Template talk:Infobox motorsport venue

alignment

I don't like how the template uses horizontal centering on several of its fields. See Mesa Marin Raceway for a particularly bad example. On my monitor I can't follow which field relates to which data. The template should have the field name at the top of the field IMHO. Why is it set to be centered? Royalbroil 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the way the template the old F1 template worked, although I agree it would be much clearer if it was top aligned. AlexJ (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the horizontal alignment was set because you start getting way too long on the template if you overhead the categories.Gateman1997 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the field names should be aligned straight across (to the left) from the top piece of data to its right. Royalbroil 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image on the right shows the changes that Royalbroil is proposing. AlexJ (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thank you! Royalbroil 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. The new one makes more sense. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ, would you make the change since you appear to be versed in this template? Royalbroil 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, except I can't see what bit of the template is making it do that! The image to the right was photoshopped to show what it should look like. Perhaps a post at WP:MOTOR is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here thinking the same as AlexJ, except I'd suggest making the Major events entry horizontal rather than vertical, i.e. make "Major events" a subheading above the list of events below. Would this be okay?
Also, since this template is an infobox, would anyone mind if I renamed it "Infobox Motorsport venue" and converted the code to use {{Infobox}} (simpler)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is we use subheadings to denote track layouts at the moment (see Brands Hatch as an example). Major events would need to be displayed sufficiently different to distinguish it from the circuit layouts. AlexJ (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with image

I can't seem to get an image to display in the infobox. Please see Volusia Speedway Park Gamweb (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the full image syntax, e.g. [[Image:Aerial_VolusiaSpeedwayPark01.jpg|250px]]. I've updated Volusia Speedway Park and the template documentation accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax error in the template?

Sorry, I know my english is not good!

I found in the article Nürburgring an error in the track discription. The fourth lap record shall be a F1-record, but this is wrong. I think, I found the reason, is it an error in the template. Every value ends with 4, but the last value Record_class3 ends with 3? --Pitlane02 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{{Record_time4}}}|{{{Record_driver4}}}, {{{Record_team4}}}, {{{Record_year4}}}{{#if:|, {{{Record_class3}}}

Absolutely right - well spotted. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly! That was not the primary reason, however there was an error in this article. But yesterday my correction doesn't work, because the template error hide my corretion... ;-) --Pitlane02 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment of venues

Would it be possible to modify this template to include length in meters and feet, along with number of turns. This would allow for information for drag strips on drag racing both from the National Hot Rod Association and from the FIA European Drag Racing Championships. Any thoughts on adjusting this as such? Chris (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to change the lap record to track record given the venues used are somtime stright line rather than circuit. Chris (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts - as drag strips have set lengths is there a point in mentioning it? Secondly: Rather than try to neutralise the lap record stat to allow it to be drag racing friendly - why not include a seperate line specifically for drag racing venues as drag strips tend to have two records - elapsed time and terminal speed. Would that not be better? --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening

Since many venues close and re-open - might it be possible to jig the Opened, and Closed lines and include perhaps Opened2 and Closed2 to include when tracks re open many years after closing the first time? --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

Would it be possible to set the "length" parameters so that only one would need to be filled in, with the other automatically being set via {{convert}}, similar to how {{Aircraft specs}} works? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely doable, yes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When only length_km is filled, there is bug :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penbay_International_Circuit&oldid=559020515
It "asks for" length_mi. But few people use miles !
Can some change the code to avoid this bug ? --Sovxx (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Frietjes to have a look at it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checking the code, we have a few options: (1) make it so that if you don't specify the other unit, that only one of the two units is displayed, (2) have the template automatically convert into the other unit if only one of the two units is specified, (3) leave it the way it is. making the change to option 1 would be very easy, and would require no changes to any articles. making the change to option 2 would be possible, but currently, the input is not raw numeric data, so we would probably need a bot to split these fields in articles into a length_km and length_ref. it would be possible to use some crafty string processing to extract the numeric portion from the field, but it's not clear how robust this would be. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went with option 1 for now, but can always generalize this to option 2 with a check for purely numeric input. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, thank you --Sovxx (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longest straight

Can you add a parameter for longest straight? Maybe it should be discussed whether this is relevant to all different possible circuit layouts or only to the single longest straight available, I propose the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.20.209 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lap record

Quite a few pre-Formula 1 Grand Prix race records have insufficient "Fastest Lap" data if any at all. More often, (completed race) times for the top finishers are furnished as the only means to determine the circuit record holder. Venues with multiple different layouts and race distances over more than a couple of years in their history, complicate establishing the circuit record for a given layout variant and period of use unless the median speed average is calculated for every race winner of that period. If venue "xyz" runs 250 km races on a 10 km circuit for 5 years and then 325 km races on a 4.27 km circuit for another 5, then a "race distance" and "race time" input field would help to get the circuit record time for that configuration period (a small "built in" (time/distance) converter could fill that data automatically...lol). MotorOilStains (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding map to the template

