Template talk:Supercars Championship Teams

Full grid list, published by V8 Supercar --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new layout

I propose changing the layout of this template to make it more readable. Here's what I have in mind.

This new format is based on Template:Formula_One_teams from the Formula One article. What does everyone think? I'd appreciate any feedback. Fruv (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a problem with this new layout. The Navbox template turns the text wrapping off for links. That means when it is viewed at certain resolutions the table is pushed off the right hand side of the page. I've improved it a bit by removing the bold from the team names and reducing the font size of the driver names. I'll keep working on it. Fruv (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Think there is a no wrap tag used on this template that might help. --Falcadore (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the tag that's causing the problem. The Navbox template automatically applies that tag to all links so they will always appear on a single line. I spent some time trying to override it but was unsuccessful. Instead, I added another row to the table. The new layout (update above) is marginally taller than the existing one but I still think more readable. Also, being a Navbox, it will match other Navboxes. For example, this table is displayed at the bottom of the V8 Supercars article to help the user browse to related articles. Below that are a pair of Navboxes for the same purpose but they look different from one another. What do you think? Fruv (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just updated it again to remove WPS. Falcadore, do you still think this is to big? Fruv (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The template has been updated with the new format. Fruv (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

2009

I notice a rash of edits across the 2008 & 2009 pages with driver updates, but I propose leaving this template as is until after the New Year when a lot of the driver changes will be announced as existing team contracts which is preventing confirmation now, will expire. --Falcadore (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Team Kiwi Racing

Can we please finally remove them? The franchise has been sold and up till now the 021 car has been a car owned by PMM, run by the PMM team with PMM personnel with a driver not signed to Team Kiwi. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perkins' RECs

I've undone changes to the template that listed all four cars prepared by Kelly Racing together, even though they have acquired the two RECs (#11 and #16) from Perkins Engineering.

The reason for this is that teams can only submit two entries to score points. For the purposes of the championship, both outfits will be recognised seaparately, and so I have separated #11 and 316 from #7 and #15. I think it should stay that way until such time as VESA clears the situation up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So? This template isn't about championship scoring systems, its a navigational template, Issues relating to how points are scored don't belong here. I think it's more important to not create the impression that there are two seperate teams. --Falcadore (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And I think it's important to use VESA's definition of a team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a definition of a team, it's preventing a team with four cars having an unfair advantage. And its still a content issue that is irrelevant to the function of a navigational template. Surely you understand that? --Falcadore (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By way a parrallel example - Template:WTCC teams takes no account scoring variations of teams championships. --Falcadore (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the four Kelly Racing cars have been recoginsed as two seaparate teams by VESA in the past.

As for the WTCC template, the WTCC is run by a different governing body, with their own definition of what a team is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a navigational template. Explanations of scoring systems have no place here. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And you don't think it's going to be a little bit confusing when the template and the article don't reflect one another? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Np. On almost all articles the navigational templete is compressed to a single line. So it doesn't reflect anything. The purpose of this kind of template is purely to provide a quick link to relevant articles. --Falcadore (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And if it's a navigational template, then the focus should be on ease of navigation. If car 11 and 16 aren't referred to as "Nissan Motorsport", then why should they be included under the "Nissan Motorsport" heading? We already know that teams can only compete with two cars, and we keep all the satellite teams separate, so having four cars under one heading makes no sense since cars 11 and 16 won't be "Nissan Motorsport". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I give up. I still think that the teams need to be kept separate until more information becomes available, but if there's one thing I have learned from you, it's that when you make up your mind, your mind is made up, and there's nothing that can be done to convince you to change your position. This is not me agreeing with you because I think you're right, this is me giving up because I'm having a piss-poor day, and as you refuse to entertain any ideas on what to do other than your own, I've had enough. Don't take this as being anything other than you being impossible to have a rational debate with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Except, you haven't.

