Talk:Supercars Championship

	Australia portal Supercars Championship is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Motorsport: Touring car taskforce Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Touring car taskforce.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Region

I'm sorry but just because you hold one race in a country does not mean that the series is particular to that region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.197.221 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

can some one please change the red and blue section of the ATCC champions (1993-2004) to a colour that doesn't blind people, a plainer/darker blue and red. --Ballchef 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ZoFreX 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race format

Please provide a discussion of the race format. Specifically, readers from other countries may not be familiar with the qualifying and shootout format used by this series.

WikiProject V8 Supercars

Hello all. Please be a part of WikiProject V8 Supercars and help to drastically expand and improve this vital piece of Australian Motorsport. TydeNet 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose split

What do others think about splitting the Australian Touring Car Championship (presently a redirect to V8 Supercar) out from this article into a separate one? Many of the reasons to link to ATCC predate V8SC. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you posted this a little while ago, but I wholeheartedly agree, the Australian Touring Car Championship has a rich history that predates V8 Supercar, and I can't even find a table of winners prior to 1993 anywhere on wikipedia. Teiresias84 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links

Why are the external links over in the sidebar? Especially on a 1920x1080 display, they're particularly out of the way and hard to find. Could they be moved back per WP:MOS? --Interiot 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Philip Island Finale Shame Holden or just fair racing?

Well what a spectacular finale to the year with the final of 3 races being marred by what some would call unfair racing, with the 2 top leaders having a tussle on the last of 3 races to decide the Championship and one driver shunting the other off the track. One side will say it was all fair in love and war and unfortunate but 'thats racing', with the other camp saying bad sportsmanship and points should be adjusted accordingly to enforce that fair play is what should be the procedure in such a tightly contested class. With the matter going to the arbitration group we will have an 'unbiased' outcome. With Rick Kelly winning the championship and Lowndes 2nd due to this altercation, however it finishes, Kelly will never have a "true" championship win- with public opinions bipolar. What an unfortunate series of events of a quite amazing finish to the V8 Supercars Finale. Finally the v8s had a real year of racing, a real ratings plus for just a two make race series (holden vs ford). As they admit interest in a two horse race is hard to keep and has been in decline in past years as consumers discover kart racing, drift and other classes of races with more than two makes, this incident will obviously get people talking and interest going. Under discussion behind closed doors, will the v8 Supercars go back to China? Will they admit Toyota? or another (mercedes/bmw/mitsubishi etc)? to make racing more interesting and increase ratings/sponsorship? will they relax the rev limit policy? Well time will tell... Whatever happens 2006 Finale race will be debated, R.Kelly may be the Championship leader but not in the eyes of many, which is a very unfortunate set of events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.255.198 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there. Interesting questions, but talk pages are about discussion to improve the article concerned not as a general forum for discussing the topic at hand. --Robert Merkel 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Year

In the infobox it says V8 supercars was founded in 1997, but in the history section it makes it sound like it started in 1993 (e.g. the list of drivers champions). I think the infobox should be changed to 1993 or the history section made a little clearer so people can see why 1997 is in the infobox. GK1 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a template for the touring car seasons but, similar to the comment above, there is some discrepency in the years for each incarnation. If somebody knows could they fix up the following statements (and the template also!)

Touring_car_racing#V8_Supercar

The current formula was devised in 1993 and branded at 'V8 Supercars' in 1997

V8_Supercar_Championship_Series#History

The Australian Touring Car Championship was transformed into V8 Touring Cars in 1993

In 2005 the name was changed to V8 Supercars Australia.

Australian Touring Car Championship

From 1999 to 2001 it was awarded to the winner of the Shell Championship Series and from 2002 to the winner of the V8 Supercar Championship Series.

The template as it stands looks clumsy with the three tiers when there was really only two. The only significant change between 2001 and 2002 was that Shell decided they weren't going to pay the sponsorship when AVESCO's price tag went from $5 million to $11 million. While someone can change it back, I've merged the 1999-2001 and 2002-beyond sections together. Personally I'd like a complete merging but 1999 is significant for the categories formal abandoning of the 'Touring Car' moniker. Falcadore 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was Konica also, not just Shell

- Ctbolt 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. Konica was sponsor of the second tier series, never the main series. Falcadore 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 V8 Touring Cars was just another regulation change, similar to the advent of Group A in 1985 and Group C before it in 1973. The reason why there is the conflict between 1993 & 1997 is political in nature. V8 Supercar Australia (formerly AVESCO) took control of the ATCC in 1997, but because of the Holden/Ford regulations already in place were not significantly changed frequently claim credit for the preceeding four years. Falcadore 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEGA

TEGA has a five position board, not four.203.185.235.165 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The V8Supercar Teams

References to 2006 Endurance co-drivers should probably be removed. Dick Johnson Racing has won six championships, not four. 1981, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1989 and 1995. Britek entry needs updating to reflect Bright's change to owner/driver. Rod Nash Racing entry should state the team is actually International Race Cars Australia team run under the auspicies of Rod Nash Racing.203.185.235.165 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Figures

Jim Richards is a four times champion, not three. 1985, 1987, 1990 & 1991. Dick Johnson has won Bathurst three times, 1981, 1989 & 1994 not two. Qualifying lap record is unofficial. If any mention Of Bathurst lap record is to be made it should be to the actual lap record holder, Mark Skaife. Alan Jones has not had any involvement with V8Supercar since 2002, considering his lack of results his consideration as a notable figure is dubious. James Courtney should be stated as a Jaguar Racing test driver.203.185.235.165 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Peter Brock is the Step-father of James Brock. James Brock (born Brock McIntosh) is the son of James McIntosh and Beverley Brock.203.185.235.165 04:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teams contesting the 2007 V8 Supercar Championship Series

Team names here should correspond to team names listed earlier under 'The V8Supercar Teams'. There should also be a consensus whether to refer to all teams by sponsor names or the historical names of the teams. eg Either Kelly Motorsport & Triple Eight Engineering or HSV Dealer Racing and Team Vodafone.203.185.235.165 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Perth Street Circuit

