Template talk:Tracks infobox

Use this page to discuss the main article. The GPVWC Wiki forum topic should be used in preference to this, especially with longer discussions.

Track Infobox

Right. I've spent a lot of time looking at these things and was wondering about maybe tweaking them up to make them more appearance pretty. Okay, I figure someone does it because I don't know enough about Wiki code to pull this one off yet. This is going to be a it of a speech, so grab a coffee!

For me - the boxes seem a bit too big. At least the text does when you compare them to the Wikipedia track boxes. I think we discussed this before, Chris, whereby we both used the Spa layout of the box as a good example of what to aim for - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_de_Spa-Francorchamps ; particularly as in some cases where multiple layouts have been used. It might just make things cleaner on it. For example, do we really need a lap count? Particularly for tracks that may be used in multiple series.

Things such as first winner; most wins and such could easily be listed in the main body of text like has been done in other lists. It would help to fill out that page as I assume there is little point in us copy/pasting stuff from Wiki to fill out what the track is like.

Thoughts? -- Philip Cullen

All valid points I think Philip - perhaps a move closer to the wikipedia boxes would make it look a little tidier, although as always the devil is in the detail. I'd say keep the main points like track map, Location, Length, Number of turns and first held and add a field for the events held there (SL/SC/Masters etc). The others like time zone(?), lap record, laps, most wins etc probably would be better in the main text like you suggest.

As said before the multiple layouts are going to cause headaches, but can probably be done with separate templates for those tracks with a single layout, 2 layouts, 3 layouts etc. --Chris williamson 11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree. Things like Location, Lenght, Turn Numbers and such are important info I think. Plus I spent too much fecking time doing those track maps to not have them feature prominently! :P

Any chance we could do something similar to Spa - y'know how they have the little sections inside the one box to break up the different versions? Any way to copy/paste that sort of layout over or is it harder than that to pull off? Stop me if I'm getting too far ahead of myself in terms of what is possible to pull off. Doing a lot of hypothetical stuff in my noggin about these things.

Heres my thinking. Again, using the Spa infobox as an example. In this order going down.

Flag and track name;

Most current track layout used by the league;

Location;

Track Type; (? - not so sure about that, bit like GMT. Is it required?)

First GPVWC event held;

Events used at that track.

Then under that you would have the versions of the track, preferably segmented like they are on the Spa one. Under each of them you would have:

Length;

Turns (since it obviously differs for track tweaks);

Track Lap Record for that version.

Then as we say, we have things like most wins at track and other misc stats such as lap records in other mods, and anything else that would be useful for broadcast in the main body.

If that makes any sense! -- Philip Cullen

Shouldn't be too hard to grab the format from wiki, so I'll have a little go at it now and let me know what you think. --Chris williamson 12:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: What do you reckon to these infoboxes now? : Circuit Park Zandvoort (standard infobox), Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps (double layout infobox). --Chris williamson 13:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks great mate! Just what I was looking for! I'll horse on and get what details I can updated and tweaked about if need be. We might need one with a treble box down the line - for Barcelona (three previous layouts out there). But I wouldn't be overally concerned about that at this stage. -- Philip Cullen

One suggestion. Minor one at least. Maybe we should add a car class type in the track record. Just so we can state which type of car the record was done in (figured out I needed this when just giving Sebring it's new infobox. -- Philip Cullen

Can add it if you want, but seems slightly pointless to me as it will almost always be a Superleague car. --Chris williamson 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, yes. Just came across it with doing the Sebring lap record and the Prototypes can be pretty nifty. As I said, it's not something that is probably absolutely necessary. Just been picky.

However, I was thinking (I must sound like a real pain in the arse at this point! lol. The 'Times Held' one. In theory, its a great one. But it can lead to things been jumbled. Do we just count the Superleague events there. Or do also count in the Supercup ones. Also, what if there are other events there. God, that sounds fucking confusing. Let me try to break it with an example.

Let's use Spa as an example. It's had 11 Superleague events. It's also had 1 Masters event and 2 Supercup events. Do we just go with the Superleague ones; or do we also add in the other ones to make up 14. I dunno, it had me thinking of ditching the 'Times Held' line - particularly since we have that covered in the List of Superleague Grands Prix. Anyway, again - thoughts appreciated on if im overtaking this stuff! -- Philip Cullen

Hadn't thought about that lol. I'd be inclined to add them together, but now you mention it perhaps it's more hassle than it's worth. --Chris williamson 22:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Major Events

Just to explain what I've done with this. I'm using Wikipedia's way of dealing with them things. So for example, a test track don't show up as a first held event or as a major event (testing is hardly classed as a major event). Checked out a few test venues which ran with that sort of way of doing it. So, for example - take Donington Park. It's listen in the main body that it's a test venue but its first official event will be the Masters event this season. That sound okay? Or should we add them up and put in bracket (testing) after it -- Philip Cullen

I was just thinking of having this simply as a list of series that each track had been used in (even if only as a test track). Can change the text 'Major events' to something more fitting if you like. --Chris williamson 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll make the edits as I work along the tracks! -- Philip Cullen

Lap Records

I swear I saw a page with lap records on it around here. And the amount of time certain races were held? Anyone got a handy link to it? -- Philip Cullen

EDIT: Found it. Although the question I had in the dicussion of that page is something that I need thoughts on. Lap Records. Some are listed from Free Practice. Should FP times count for official lap records? Or we keep them for Q/R Sessions? -- Philip Cullen

Personally I'd say that so long as it's an official GPVWC session (free practice/qualifying/race/test session) it should count. Would tie in better with the other list too. --Chris williamson 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. It's not a major thing, I suppose I was just running with what is expect in the real world when it comes to these things, as has been the case with other bits and bobs I've queried about with the wiki project. Doesn't hurt to ask and find out what feels best! -- Philip Cullen