I did. Then I changed my mind. In the meantime, can you please stop with the ******* edit-warring? You've been one of the first to tell me off for it in the past, and yet here you are, reverting edits that you don't like the moment you spot them. You didn't have a consensus when you were doing it before, and you don't have a consensus now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I pointed it out to you ONCE. Being a bit hypersensitive? And standard practice in edit-war debates is to revert to previous then debate the issue. Kelly Racing has always been referred to as a single team in this template. --Falcadore (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pressed wrong button before. We have not grouped satellite teams together because of seperate ownership, and more importantly to the function of a navigational template, because there are seperate Wikipedia articles. Something not in effect with the Nissan team. --Falcadore (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Falcadore is right on this. It's a unique situation, as it's the only team with over two cars where at least one of them isn't run as a satellite outfit. I see the team as a four-car team (as all four RECs have the same owner), separated into two entities for the Teams Championship only (to ensure it is fair for the other two car teams).^Kytabu_Talk 09:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's one tiny little problem at work here: the template is the only place where the four cars are included together. Everything else - the team and driver table on the season page, the points table on the season page (currently hidden), and even the article for Nissan Motorsport (Australia) notes that the four cars are treated as two separate teams. The last version of the template made it pretty clear that Nissan Motorsport entered both teams, and noted the names that they used. To include all four cars under one grouping is inconsistent with the other articles, and unclear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys in part, I think the teams should be listed separately as they are two different teams, as teams in V8Supercars consist of two cars each. However I do think we can list them next to each other in the template to acknowledge that both teams are run by the same company, Nissan Motorsport. I would prefer to see the template set out something like this; Mattlore (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that just looks messy. The two sets of Nissan entries should be separated entirely, not crammed in together like an afterthought. Having them separately with a link to the same page makes it pretty clear that they are being run by the same company. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You said "Everything else - the team and driver table on the season page"; on the season page Nissan Motorsport is listed as one four-car team with a footnote saying it is split for points scoring purposes. The template is "V8 Supercar Teams", not "V8 Supercar Teams based on how points are awarded". ^Kytabu_Talk 07:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not make it clear that they are in fact not 2 two cars teams, but 1 four car team. While they might be forced to be split for point scoring purposes, that's the only reason.

And functionality trumps looks, every time. --Falcadore (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that I don't see the functionality of it when the team is deliberately divided into two. Furthermore, don't you think that WP:COMMONNAME applies to some degree here? When you're watching the broadcast of the Clipsal 500, do you think the commentators will collectively refer to them as "Nissan Motorsport", or separate them into Jack Daniel's and Norton 360? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

All four cars were frequently refered to as Kelly Racing last year. Not a lot of evidence to support. And Commonname for V8 Supercar has previously in wikipedia always been used for generic names, like Dick Johnson Racing and Kelly Racing. You can't have it both ways. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case, having it both ways might be the only way forward. The edits that I put through separating the JDR and N360 cars made it pretty clear that both were being entered by the same organisation, and that both were competing under different names. You say that all four cars were frequently referred to as KR cars in 2012; I recall them being referred to as "the Jack Daniel's Commodores" or the "Pepsi Max car" with equal frequency. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sponsored identities are temporary, as noted that Pepsi Max has moved to Ford Performance Racing and Jack Daniel's Racing has a multiple of uses in America and Australia (particularly in Drag Racing) as well as being previously associated with Perkins Engineering. As the move around from team to team they are tremendously impractical for long-term usage and ripe for confusion. It has never been the practice to store team identities under sponsored identities. The unanimous rejection for example of the renaming of Red Bull Racing to Infiniti Red Bull Racing in Formula One underlines this. They have never been accorded Commonname status and would prove problematic particular in usage such as Team Brock, Supercheap Auto Racing and others. --Falcadore (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this then, visually it recognises the two identities but also makes it clear that they are both under the same umbrella. Mattlore (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly fine how it is right now. --Falcadore (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that version, Matt, is that the numbers are out of sequence. You'll notice that the template is arranged in numerical order; T8 comes first because they have car #1. Then HRT, because they have car #2. Then TdAR, because they have car #3. and so on and so forth. If the Nissan Motorsport entries are to be separated, then it needs to be consistent with the rest of the template, and that means the JDR cars go between FPR and BJR, and the Norton 360 cars go between GRM and Rosenberg, because their lower number is #36.

Of course, Falcadore's already made up his mind as to how he wants the template to be, so it doesn't matter how convincing an argument you make - you're not going to change his mind. Why do you think I quit in frustration earlier? It wasn't because I thought his edits were the right edits. It was because I knew I'd convince a rock to change the page before I convinced him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If it is that much of an issue for you, call in a WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment. --Falcadore (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, my issue is that you never even stop to consider an alternative way of thinking. You don't even allow for bold edits. You decide how you want the article (or in this case, the template) to be set out, and if somebody opposed you, then that's too bad for them because you insist on having your way. I've never seen you so much as acknowledge that someone else might be onto something; if you don't like the idea from the beginning, you just quash it before it can be explored to its fullest extent. Your preferred version of a page doesn't get accepted because you make a strong argument for it; your preferred version of a page gets accepted because it's impossible to have a proper discussion with you.