Hi everyone! This is my first post on a talk page so please don't kill me . . . Okay. Has anyone else heard about the proposal for a street circuit in Perth? I read in The West Australian newspaper a few months ago about the V8 Supercars racing on Perth's streets by 2008, and, being a citizen of Perth, it really mattered to me. I am rather puzzled by the fact that this decision that could drastically change the 2008 season hasn't been addressed on the Official V8 Supercars Website, let alone Wikipedia. It would be great if anyone had information that they could put into the article, but it would be hard to verify the information. I also made a map of the circuit, and I would be glad to provide it. Hopefully, together, we can address this matter. Thankyou for listening, Stealthman 02:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been rumour of a Perth street circuit for years. I was first shown an 'official' map of such a circuit in 1999. Usually Perth Street Circuit rumours are pushed forward when somebody wants improvements made to Barbagallo Raceway. Townsville is certainly closer to being realised. I would advise against adding information on new venues that V8Supercar have not confirmed.203.185.235.208 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see. I'd just like to add that it made the front page and there was a whole two-page spread dedicated to the matter. It had quotes by drivers on what a good idea they thought it would be and a picture of the circuit's designer holding up an aerial photograph of the streets that had been painted over with a map. I also read that V8 Supercars Australia (formerly AVESCO) was looking for approval from the state Government. Either way, it was big news - at least in The West Australian. P.S. Townsville??? When did that come up?? Stealthman 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perth would be less important than the already made announcemnt that V8Supercar are moving from Pukekohe to a street circuit to Hamilton next year. Unlike Perth this has been confirmed. There also have been street circuit announcements made regarding Cronulla, Homebush Bay, Townsville and Auckland but to date of the many rumoured street circuits the only one V8Supercar has grown themselves to fruition is the long collapsed Canberra circuit. Were Wiki to include Perth then certainly you would have to add Townsville, possibly the new I-METT facility announced for Norwell. At this point there is little to seperate Perth street circuit from say the Bunbury International Circuit farce. Lots of godwill, but no concrete announcements. Townsville was all set to be announced for the 2008 calendar, even to the point of the WPS team visiting and putting on a civic event in the city along with their super-annuated Reynard Indycar, pending support from the Beattie State Government, which subsequently was declined. The Townsville V8 organisers has swallowed this blow and have found additional money elsewhere and with some help from Federal Government, may yet beable to salvage something for 2009.203.185.235.78 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly it occurs to me that it might be a good addition to the Perth article rather than the V8Supercar article as the speculation appears to have come from the Perth end.Falcadore 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was covered in the Sunday Times on 22 April 2007 [1]. The WA Sporting Car Club, which owns the Wanneroo Barbagallo Raceway and runs (albeit with tight control by AVESCO) the Perth round each year has a brief response on their website [2]. I'd like to express my opinion on the issue, but Wikipedia is not the place. -- Andrew Mill 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update! I've just remembered a newspaper cutout I have from a later issue of "The West". Actually, two newspaper cutouts. They both make note of the fact that the V8s will not return to Barbagallo after 2008, and V8 Supercars is (or have been) seeking a backing budget of thirteen million dollars. And I quote:

V8 chiefs keen to take it to the street

WA's Garth Tander says he has finally accepted the need for the V8 Supercars to move from Barbagallo Raceway to a street circuit in the city. [...] The Holden driver, who grew up in Leeming, admits the supercars have outgrown the raceway and the millions of dollars of required improvements would not be a worthwhile investment, given the track's proximity to residential estates. [...] The group which owns the Supercar series has warned next year's race will be the last at Barbagallo Raceway and WA will lose its annual V8 round unless it emulates Adelaide, Melbourne and the Gold Coast in establishing a street circuit.

...end quote. Actually, Falcadore may be right in suggesting that the street circuit matter be addressed in an article to do with Perth. Perhaps the article on Barbagallo Raceway itself...? Stealthman 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a while and, frankly, I reckon we should just forget about the whole thing now - the state government has refused to support the perth street race (see this link). V8 Supercars is basically lost to Perth now, because Barbagallo's contract expires in 16 months. Sorry, everyone, about starting up this whole kerfuffle and all... Stealthman (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... something seems to have popped up. I have only just read on a website (The West Australian again) about the state opposition pledging to resurrect the event if it wins the next state elections! (If you need any proof, look in Sports on the newspaper's website, and find "Street Race Bid finds Support".) However, there could still be a doubt... that being the paths taken by other street circuit plans and all - any reflections on this? (By the way, this article only came out today) - Stealthman (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China

It's been 2 years and the series won't be going back for a number of reasons, can we remove some of the Shanghai references? Being now dead event its status in the article probably deserves to be on par with Canberra rather than the prominence it now has. Thoughts?Falcadore 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main reasons why I think that the references to the race at the Shanghai International Circuit should be kept in the article: 1. The race organisers didn't say they would never return to Shanghai; the event was merely put on hold indefinetly (it says so in the article) - it is not exactly a "dead event". 2. The race was significant to the expansion of the championship as it was the first time the V8 Supercar Series went overseas - if it hadn't been for Shanghai, V8 Supercars might not be visiting Bahrain right now. I'm pretty sure this will be open to heated discussion, so I'll just sit back and watch as the disagreements begin . . . . . . . Stealthman 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very dead event. 'Indefinite hold' was a face saving exercise and held as much truth as 'non-core promise'. Bahrain was entirely independant of Shanghai, the Bahrain circuit had specific criteria for expansionary events which only V8Supercar met. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you obviously know more about this than I do, so I stand corrected. Stealthman (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion is a little old but I think Shanghai should be removed from the Marquee Events section. I don't think it has enough notability to justify two paragraphs and a photo. Anyone have any objections to its removal? --Fruv (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. The photo might be recycleable. --Falcadore (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I couldn't find a good place for the photo so I removed it too. If anyone can find a good place for it go ahead and add it. --Fruv (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercheap Auto Racing

Since it's likely that the Supercheap Auto sponsorship will move to another team for 2008, and that SCA have sponsored more than one race team in the past I'd like to rename all references to the about to be defunct Supercheap Auto Racing to the teams original name, Paul Weel Racing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TollHSV.jpg

Image:TollHSV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst 1000

The 2006 Bathurst 1000 became a very emotional event to all drivers, teams, friends and fans of one of it's greatest drivers in its history, 9 time winner of the "Great Race", Peter Brock (killed in the Targa West rally event the month before).