The Road America article has it (an embedded Template:Infobox NRHP). I also see several other infoboxes with maps. Maxtremus (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outright lap record

I frequently (at least once or twice a week) see (presumably well-intentioned) editors changing the details in the "(Race) lap record" field to the details of the outright lap record, only for the change to be subsequently reverted (often by me). I was wondering: would it be worth adding an "Outright lap record" field (for each layout) to avoid all the back-and-forth? The outright lap record of a circuit does seem to have some notability - the Sky Sports F1 commentators always make mention when the outright lap record for a F1 circuit is broken, as do the Fox Sports commentators when the outright lap record is broken for a Supercars circuit. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with it. Though I'd prefer using "Track record (all sessions)" and then changing the other to "Track record (race)". Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. These times are no officially recognized records. There are no regulations to the set-up of a car for an outright lap record. And it's not easily verifiable, as these time could also be set during testing.T v x1 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're attributed correctly and supported by reliable sources what would the problem be? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still wouldn't be officially recognized.T v x1 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: officially recognised by who? And so long as it isn't claimed that it is, why does that matter? -- DeFacto (talk). 04:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the international governing body for motorsports (FIA) of course, who else?T v x1 15:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: @CureComet: @Luca tedesco712: Whats about IndyCar and NASCAR? The venues of these series using also this infobox template and the US-based series make no difference between lap record as a race lap or lap record in a qualifying run. The "lap record" is simply the fastest lap time / average speed recorded in an official race meeting. --Mark McWire (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here being that Martinsville Speedway has a track record held by a NASCAR modified, but a NASCAR stock car holds a record for that series that is well slower. It would be helpful to have a separate parameter for NASCAR purposes. I don't think that hurts anyone or anything. United States Man (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Bristol Motor Speedway or most of other short oval tracks used by NASCAR Cup and NASCAR modified. But I just wanted to point out the problem that not all racing series follow the FIA definition of lap records. For this reason, many info boxes for oval racetracks do not contain the fastest race laps, but rather the fastest time ever driven during a race event. Actually, we would have to reverse or change all of this. But that would lead to possible edit wars, since IndyCar and NASCAR do not differentiate between quali lap record or race lap record and so mostly the quali record times are in most of the official sources and databases. --Mark McWire (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Grade

Would it be possible for someone to alter the template so to link the 'FIA Grade' subheading to the related article? I feel as though, despite its viability, the article is a bit of an orphan as it stands. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Is it possible to add a 'logo' item to this template? Double stacking it under 'image' is not ideal. Thank you in advance. --Ben Stone 03:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable request to me. --kingboyk (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done (and integrated as a test case at Indianapolis Motor Speedway). Please ping me if there are any problems. Please revert my changes if there are any serious problems. --kingboyk (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll test drive it, and let you know if anything goes wrong. Thank you! --Ben Stone 05:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Works perfect! If you don't mind, scrap the 'logo_caption' tag. It's not really needed. Again, thank you! --Ben Stone 06:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should record_team be replaced by record_car?

I noticed this edit [1] (by Apeiro94) removing what I believe to be quite relevant information, and replacing it with what I would consider to be irrelevant information with regard to a lap record. But then there's no arguing with the fact that the current template has "record_team" and not "record_car". Should we phase out the team to replace it with the car? Is there any value in giving the team? To me it seems very arbitrary, especially since for many older records the "team" is not clear, nor informative. A7V2 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Even though the parameter is called "record_team", by convention it's usually (always?) populated with the name of the car (typically either <chassis make>-<engine make>, e.g. "Williams-Renault" or the specific car type, e.g. "Williams FW14"). DH85868993 (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Car is much more relevant, and from the car, in top competitions, you get the team. The oppositte don't. So yes, it should be the car.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be record car make. I.e. not the specific car, but who made it (for example Porsche, as opposed to Porsche 911 GT2 RS or Dempsey-Proton Racing). I think team is largely irrelvant, and car make is overly specific, I suspect (though I guess) that the team parameter is based on the fact that the biggest series (Formula One, LMP1) have teams and constructor/car make are largely synomous. Of course, if this is a problem the solution is to change the official name of the parameter (and have "record_team" as an alternative.) SSSB (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's preferable to leave it up to a case-by-case basis on whether to include the make only or to have more detailed model information. Either way though I think "record_car" is a more appropriate parameter name. A7V2 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Team is almost completely irrelevant, and can be confusing in some cases: teams competing in various series might own the record for different categories (e.g. Abt in DTM and FE), and teams that have worked with different manufacturers might own one record (e.g. Team Joest with Audi or Mazda). Conversely, usually the car gives away the team (e.g. Red Bull Racing RB16) and the era (helpful in cases like DTM or endurance). I can see the team being somewhat relevant only in records of spec series, and even there, I feel like it can be omitted. MSport1005 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with one condition; changing the name of parameter. I can agree in the discussion about the relevance of record breaking car instead of the record breaking team. Just I noticed there were inconsistencies among the circuit infoboxes, and I did these changes to make more consistency among circuit pages based on the parameter name. There should be a standard for this, and if it is possible it would be better to change the parameter name as "record_car" instead of "record_team". By changing the parameter name, we would avoid this situation and make the records more relevant and consistent on the infoboxes of the circuit pages. Apeiro94 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with this. It's a simple enough change to the template and we can have the "record_team" parameters as depreciated, ie not mentioned in the documentation (or not in the copy-paste example at least, maybe a note at the bottom) but the old ones will still work. Keeping the old name in the documentation and such is just confusing. A7V2 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the template so as to take "record_car" in precedence to "record_team", "record_car2" over "record_team2" etc since there is clear consensus here that it should be a car, not a team, but of course we want the template to still work! If you notice anything strange happening in any affected pages (I did check a few) please revert my edit if you aren't confident fixing it yourself and I will have another look later. We can update the documentation once it is clear what the parameter actually should be representing (always make, always model, case-by-case, etc). A7V2 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give the record car info in the record_car parameters on the page of Monza Circuit, and it works without any problem. Thank you for adding this parameter. Apeiro94 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the documentation to reflect this change. I have not given any guidance at all as to what should be input (ie a full model name, abbreviated model name or just make). If others want to discuss standardising this we can but as I said before I think it is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis (which could also be added to the documentation I suppose). A7V2 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated parameter for track diagram/map