For instance, you insist that there should be no recognition of Nissan's separate teams on this template, but when I created 2013 Adelaide 500 today - using your logic that sponsor names are ephemeral, and can change - you moved it to 2013 Clipsal 500 Adelaide, citing a long-standing consensus as the reason why a sponsor name should be included in the article title. And maybe there is such a consensus, but there's not going to be any opportunity to discuss it, because you've decided that that page should be at 2013 Clipsal 500 Adelaide. Even though what I'm seeing here is one set of rules for one scenario, a second set of rules for another, and no clear indication of why these are different. I know that the next step is for you to post your explanation of why this is so, and expect that every other editor will observe it, reverting any and all edits to the contrary, and finally restating your position over and over again until everyone else loses interest, and you get your way. Again.

The bottom line is that your edits aren't constructive. Sure, I'll tinker with a page a dozen different ways, exploring all of the variations I can think of as I think of them and disrupting it a little bit (ever seen the page summary when I've been fiddling around with something?), but I try not to shoot ideas down because I don't like them without so much as considering them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is widespread practice across Sportcar, GT, touring car, Indycar, NASCAR races in many continents to refer to race names this way. I can't believe you would not be aware of this and would chose to be ignorant of the practice. You've been editting Wikipedia for a long time across a lot of motorsport articles, are you really telling me you've only just discovered the project preference for sponsored names?

I also note you changed the Skycity Triple Crown race article to Darwin Triple Crown. The race has NEVER been known as the Darwin Triple Crown. While you might claim I'm being unconstructive, you've just invented a name with no basis for it. What am I supposed to understand from that? If you are making up your own terminology I'm forced to question how much you actually know about the topic. --Falcadore (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Look at the season calendar - the event is clearly listed as "Skycity Darwin Triple Crown". With Skycity being the sponsor of the race, and Darwin being its physical location, "Darwin Triple Crown" is a much more appropriate title. To call it the "Skycity Triple Crown" would be like calling the Bathurst 1000 article the "Supercheap Auto 1000" instead of the "Bathurst 1000". It's strange to me that you didn't double-check the references given before you made those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have addressed the issue here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would except that if Darwin had been used in the manner prescribed previously. Darwin was only added race name in 2013. Previously the race has been referred to as the Skycity Triple Crown (with no mention of Darwin) back to 2008. Prior to that it was the Skycity V8Supercar Triple Crown, and in 2005 Skycity V8Supercars. Earlier than 2004 ihad no name name other than Round 3 or 7 or 4... No race has been held with Darwin in its name and it has never been known as the Darwin Triple Crown. How is it difficult to understand that a name that has never, ever been used by anyone, is an acceptable article title? --Falcadore (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant by not knowing the topic. You have assumed your own conclusion to be correct without confirming your conclusion. Even though you have also assumed that is what I have done. That's the bit I least liked, accusing me of doing something you did not do yourself. --Falcadore (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

James Courtney

Falcadore has removed James Courtney from the template, based on him not driving in the last race and probably not racing for the next several events. Following this discussion we cannot reach consensus between ourselves so I am raising it here. I believe he should be included as he is one of the drivers that is contesting this years Championship. Does anyone have any thoughts? Mattlore (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for one, where was your sympathy when Ambrose was removed? --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, as he competed in the season as well he should also probably be included. Both appear more notable to this season than Reid was to lasts. But that is rather a side issue isn't it? Mattlore (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ambrose is a side issue but Courtney is not? In any case this navigation template has always reflected the current entry list, for example it has just been updated with the Sandown 500 co-drivers, but has not seen the two Bathurst 1000 wildcard teams added. --Falcadore (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To say it has always reflected the current entry list is incorrect, for most of last season it included Jonny Reid. Both Ambrose and Courtney have driven in the 2015 International V8 Supercars Championship and so should be included in the template. The fact that you have just updated it to add in the Sandown co-drivers doesn't change anything and to date you haven't offered any rationale on why Courtney should not be included, which is why I've tried to seek other opinions. Mattlore (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reid was included as an addendum only. Not against a racing team. And that was also the first time such an edit had occurred.

And I have offerred a rationale, one that is consistent with everything I've said thus far. Courtney will not be starting the Sandown 500, as the template now reflects the S500 entry, Courtney is absent. --Falcadore (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're not opposed to adding Coutney as an addendum then? Mattlore (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just add JC as an 'other' driver, such as in Template:GP2 Series teams, if that's what you mean. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yipp, that was the solution we ended up with. Thanks, Mattlore (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But once again, Courtney is the only one given any attention when there is more than just Courtney to be included. The outgoing Bathurst champion should surely rate a mention. --Falcadore (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed he should, you forgot to add him when you removed him from the template. I'll fix that now for you. Mattlore (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your fix needed a fix. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)