--This paragraph needs more than one sentence. reidbold Dec 14 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, any description of any length on that subject should go on the 2006 Bathurst 1000 page, and you're welcome to write it. Information specific to a single race should go on the pages of the individual races. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General edit

We're starting to get some serious quality issues sneaking into this article because of continual small changes and a variety of editors, and a general overhaul is starting to look overdue. Some duplicated information and bad writing is appearing across the page now. (stuff like Most Challenging Race is History!!! Oldest EVER!!) --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past teams

I'm going to dramatically trim the list of past teams recently added - a few reasons, some of the teams list have had virtually n o impact on the series, and at least three are still current teams. I propose trimming to teams which only have articles elsewhere in wikipedia, otherwise its just a list taking up space. Just in the interests of concise. --Falcadore (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References required

This article urgently needs references to support its assertions. These references need to meet WP:RS thus for example a reference for attendance numbers from the organisation concerned would not meet our guidelines. --Matilda ^talk 22:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest your guidelines are rather silly. I would have thought that was about the only likely source. Greg Locock (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my guidelines, they are the project's guidleines. I don't see why they would be the only source. The odd 1/4 of a million people are likely to have been noticed by the news media and a news report would met WP:RS--Matilda ^talk 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources immune the article from claims of PR spin. It's a fairly common request. --Falcadore (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the assertions in this article are unreferenced hence the banner tag. Some assertions are specifically tagged. Please do not add sources that are either the organisation concerned or from wikipedia itself.--Matilda ^talk 07:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points. First I realised on thinking about why wiki is not a good reference. To my engineer's mind that is untidy, but there is no simply resolvable way of deciding whether something is referenced if we have two articles referencing each other. BUT... once the notability of a concept (eg V8 supercars) is established then I have successfully argued in the past that that that subjects own website CAN be usd to prvide additiobal data. In fact RS supports that. What is the better source for a car's weight? The manufacturer, or a newspaper? Who has the most to lose if the data is wrong? Greg Locock (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since bidgee doesn't trust AVESA, how about [3]. I still think that once a subject's notability is established then you can use that as a source for facts - Or shall I remove all the aptera derived data from the aptera article? Greg Locock (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should trust companies like Telstra? AVESA is a company and any company will try and make themselfs look good which is the reason for a third party source. TV ratings are nothing since it's based on a few 1000 of people and doesn't include people who attended the race meeting. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I gave immediately above was from The Age, which is a moderately well respected newspaper, for your information, since you don't seem to have heard of it. Why is that not acceptable?Greg Locock (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what The Age is so don't try and make it as if I'm dumb as I'm not. Also the story was just published by The Age and written by the Australian Associated Press. I've read it and have found 2005-06 information from the ABS[4] which is the newest I can find (Raw data [5]). Bidgee (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last couple of postings here seem to be in relation to a claim being made in the article that V8 Supercars is the 3rd most popular sport in Australia. I can see why people would object to using the sport's governing body as a reference for that claim. We already reference V8SA for rules and regulations and also the company's own structure. Since it's V8SA that created these rules and structure - who better to ask? However, when they make a claim about their popularity we need to see the possibility that this is company PR. That doesn't make it wrong but it may make it a poor reference. The Age article and the ABS figures referenced above seem to say that motorsport is the third most popular sport in Aus, not necessarily V8 Supercars. Since no one seems to be able to find any other reference for the claim, I think there's a good case for removing it. At the very least it should be reworded to indicate that it's a claim rather than a fact. --Fruv (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you raise a good point, it is not just V8s that are included in that statistic.My inclination would be to paraphrase The Age's or the ABS's report. Of course it is difficult to say how much of that motosrpsort is V8 because the same day's racing typically includes non V8 classes as well. Greg Locock (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third manufacturer

While a third vehicle manufacturer has been rumoured several times since 1995, never has there been any follow up within two weeks of the initial rumour. Third manufacturer rumours do not have a place in an article claiming to be a credible summary of its history. And what's more, the reference article is a denial of third manufacturer, its hardly a valid reference. --Falcadore (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care, but if Geoff Polites sees fit to comment on it then I scarcely think that it is just fanboy rumours. I think you'll find links to it in Mellor's auto news etc as well. Greg Locock (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third manufacturer is generally used as a very formulaic headline generator, because it always works, in quiet periods when V8 Supercar isn't making a lot of column inches, but it is never serious, it usually begins with a V8 Supercar official stating they are investigating a third manufacturer, then a bunch of drivers say cautiously optimistic things about it until Ford or Holden, they take turns, deny it emphatically a few days later. Occasionally Toyota are sucked in to comment about how they might be interested, and Mitsubishi is mentioned a lot but Mitsubishi Australia could never afford it. It never progresses beyond that. It never will be treated seriously because VESA insist on a car similar to present V8 Supercars must race when the manufacturers who actually do want to race here, specifically Nissan and Subaru (occasionally Mercedes) would not or could not build such a car and want a set of regs closer to production cars. --Falcadore (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice point, where would Toyota get a pushrod V8 from? The Toyota museum? The old technology precludes Mercedes et.al. This is better left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedes350slc (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota have a pushrod V8 in NASCAR. A bit oversized at 5.8 litres but it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to do a 5.0 litre one.Mr Larrington (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article order

I think this article needs to be rearranged so that its headings are in order of importance. I understand that it may be impossible to determine an exact order of importance but I think some sections are more important than others. For example, the The V8 Supercar section is the fifth one down whereas the Television Coverage section is third. I think the section that describes what a V8 Supercar is should be one of the first sections in an article about V8 Supercars.

The order I propose is this -

Intro (obviously)
History
The V8 Supercar
Championships
Formats
Marquee events
TEGA
V8 Supercars 2008 Schedule
2008 V8 Supercar teams
Past teams
Notable figures
Television Coverage

I'll leave this for a week to allow people to comment. --Fruv (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the reordering. I would like to see some attention paid to sources, in particular reliable sources--Matilda ^talk 00:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered the article but haven't done anything about references. --Fruv (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2008 V8 Supercar teams section

I propose we remove the 2008 V8 Supercar teams section. Here is my reasoning.