Could we add a dedicated parameter for a track diagram/map? Currently, a lot of the pages that use this incorporate the diagram using the image parameter. However, if there's another image that shows the actual venue like in Kansas Speedway, they have to share the image parameter, which is not optimal.

I'd also prefer if the diagram was placed below all of the infobox statistics. I don't think it's as-important as the logo or an actual image of the venue. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more important than the logo. A logo is just a form of promotion and doesn't tell you a great deal about race track in question. SSSB (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1:

Done: Special:Diff/1063873490 (I only hope I've done it right. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: A minor correction is needed because in the articles where "track_map" isn't used it still shows "[[File:{{{track_map}}}|frameless]]".Rpo.castro (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpo.castro: thanks for pointing that out. I just checked Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and I seem to have fixed it (Special:Diff/1063907602, I appear to have missed a "|"). If you could check where you spotted the problem and confirm... SSSB (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing the Number of Layouts within Infobox

I tried to maximize the number of layouts in infobox as 10-13-15. But it could not solve the issue on the infobox of Silverstone Circuit. Is it possible to easily increase the layout number in this infobox from 9 to 15? Or, is it not?Apeiro94 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we've increased the number of layouts by adding additional "sets" of parameters (as you did). What is "the issue on the infobox of Silverstone Circuit"? DH85868993 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, "the issue on the infobox of Silverstone Circuit" was that layouts 10-14 weren't being displayed in the infobox. This was a combination of two factors: the fact that this template only supported 10 layouts and the fact that the "LayoutN" parameters for layouts 10-14 had an extra underscore, e.g. "Layout_10" instead of "Layout10". So I've fixed the parameters in Silverstone Circuit and reverted this template to the "13 layout" version, so there are now 13 layouts displayed in Silverstone Circuit's infobox. If this template is modified to support 14 layouts (which is how many Silverstone Circuit needs) then the total number of header/data/labels is 101, but the underlying Template:Infobox only supports 100, which means that the last data item in this template (website) doesn't get displayed. So as it currently stands, we have a choice between 14 layouts (which will satisfy Silverstone Circuit), or displaying the "website" parameter. Unless we can identify another parameter we'd be happy to lose. Perhaps "construction_cost" or "former_names"? (I haven't been able to discern how many circuit articles use these parameters). DH85868993 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've ever seen "construction_cost". Sonoma Raceway as an example uses "former_names". I don't think this is the right solutions, however. It's only a matter of time before a new layout will exist at Silverstone, and the infobox is already becoming quite large. I think some thought needs to go into which layouts to include and which ones not to. A7V2 (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fixing, and also I've just seen your reply on 5th May. Maximum 13 layout limit can seem as suitable now. In regards of the other parameters, as it was written "former_names" parameter can be useful in some of the circuits such as Sonoma Raceway or Lausitzring. For the parameter of "construction_cost", I've seen it mostly on the modern circuits such as Bahrain International Circuit or Algarve International Circuit. In my opinion, maybe the parameter of "operator" or "minor events" are the most useless parameters, but I can agree to discuss whether removing one of these parameters. Apeiro94 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

time parameter

Suggest removing this as in most places it is misused - with only one timezone listed 90.241.211.138 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]