusion - and as the individual model articles have the type following the model, and the event articles for this season do the same, then this article is also required to do the same.

As an aside, you have also reached the three undo limit before you are classed as 'edit warring'. If you do not wish to have action taken against you, please refrain from altering the article. Holdenman05 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not cherry-pick your sources. You have misrepresented things by choosing one source when you know other sources are out there. If anything, this source is best because it's the launch of the car. 1.144.111.162 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Truth is that both formats are used and multiple sources can be found to support both arguments. Whatever is decided, it needs to be consistent. In this article we have the FG X Falcon, ZB Commodore and the Altima L33. In the 2019 article, we currently have the Mustang S550, ZB Commodore and Altima L33. Agree with Holdenman05 that the Falcon FG X, Commodore ZB, Altima 33 format should be used. Memdo56 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Prose vs. dot points

Please show me the policy that states all articles must be structured in the same way as previous and related articles. WP:PROSE clearly states "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain". Using prose rather than dot points brings this article in line with the style of articles within the wider scope of WP:MOTOR, includjng Formula 1 and WRC articles. Furthermore, "we've always done it that way so we should always do it like that" is not an argument, much less one supported by a policy. 1.129.108.114 (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Impala27 — please don't claim "we need to have a discussion" and then not discuss it. Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS before invoking it. This section has been available on the talk page for a week and you have made no effort to cintribute to it. Furthermore, the prose-based format had been part of the article for months before the IP editor came along, so WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies as "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". You have also made no effort to address the point made by WP:PROSE outlined above, which states "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain". Moreover, the calendar changes and rule changes sections are formatted as prose, so now there are two different styles in the article.

Your entire argument for keeping the dot point system is "we have always done it that way", which is not an argument because, as WP:PROSE suggests, all of those previous articles are incorrectly formatted. So please show me the policy that states all articles must be structured in the same way as previous and related articles. I already know that you cannot, because no such policy exists. 1.144.110.100 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the version of the article you restored is very poorly-written. It appears to be a hastily re-written section that made minimal changes to turn the prose into dot points. It's full of grammatical errors, uses passive voice and is difficult to read. 1.144.110.100 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The dot point format has been used consistently since 2007. It may well be worthy of changing / improving, but until a consensus is reached to change, the existing format should be retained. For the benefit of everybody, can the editor posting from multiple IP accounts please spend 2 minutes and using the 'Create Account' button at the top right of the page, set up an account? Trying to second guess, who is posting from which IP address is a waste of everybodys time. Impala27 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"The dot point format has been used consistently since 2007."

That's not an argument. There is no policy that says articles must adhere to the same style and structure as previous ones. It's an especially-poor argument considering that the dot-point format is incredibly poorly written.

"until a consensus is reached to change, the existing format should be retained"

Not every change needs a consensus in advance. The prose format had been in place for the best part of a year and nobody objected. It was clearly an editconsensus. 1.129.105.107 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It did used to be written in prose. This started to change with the rise of the table editors. Writers whose only contributions were tabular results matrices. They found they had little to do in the off season so tables of testing times started to appear. Once banished as non-notable they started on driver movements which aparently could only be written in dot points because prose was too difficult. But you generally can't get table editors to write prose. They won't do it. So now it just appear in dot point every year and no-one EVER writes season reviews. It's so much easier to find a description of the driver who was 25th moving to the team that finished 26th than find any description about how the races were won or lost during the year. I've had lengthy arguments with editors who will insist that season reviews can not be written mid-season because it might change after the next race.

There is just no sense of priority. --Falcadore (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that there has been no attempt to address any of the concerns about formatting or quality of writing and that, when asked, editors advocating for the dot point system have been unable to demonstrate any policy-based argument in favour of it, I will restore the prose version once the protection is lifted.

Impala27, you cannot demand that editors form a consensus before making changes and then refuse to participate in any discussion that comes of it. 1.144.108.153 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Race 27 results

Should the results for Race 27 be listed as C (cancelled) rather than the positions at the time the race was called? I know that for the only real precedent (Symmons Plains 2017) the results are listed, but in that case the race winner was officially recognised (see here), while for the Gold Coast race de Pesquale and Brown have not been credited with a race win (see here). It would seem that for this race, not only were points not awarded, but the results have not been credited to the drivers' statistics, which is different to Symmons Plains last year. – Kytabu 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kytabu — if memory serves, the Symmons Plains round wasn't actually cancelled. At least 50% of the race distance was completed and points were initially awarded. However, because most of the race had been completed before it was red-flagged, the officials decided that no points would be awarded. On the Gold Coast, the race never made it to 50% distance before being abandoned. No cars were ever classified because there were seversl teams who never satisfied the requirements for classification—Will Brown did not drive #99—and the stewards never issued a statement on whether their interpretation of the rules (that removing the minimum distance requirement for co-drivers meant that co-drivers did not need to get into the car). 1.144.106.200 (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You are going to have to go and check your facts. At Symmons Plains, only 4 of the 50 laps were completed, a much lower percentage than on the Gold Coast. The difference was that the cars completed laps under safety car after the red flag period at Symmons Plains so Supercars, for whatever reason, decided to declare it a race and award points. The points were of course taken away later on when common sense prevailed, but van Gisbergen was still credited with a race win and Whincup and Lowndes were still credited with podium finishes in their season and career statistics. For the Gold Coast, though, no results have been published on the series website and none of the podium drivers have been credited with that statistic. This is why I believe the results matrix should display C rather than the "results", which to me the second half of your response agrees with. – Kytabu 10:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kytabu — it was eighteen months ago and I was going off pure memory, so mistakes could happen. But yes, I do agree that a "C" is best if only because unlike Tasmania, no results were ever published. 1.144.106.200 (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Symmons Plains was 4 laps into a 50 lap race from memory. No where near full distance. Race was called because Rick Kelly & Will Davison were trapped in their cars after the accident. --Greg Nail (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, all the crashed cars were cleared when the race restarted under safety car. The chequered flag was waved on lap 4 as the time-certain cut-off had been reached. The race was never declared during the red flag. – Kytabu 22:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Definately cancelled. It was decalred a "No race". No points awarded. Anton de Pasquale does not get creditted with a race win, he did not even fulfill the compulsory requirements to be classified, Will Brown did not even drive the car during the race. --Falcadore (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 7 November

A footnote needs to be added to the winner of Race 30 in the results summary table. It should read:

"Shane van Gisbergen was the winner of Race 30, but received a post-race penalty for a pit stop infringement and was reclassified as finishing fifth. Scott McLaughlin was recognised as the eventual race winner."

Or words to that effect. 1.129.109.64 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No. If it cannot be explained simply within the table, then the explanation needs to be moved to the prose which describes the race in question.

Tables are not to be used as a substitute for prose. Any idea sufficient complex that it cannot be explained without a footnote needs to be explained in full elsewhere on the page. Don't use ham fisted short cuts. --Falcadore (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

When is that prose going to be written? 1.129.104.127 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

When you pull your finger out and write it. --Falcadore (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to do that when the article is semi-protected. 1.129.105.59 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done:  Spintendo  09:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Prisonermonkeys you could log into your account and stop all of this edit warring from different IP addresses which is why the article was locked in the first place? Fecotank (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't log in. I forgot my password. And I can't create a new account because I have been having problems with an editor who was blocked for abusing others; he blames me for it because I referred him to the admins. It happened a year ago and he still haunts my talk page. If I create a new account, I have to disclose that the account is mine, which is just going to draw his attention and cause disruption.

And this article was not protected for edit-warring. It was protected because an IP repeatedly chose to ignore a consensus. 1.129.105.59 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)