It's redundant. Links to all of the teams and drivers are provided by the Teams contesting the 2008 V8 Supercar Championship Series navbox at the bottom of the article so anyone wishing to drill down to those articles can do so without this section. This article is getting long and I think the navbox does the job in a much more concise way. At the moment the navbox is collapsed by default. We can change this so its contents is more visible.
It's long. 17 Paragraphs that summarise other articles. I understand that summarising related articles and using the {{main}} tag is legitimate and I think we've made good use of it with the Bathurst 1000 section but I think that one section dedicated to summarising 17 related articles is too much.
It's high maintenance. Having so many related articles summarised in this article means having to keep the summaries in sync. Also, as the teams and drivers change we currently have to change the navbox as well as this section. It would be a lot easier if we only needed to maintain the navbox.

This is a fairly major change so I won't do it unless I get consensus. If you can think of any reasons why this section should be kept please list them here. --Fruv (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also badly worded from having been hacked at so many times. I'm sick of it because of how often factually incorrect statements slip in from people pumping up their favourite teams. Do it. --Falcadore (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, it is just fanboy cruft. Greg Locock (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's three opinions (including mine) in one week. I'm considering that to be consensus and have removed the section. I removed the Past Teams section too because there was no text in it. It was just a list of links. It also didn't seem to make much sense in the absence of the current teams section. --Fruv (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TEGA -> Administration

I just renamed the TEGA section to Administration and included a summary of the V8 Supercars Australia article. The new section includes the old TEGA section but I don't think should continue to. Here's my reasoning -

Most of what's in the TEGA section is historical and is either duplicating facts from the History section or contains facts that could be moved to the History section. I think I'm going to need help with this because my knowledge of of V8 history is a bit sketchy. Also, I'm having trouble finding references for it.
Now that TEGA and V8SA have combined boards, I don't think it's necessary to talk about the two groups separately. A single Administration section should be adequate.

I'll keep working on it but I'd appreciate any help that anyone can offer. --Fruv (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged the V8 Supercars Australia article into this one and removed the TEGA section. Before removing the TEGA section I created a table of the facts from the History section and the TEGA section. You can see it at User:Fruv/TEGA_vs_V8_Supercars_History. It shows that almost every historical fact from the TEGA section had an equivalent fact in the History section making it redundant. --Fruv (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formats merger proposal

It has been proposed that the V8 Supercar formats article be merged into this one. This article has a Formats section which could probably contain the contents of the other article. Reasoning -

The V8 Supercar Formats article is unlikely to get any bigger because it is such a specific topic.
This article is the only one that links to it.

Comments? I'll leave this open for discussion for a while and see what people think. --Fruv (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bart-16 for taking care of this. I redirected V8 Supercar formats to this article. --Fruv (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FG

I note the FG Falcon has appeared on the article but it should be noted that the FG that will debut at Sandown will actually be just a demonstrator and will not be race entered until after passing through the Project Blueprint process, which I would not personally expect until the 2009 season. --Falcadore (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OzRacingWrap Link

Why does the link to Ozracingwrap.com keep getting removed? Ozracingwrap is a V8 Supercar news site and not "spam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.130 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is spam if it is not referencing something specific to the article. Ozracingwrap is not a V8 Supercar specific site, nor does the link refer to any specific issue raised in the article. Links of such a broad based general nature are generally considered to be advert-spam. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be understandable if the site was not V8 related - but there are numerous V8 Supercar articles on there which are updated daily on V8 news so I don't believe it to be broad based or general —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.130 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it - articles on ARC, F1, it IS broad based - and it still isn't referencing something specific to the article. --Falcadore (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Does the article really need a grid girl photo when it doesn't even have a photo of a racecar? --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's not really relevant to the article since it doesn't improve it. Would be best to have a photo of the V8's racing then having the grid girls. Bidgee (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lads - I have uploaded a better photo now for the article! f1_power (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I right-aligned the image to improve the formatting. This way the image doesn't interfere with the headings. I also added a pair of images to The V8 Supercar section. One of a Ford and one of a Holden. --Fruv (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable figures

I didn;t delete the list but I did hide it for the moment. It's just a list of names, it does not add to the article IMHO. Lists of 'notable figure' can be obtained looking through the list of series champions. Putting a link to the long-retired Alan Jones just comes off as a credibility cling to Formula 1. --Falcadore (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zap it, it adds nothing to the article. Greg Locock (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain

I've deleted the Bahrain section in the "marque events" because it's not huge in Bahrain its self. If Bahrain is put back on I think we should add the Hamilton 400 as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exalt4korn (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably undelete it, as firstly, Marque Events is a tag created by V8Supercar and one that is applied to the Bahrain round as one of V8Supercars 'big events'. That the event is not treated seriously in Bahrain is a seperate issue to the Marque tag. Secondly, 'put back on', the Bahrain race is just six or eight weeks away IIRC, it isn't off. Perhaps you are thinking of the Shanghai round, which actually was cancelled? --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links (again)

There is a lot of spam starting to appear in the external links section - need to be cleaned out. One link is listed TWICE. --Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Group 3A

While there may have been three classes in the rulebook, in competition there were only two, with classes A&C racing together - so does that not introduce a level of confusion by creating class winners that did not in reality exist? --Falcadore (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Class C cars were running in both Over 2000cc and Up to 2000cc classes I've added another line to the article. GTHO (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

The category acquired the moniker 'V8 Supercars' in 1997 when event management company IMG was given the rights to the series in 1997 after a bitter battle against CAMS and the ARDC - this bit is pretty badly incorrect. IMG was employed by CAMS to run V8 Supercar. The 'bitter battle' did not occur until many years later. The fight with the ARDC was also a separate issue, specifically surrounding the Bathurst 1000 and not the Australian Touring Car Championship. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying Section

The penultimate paragraph of this, starting "At L&H 500..." seems very garbled and unclear. I don't know enough about V8s to be able to re-write it. Can someone edit it to make it clearer, or point out exactly what it means so someone else could Oli.meggitt (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I think there should be a map of with the locations of the races to give an overview, like exists in the NRL and AFL. I would have done it myself but couldn't figure out how to get bahrain in the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoongta (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point rewarding system

Hi from Germany, I think it would be better if the article could tell me how points are awarded (e.g. in Formula One: 1st place: 10p etc). I only know the winner gets 150 points. --PrettyP (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRT country of origin

There was a recent edit in the Records section that changed HRT's flag from UK to Australia. The editor's comment was that Walkinshaw's roots doesn't determine the team's. I did a search on the ASIC website for "Holden Racing Team" and found this entry - http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=104_515_960&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1. It's an Australian company now called Skaife Sports Pty Ltd formally known as Holden Racing Team Pty Ltd. It's registered in Clayton, Victoria in 2003. I'm not sure how to interpret this properly because I don't know much about these things but it seems likely to me that HRT is an Australian company (even if it has a foreign owner). Can anyone else help with this line of thinking? --Fruv (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate Skaife Sports no longer owns the team. Mark Skaife was forced to sell the team to his major supplier the Tom Walkinshaw Performance Group, a British owned company, basically the post bankruptcy version of Tom Walkinshaw Racing. The team has been British for almost the whole of its life, having been established by Walkinshaw and run by Win Percy in the early days. --Falcadore (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue started with the following editting statement - Holden Racing Team is not owned primarliy by TWR. Says so after the link. WTF British flag? The team IS owned by Walkinshaw, a British national who created the team back in 1988, much media attention was made of the sale in late 2008. Holden has a very strong Australian identity so its understandable that some of team's more ardent fans would find this unsavory. Much in the same way that Holden itself is also foreign owned, as an arm of American company, General Motors. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revisit this issue. Falcadore - you recently reverted an edit on this article that changed the national flag of Ford from AUS to US. You changed it back to AUS stating that Ford Australia is an Australian company that's owned by a US one. Doesn't that conflict with you're argument above that HRT is British in the same way that Holden is US owned? If Holden is an Australian company because it's based in and registered in Australia, couldn't we make the argument for HRT? When people think of a team's country, I think they mostly think of where the team is based not where its owner lives.

Here is my reasoning for changing to the AUS flag.

An ASIC search shows that Walkinshaw Performance PTY LTD and Walkinshaw Racing are both Australian registered companies. (http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?state_number=B1925382A&juris=3&hdtext=&srchsrc=1 and http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=104_516_038&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1).
They have an Australian address and phone numbers - as does HRT - so they appear to be based in Australia.
HRT's only website is in the .au domain so they obviously identify themselves as Australian.
The team was established in Australia (originally with joint Holden/TWR ownership) and has only ever operated out of Australia.

Given the team's/company's Australian establishment, registration, presence, and identity, I think we can say that this is an Australian team and an Australian company that has foreign ownership. I'll update the article and wait for a response. --Fruv (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason for the reversion - and as I stated on the relevant edittors page - if you change the Ford flag to US, you should change the Holden one as well - it was a request of uniformity. I could just as easily have changed both of them to US, I simply reverted instead.

If you change HRT to Australian, then you have to change all the others as well. All the teams are based and operated in Australia and would have to have relevant ASIC identities for tax and payroll purposes. But say Team Kiwi Racing if they had made the list, they would have to be Australian flagged by the definition you've just described. As would Team Dynamik and Tasman Motorsport, thus making a mockery of having flags up at all. Either we recognise foreign ownership of these teams, or we do away with the flags all together, as if all are 'flagged' Australian, having the flags at all is pointless. Force India Formula One is based and oeprated in the UK, and yet is flagged as being Indian - are you suggesting we should have double standards now?

So I've removed the flags off both teams and manufacturers (how much sense for example would it make to have Nissan flagged as French, to represent its ownership by Renault?). No flags, no debate over what they 'should' be. --Falcadore (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television coverage

hey!

I'm from germany and i like the v8 supercars very much! so, do you no where i can watch it without paying for? Thanks (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.17.167 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

I'm going to challenge this section: "Three separate V8 Supercar series exist. The primary series is the "Level One" championship called the 'International V8 Supercars Championship'. A "Level Two" championship, referred generically as the V8 Supercar Development Series, and presently know by the commercial identity as the Fujitsu V8 Supercar Series, was originally intended for privateers who formerly raced in the Level One series but have been left behind by increasing pace of the professional teams, however, some "Level One" teams run secondary teams in the Fujitsu series to "blood" new drivers or as a secondary income stream for drivers without a team of their own. The only way to compete in the "main game" is to purchase a licence from an existing team (TEGA are no longer involved in creating new licences for V8 teams).

A third series for older V8 Supercars, the V8 Touring Car National Series, was held for the first time in 2008. Presently known as the Kumho V8 Touring Car Series this series runs on the programme of the Shannons Nationals Motor Racing Championships, V8 Supercar Australia have no involvement in the running of this series and race cars have to be de-registerred from involvement in the Fujitsu Series prior to being run in this series." This part: "was originally intended for privateers who formerly raced in the Level One series but have been left behind by increasing pace of the professional teams, however, some "Level One" teams run secondary teams in the Fujitsu series to "blood" new drivers or as a secondary income stream for drivers without a team of their own. The only way to compete in the "main game" is to purchase a licence from an existing team (TEGA are no longer involved in creating new licences for V8 teams)." appears to be opinion and has no references. Some might argue that this series DOES "blood" new drivers. Also, if the "third series" ( the V8 Touring Car National Series) has nothing to do with V8 Supercar Australia then how can it be the third part of the V8 Supercar Series? It is, in fact, a separate and totally unrelated series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.102.121 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is your contention that a V8 Supercar ceases to be a V8 Supercar when a piece of paper is signed? Does a Formula One car cease to be a Formula One car when it gets to be ten years old? Bearing in mind those old V8 Supercars sitting in museums and sheds are still called V8 Supercars, even though they are no doubt likewise de-registerred.

This is an article about V8 Supercars, not the V8 Supercar organisation. Where old de-registerred V8 Supercar go is still of interest to the article no matter who organises such a series. The whole 'no longer called V8 Supercars' is basically marketting, and also to help reinforce that V8 Supercars Australia are not involved in running the V8 Touring Car series.

I am not going to say the article is even well written however, and much of what you say is worthwhile writing, but bear in mind the target audience. --Falcadore (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

Much of this article regarding info on the cars will need to be changed with the first race of the new COTF platforms coming up not far from now. --NJM2010 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company Logo

The logo has changed, so why isn't the new one up yet?124.184.77.9 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's copyrighted? --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of page

I'm currently reorganising, rewriting and expanding this page in my sandbox. Would love to hear other editors' thoughts as I'm doing this, and it would be great if people could help out, either with references or writing sections. ^Kytabu _Talk 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on V8 Supercars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Series renaming = page renaming?

Seeing as the championship is now officially called the Virgin Australia SuperCars Championship do we now move the page to the name SuperCars Championship? Holdenman05 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should be just Supercars but might have to be Supercars Championship to avoid clashes. Either way, page should not be named Virgin Australia Supercars Championship in line with other major Australian sporting leagues (e.g. A-League). Any move should also not take place before July 1 as per the deal. SchueyFan (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, wait until 1 July before we make any changes. Supercars Championship would be the most appropriate title in my view. – Ky ta bu 09:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight issue we could have...the official site has already changed its address to supercars.com; when I have tried linking to this (official link on this page, in references on other pages), I have been unable to save the page as supercars.com is on the Wikimedia blacklist. Is anyone aware of how to resolve this? – Ky ta bu 22:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Holdenman05, SchueyFan, and Prisonermonkeys: with 1 July coming tomorrow, would we be happy with the page being renamed to "Supercars Championship"? – Ky ta bu 01:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I would keep the title sponsor out of it, simply because Virgin could be replaced by someone else in a few years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with me, just keep Virgin Aus out of it as per. Holdenman05 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All goodSchueyFan (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CS Racing vs Team 18

@Kytabu, SchueyFan, and Prisonermonkeys: A user has moved all Charlie Schwerkolt Racing articles and related posts to "Team 18". Seeing as this edit becomes unconstructive the moment the team eventually changes number, what should be do about this? Holdenman05 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the editor in question to explain himself. Holdenman05 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The team no longer refers to itself as "Charlie Schwerkolt Racing", but as "Team 18". The content of the articles should reflect what the team calls itself. We can think of teams having an "entry name", which is the name it uses to refer to itself; and a "sponsor name", which is used for promotional purposes. In this case the sponsor name is Preston Hire Racing, and the entry name is Team 18. If you want to dispute that, please show me sources where the team still formally refers to itself as Charlie Schwerkolt Racing.

Also, suggesting that the name is invalid because the number might change in future is speculation and synthesis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do independent reliable sources call the team? THAT's what the article should reflect. Mattlore (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They use both, and there is no apparent reasoning as to when one or the other is used. That's why the name that the team uses should be the name that we use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the page still called Charlie Schwerkolt Racing? Shouldn't it be called Team 18? JRam Wiki (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Supercars Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Race Models

I am considering creating articles for the ATCC/V8SC versions of the car models which they represent. This would be done in the same style as the articles for the modern World Rally Cars, with models recorded from 1993 to present - which is 22 including the Commodore ZB and maintaining two separate articles for the 1st (2009-2012) and 2nd (2013-2014) generation Falcon FG.

If I do go ahead, how do we then distinguish them? For example, using a "(ATCC)" denomination - such as 'Holden Commodore VP (ATCC)' - would not necessarily work as ATCC is not the current common name. Likewise "(V8 Supercars)" - such as Ford BF Falcon (V8 Supercars) - also would not work as V8 Supercars has not and is not currently used. We cannot use a simple "Touring Car" denomination considering the Volvo S60 has a WTCC version which is not the same. This isn't an issue with vehicle models, where we will use the model or generation of race car - for example 'Ford FG Falcon ("denomination" - 1st/2nd Generation)' or 'Mercedes-Benz E63 W212 ("denomination")'.

WikiEditorAU (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Event name formats

Events seem to be named in two formats; either the generic name, e.g. 2017 Newcastle 500 and the commercial name e.g. 2017 Wilson Security Sandown 500. For consistency it should be one or the other. The former seems to be the way others are named, both motor and other sports, are named, e.g. 2017 Monaco Grand Prix, 2017 Indianapolis 500, 2017 AFL Grand Final, 2017 Australian Open and 2017 Melbourne Cup, But historically most Supercar event article names seem to have included the commercial name. Thoughts? Memdo56 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the 'generic' name, i.e. 2017 Sandown 500, not 2017 Wilson Security Sandown 500. Crick12 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two points I'd like to clear up

@Falcadore, Kytabu, SchueyFan, Mclarenfan17, MidsummerNights, and GTHO: As the most frequent editors here, I will pose to you questions regarding two issues that should be clear-cut but don't really seem to be.

1) Vehicle nomenclature. Should vehicles be named Manufacturer/Model/Type (i.e. Holden Commodore ZB) or Manufacturer/Type/Model (i.e. Holden ZB Commodore)? My personal preference is the former, as the latter gives the indication that 'Commodore' is another version of the 'ZB' – which of course is incorrect.

2) Event nomenclature. Should commercial names (i.e. 2019 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000) or generic names (i.e. 2019 Bathurst 1000) be used as article titles? I'm in favour of the latter, as the former is only used by American motorsports (NASCAR and IndyCar).

Holdenman05 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought the cars should be referred to as Manufacturer/Model/Type, as it gives a natural flow: Holden > Commodore > ZB. I believe this all should have been changed when the article titles were changed to, for example, Holden Commodore (ZB).

I think generic names for the events, but we should add an official title to the infobox like Formula One uses. – Ky ta bu 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are two totally different issues which need to be treated separately. It is going to become a massive jumble if we try to address them both in one discussion. I suggest we resolve the first issue first (under its own heading) and then move on to the second (again, under its own heading). GTHO (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it really isn't that hard? Kytabu sorted it out just fine - you don't need to write a bible on the topic, just saying which you prefer is all that's necessary. Holdenman05 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

Vehicles

We should go by the name used by sources. For example, this article from Speedcafe:

"Key aero personnel involved in the creation of Mustang (Sriram Pakkam) and Holden ZB Commodore (Florian Höfflin) Supercars were present at Phillip Island."

The nomenclature has changed in recent years. It used to be model followed by designation (eg Commodore ZB), but appears to have shifted to designation followed by model (eg ZB Commodore). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official timing on NatSoft (edit: NatSoft link does not work, but you can go to the results manually) uses Holden Commodore ZB, as does Supercars' results table. – Ky ta bu 09:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources use both Holden ZB Commodore and Holden Commodore ZB fairly inconsistently and interchangeably. For what it's worth, the Operations Manual gives the model names as Holden ZB Commodore, Ford Mustang GT and Nissan Altima L33. I personally prefer Manufacturer/Model/Type as I think it's easier to understand for the casual reader but I'm willing to defer to the Operations Manual as a more definitive source. MidsummerNights (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no conventions (commonname or otherwise) regarding object naming, such as vehicle models, so my preference is that we use the trusted references in NatSoft and VASC Results (Man/Mod/Typ). The Ops Manual is changed year on year (even occasionally between events) so does not necessarily provide a precedent. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natsoft is not a good example. No-one at Natsoft inputs the car names. That is done by the timing system operators at each venue that use the Natsoft product. And they input the data via the most convenient fashion. Either cut 'n' paste from a handy spread sheet, or just type it out by hand. It is performed by different people from venue to venue and by whomever the relevant promotor employs to do the task. I don't think you can infer anything from Natsoft directly.

It is used interchangeably, one of the problem is Generation can become entangled with trim in other motor racing classes, specifically production cars. For example Holden Commodore VZ SS vs Holden VZ Commodore SS.

What ever you do, don't use brackets. Yergh. --Falcadore (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Events

I'm for keeping the generic name. Sponsors can and do change over time. Case in point, the Clipsal 500 became the Superloop 500, but everything else about the event remained the same. Sure, the money from the sponsor helps the event run, but the 2018 round was just known as the "Adelaide 500". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer generic name. Commercial names are generally long and unwieldy for an article title and the generic names are usually more recognisable and natural to the reader (Clipsal was probably one exception to that). There is a problem of consistency with event article titles that needs addressing: e.g. currently all 2018 event articles except 2018 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 use generic names, previous years just have a mismatch of formats. MidsummerNights (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's really only the American series that use sponsor names in race titles. It's part of the culture of name-dropping sponsors and suppliers at every opportunity (and because NASCAR sometimes holds multiple rounds at the same venues, so they have to call the races something). But it does get ridiculous sometimes—Marcos Ambrose won the 2011 Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at The Glen ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually correct to claim that only the Americans use sponsor names in race titles as Australian promotors have been doing this for at least sixty years. The 1955 Argus Trophy, held at Albert Park, was sponsored by The Argus newspaper and I see no logical way of referencing this race other than by its actual name. In the same vein, the Armstrong 500 had no generic name in its Phillip Island years and renaming it as the Bathurst 500 from 1963 destroys the synergy of the multi-year history of the race. CAMS recognise these races by their original sponsored names and continued to do so in more recent times, as recorded in their Titles documentation. Keeping the actual race names also avoids the issue of what names to use when there are (e.g.) two "Bathurst 1000" races in the one year. It should also be remembered that it wasn't until 1996 that the word Bathurst was even included in the official name. Having asked myself "as we here to record history or to re-write it?" I am compelled to express a strong preference for using the name that the race organisers used. GTHO (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll find in this instance that sources are overruled by the most overused of Wikipedia conventions, WP:COMMONNAME. It states that we should "use commonly recognised names" where possible, and at events it applies; in the case of the 500/1000, the names Phillip Island 500, Bathurst 500, Bathurst 1000 and Australia 1000 are most commonly used. The example of the Watkins Glen NASCAR events do not comply simply because they cannot, as there is no clear definition as to what event a particular race falls under. Note also that, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian sports, whereby other leagues and events do not use commercial names in their titles (e.g. 2018–19 A-League as opposed to 2018-19 Hyundai A-League, 2018 NRL Grand Final as opposed to 2018 NRL Telstra Premiership Grand Final, etc.), we are obliged to follow suit. The other point I may add is that if the Argus Trophy you mentioned is a one-off event, then only in that instance - where there is no alternate name available - may it remain as is. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments at in a separate discussion above, support Generic names. That is how most other international motor sport and Australian sports articles are named. Crick12 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a sponsor name from within a race name to create a page title is one thing (e.g. 2018 RABBLE.club Sandown 500 > 2018 Sandown 500) but 1960 Armstrong 500 > 1960 Phillip Island 500 is questionable from two points of view. Firstly a Google search of "1960 Armstrong 500" (within inverted commas) produces 6,900 results whilst "1960 Phillip Island 500" gives 2. Secondly, WP:COMMONNAME prescibes that we "do not invent names" and that is what is being done in this case. I note also that "1997 Primus 1000 Classic" produces 1870 Google search results and "1997 Australian 1000" produces 3. I believe that these are two examples of many which would not meet the WP:COMMONNAME requirement for commonly recognizable names. GTHO (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Google search results are irrelevant to Wikipedia as it is both a third party and not the only search engine available. Secondly, the sponsorless names of the 500/1000s are not invented as they are already used on Wikipedia in this template and as subtext since the 1965 race, particularly the 1967 race which was an edit you made yourself less than a year ago. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Island 500 was never used to describe the 1960-62 Armstrong 500. It is not appropriate article title. --Falcadore (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the relevance of Google search results when choosing article titles, WP:COMMONNAME states "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data". The term "Phillip Island 500" is not used on the 1967 Gallaher 500 page to refer to a particular race, but rather to a group of races. In retrospect, it was a poor choice, especially when we have a page on the Phillip Island 500 which refers to a totally separate series of races. I stand corrected on that. GTHO (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result table alteration

Event articles tend to be laden with result tables, and whilst these tables are a great way to provide information the amount of grey/monotone colours can make the information seem overwhelming to a reader - especially given there is little flag variation with drivers from outside Australia and New Zealand being few and far between. Therefore, I propose that - similar to IndyCar event articles like the 2010 Indianapolis 500 - we introduce the primary car colours into the number column. For example, here is the table from the opening race of the recently created 2006 Perth V8 400 with the colours included:

Pos.	No.	Driver	Team	Car	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Pts.
1	2	Mark Skaife	Holden Racing Team	Holden Commodore VZ	50	49:00.3114	1	128
2	7	Steven Richards	Perkins Engineering	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+0.4609	6	124
3	888	Craig Lowndes	Triple Eight Race Engineering	Ford Falcon BA	50	+0.6810	5	120
4	16	Garth Tander	HSV Dealer Team	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+1.1123	2	116
5	6	Jason Bright	Ford Performance Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+1.4786	8	112
6	5	Mark Winterbottom	Ford Performance Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+6.2393	9	108
7	15	Rick Kelly	HSV Dealer Team	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+7.4305	4	104
8	8	Max Wilson	WPS Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+21.1999	13	100
9	17	Steven Johnson	Dick Johnson Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+21.4416	10	96
10	1	Russell Ingall	Stone Brothers Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+21.4562	17	92
11	11	Paul Dumbrell	Perkins Engineering	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+21.8253	12	88
12	4	James Courtney	Stone Brothers Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+22.5419	14	84
13	50	Cameron McConville	Paul Weel Racing	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+22.6972	15	80
14	51	Greg Murphy	Paul Weel Racing	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+25.4009	7	76
15	10	Jason Bargwanna	WPS Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+26.1558	25	72
16	18	Will Davison	Dick Johnson Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+26.5473	11	68
17	55	Steve Owen	Rod Nash Racing	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+26.8804	18	64
18	3	Jason Richards	Tasman Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+27.5268	20	60
19	67	Paul Morris	Paul Morris Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+28.4120	16	56
20	23	Andrew Jones	Tasman Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+31.2429	23	52
21	88	Jamie Whincup	Triple Eight Race Engineering	Ford Falcon BA	50	+32.6532	21	48
22	34	Dean Canto	Garry Rogers Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+35.5518	22	44
23	25	Warren Luff	Britek Motorsport	Ford Falcon BA	50	+41.8765	26	40
24	33	Lee Holdsworth	Garry Rogers Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+47.8426	28	36
25	12	John Bowe	Brad Jones Racing	Ford Falcon BA	50	+51.8122	24	32
26	39	Alan Gurr	Paul Morris Motorsport	Holden Commodore VZ	50	+53.7270	27	28
27	14	Brad Jones	Brad Jones Racing	Ford Falcon BA	49	+1 Lap	29	24
28	20	Marcus Marshall	Paul Cruickshank Racing	Ford Falcon BA	49	+1 Lap	30	20
29	26	Tony Ricciardello	Britek Motorsport	Ford Falcon BA	49	+1 Lap	31	16
30	22	Todd Kelly	Holden Racing Team	Holden Commodore VZ	45	+5 Laps	3	12
31	021	Paul Radisich	Team Kiwi Racing	Holden Commodore VZ	45	+5 Laps	19	8
Fastest Lap: Todd Kelly (Holden Racing Team), 57.5198

Colours will only be used in the articles where we can verify the vehicle liveries. This change won't be made to season articles as livery changes are more frequent. MSportWiki (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This makes the number column dominate the table and makes it much more difficult to read. I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be for people with colour blindness. We should not compromise accessibility to make tables look pretty. – Ky ta bu 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is a useful visual cue to match the real-life vehicle with the table of results, and information is lost in a sea of grey on a regularly coloured table. Colour blindness only affects ~8.5% of the global population and any issues can easily be solved by highlighting the number. MSportWiki (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a small percentage of the population has colour blindness, that does not mean we should make it harder for them to read a table. Even without colour blindness, the Britek numbers in the above table are difficult for me to read.

Is it really useful if the reader does not know what the car liveries were in the first place? Even knowing what all the liveries were in 2006, having the colours there doesn't make it any easier to pick out a particular driver, because the colours just get lost in each other anyway. – Ky ta bu 07:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like we make a braille wiki for the blind – we should cater to the majority and highlighting a number with the cursor isn't a difficult thing to do for the affected, especially when it isn't as bad as you make out (Britek and Cruickshank are the exceptions, but I address that below) when switched to greyscale mode (if you have a Windows PC you can do this by pressing Windows+Control+C).

If a reader doesn't know the liveries, then it's a good enough reason to have them here in itself as we can teach the user something. The 2006 season is the example simply because I'm working on the event articles – we can alter the colours slightly to make them easier to differentiate. Really, just looking at a mostly grey table with very similar flags for driver nationalities (the majority of the time) you go "Geez, that's a lot of stuff to read" and having an additional aid in separating the information (the main aim of a table) gives the reader an easier time, especially when we don't have many race or event summaries. MSportWiki (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are not with this table only. There are some on the 2020 articles you edited that are difficult as well (Fullwood especially). I don't believe the colours teach the user anything as most liveries cannot be represented by just two colours. For the 2006 liveries, where is the silver on the 888 cars? The red on Ingall's car? The yellow on the Supercheap cars? The primary black of Steve Owen's car? The red on the GRM cars? Someone reading this table could easily assume that cars 7, 11, 021 and 39 all had the same livery, when they did not. How would you represent the Pepsi Max liveries of 2011 and 2012?

That grayscale toggle must not be universal as it does nothing on my computer. I also dispute the claim that all-gray tables are difficult to read. I would argue that the coloured version is in fact much harder to read as your eyes are constantly drawn to the number column when looking elsewhere in the table.

@Holdenman05, SchueyFan, Mclarenfan17, Falcadore, GTHO, Fecotank, and Mcbjmund: tagging other users recently active on Australian motorsport articles for comment. – Ky ta bu 01:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the use of coloured backgrounds for numbers is visually distracting and is often misleading rather than indicative. The tables are much better without them. GTHO (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a reason the colored numbers haven't been used for the Indy 500 since 2010, they just seem too distracting to the rest of the chart. Plus liveries can change during the course of a season. Mcbjmund (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Colours. No. Absolutely no. Against wikipedia policy for one. And Indycars stopped doing that years ago for good reason. Some articles obviously have been missed on the coloured numbers front but that was abandoned long ago. Reviving it is so far from being a good idea it has been quarantined in a COVID-19 zone in Melbourne. --Falcadore (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to spend some time with MOS:COLOUR. What you are proposing is the exact opposite of what wikipedia does. --Falcadore (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of negatives and few positives, oppose for reasons mentioned by others.. Fecotank (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penske pulls out of DJR, and Maclaughlin not returning

Shell V-Power Racing emailed its supporters today announcing that Roger Penske will not be part of DJR in 2021, and that Maclaughlin is going premamently to the Penske Indy team (butwill co-drive at Bathurst). Waiting for RS before updating the relevant articles. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

2008 Clipsal 500 Podium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Queensland.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gen 3 cars information

Somehow this page went halfway through the season without updating to the new Gen 3 regulations so Ive attempted to add some detail. Reading the regulations I see references to the "VSD", "GSD", and "ESD". I can gather these are official documents which contain far greater detail than what the Operations Manual offers (which is about as helpful as just looking a the car, it still has the weight set as TBC) however a trip to google suggests these are basically only held by teams and officials. I might be wrong on this though. If anyone knows more about these I would be happy to comb through them to update the page. Or generally more information such as on the wheels and braking of the new gen would be appreciated DukeDragon28 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]