Template talk:Scuderia Ferrari

Order of Notable Former Drivers

Are the "Notable Former Drivers" in any particular order? If not, should they be - alphabetical? date? DH85868993 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring

Pyrope: "blue links on white, white on the red.... which are you referring to?"

If you don't know what I'm talking about it's much better to ask here rather than just revert and try to start an edit war. I would've thought it rather obvious what I was talking about: the blue links on the red background - V D E and hide links placed there by {{navbox}}. It looks ugly to have blue writing on a red background, making it hard to read for most people let alone those that have visual difficulties. violet/riga (t) 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reversion is hardly staring an edit war (and was no more than you did yourself!!), I just don't (present tense) see the problem. These are minor links for editorial reasons and are placed at the extreme edges of the box, and so do not impinge on the content. In my opinion they also look far less ugly than the dull, work-a-day, hard to spot blue on blue that you chose. Regular editor know how to change their preferences if they have visial problems, and fly-by editors really ought to be discouraged from playing with templates. Pyrop e 09:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a user's edit without discussing it while stating in the edit summary that you didn't really understand the problem is not very good - we have discussion pages to talk about such things.

There is no good reason for this template to ignore the standard, usual colour scheme and to introduce a visual problem. You say that regular editors know how to change their preferences, but I'd be interested to find out how you think that's possible on a per-template basis. Blue on red is a disgusting combination that is always discouraged not just for people with visual difficulties but for those that want things to look halfway decent! violet/riga (t) 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue on a great number of colours causes problems for a tiny minority. Blue on yellow and blue on green being two notable others, so this isn't about a per-template issue. If you have blue issues you can change the entire way that links are shown. As for it being "disgusting", that is purely your own personal opinion, and many others (including those who created and previouly maintained this template) would disagree. As for sticking to the "usual" colour scheme, by reducing every single navbox to a single range of colours you greatly reduce the usability of such boxes when stacked. The Ferrari 312 article shows this well. If you are following a navbox trail it helps a great deal to be able to pick out the box you want from a sea of boring blues. Pyrop e 10:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so someone chooses green instead of blue... no, because that still clashes. Umm, Purple? no... white? works with red but then doesn't work anywhere else. This is not just down to accessibility issues it's to do with aesthetics. Blue writing on a red background is very bad design ethics and a major no-no. As for "picking out the navbox" well that falls flat if you have an ugly rainbow of navboxes at the bottom of an article. violet/riga (t) 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning design ethics, I'm not qualified, but I have never had any problem with blue on red. Regarding your comment on "falling flat" you put the argument very nicely yourself: "if". As there are no cases where this navbox is used in a rainbow your argument is spurious. Are we to descend into boring, lifeless colouration just because the occasional box, on one or two pages, looks a little garish? Pyrop e 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garish? It's horrible! A compromise position, of course, would be to make the blue links white, but it might not be particularly easy to implement considering that this is using navbox. I'm sorry but I haven't seen a decent reason for us to ignore the usual style and make this template look ugly. violet/riga (t) 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree about it looking ugly. I would prefer that its colour retain some sort of meaning, rather than just going for lowest-common-denominator blues. Short of redrafting the source code, there isn't a way to make blue links appear a different colour for every user. That is something that each user will have to set in their own preferences and internet options. (One major flaw with the blue links system.) As an alternative compromise, how about a little less vivid red hue? As Ferrari have recently reverted to something approaching proper rosso corsa (although the car depicted in that article is not really the right colour!), it would make sense to dim the red in this template. That would reduce the contrast clash which you are obviously suffering (possibly something to do with your screen settings?) Pyrop e 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the red slightly and while it does help a little I'm not really convinced that it is good enough. But then we're not really going to get anywhere with opposing viewpoints, so such a move is the best we can do. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's really difficult to distinguish the little blue links. I'm agree with violet/riga, this probably will break some accessibility rules. I wanted to check this using a tool for measuring color contrast but it doesn't work now. I will try again later, but anyway it looks really awful, can't all those links be white? —surueña 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, have you had your eyes/screen tested lately? To me they just fade into the background (which, as they are editorial links only, is where they ought to be — they aren't actually part of the navigation information!). Besides which, they are both small and at the extreme right and left of the frame, so quite how they impinge on the look of the box is beyond me. Far more damaging to the look and usefulness of the box would be to zombify it to the chronically insipid blue scheme that some appear to be attempting to revert every navbox's formatting to. Pyrop e 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tested my eyes two months ago, and they're close to perfect, really. And although this screen is not like the 21" monitor at my office, I'm very proud of my brand new laptop featuring TruBrite technology, thanks for asking. I tried again to check the color contrast using that on-line tool but the service still doesn't work, so I installed a dedicated Firefox extension [1] that checks the Luminosity Contrast Ratio, the Difference in Brightness, and Difference in Colour. I'm afraid that the blue text over red background fails the three tests. The black text over red background fails both the brightness and colour tests, and the white text over red background fails only the last one. Although white over red is less accessible than standard Wikipedia colors, I'm still think this is a good compromise in this case because I agree with you that replicating the colors of Ferrari is a nice detail. PS: The {{Williams}} template has similar problems (but the test results are even worse), so we can reuse the solution there. Best regards —surueña 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hi — Does anyone else reckon the flags in the current version make the template look jumbled? If for some reason they need to remain, perhaps the "Navbox with columns" template would tidy them up, otherwise why not be rid of them per here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Scuderia_Ferrari&oldid=166233341. Sardanaphalus 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is a bit confusing - what is the inclusion criteria? I'm not sure that Irvine is particularly notable despite some race wins, and while the nationality of the drivers can be important to such a proudly Italian team I'm not sure it presents the information particularly well. I do like the touch of yellow on your linked version. violet/riga (t) 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You like the yellow? And to think that, just up the page, you were chastising me about having poor taste in colour ;-) For your other concerns, Irvine has both won races (plural) for the team, and is a recent driver who is still widely associated with Ferrari, in preference to his other teams. Also, driver nationality is not simply a Ferrari issue, it is an imporant part of F1 as a whole. This dates back to the Grands Epreuve origins in the Edwardian Gordon Bennett Cup. It may seem a bit anachronistic today, but it is a deeply ingrained and significant feature of the F1 culture. Pyrop e 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think of Irvine when you think of Ferrari? He's certainly not one of the major Ferrari stars of the past and I wouldn't say he's notable enough - we should develop some form of inclusion criteria. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria would be a good thing, but I have a feeling that the criteria would have to be determined on a team-by-team basis and would be debated long into the night. For a long-established team such as Ferrari you might argue that only World Championship-winners were sufficiently notable. But where would that leave Gilles Villeneuve? Ok, so we widen it to "drivers who are commonly associated with Ferrari". But that is subjective, how do you comply with WP:V? Ok, so make it "drivers who have won more than x races for Ferrari". But what about von Trips? He only won two races (fewer than Irvine) and his best WC ranking was only second (as was Irvine's) yet he is absolutely associated with the Prancing Horse. See how difficult this gets? Pyrop e 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I understand the difficulties, but we could use "x wins" OR "y years". As you say though we should be discussing this as a wider issue. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shold keep the flags but also take off a few drivers off the noteable list. Thats all we shold do to it as all F1 team template boxes are the same design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattav2 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if the flags are kept, might they at least be aligned in some way? The template seems so jumbled otherwise. Sardanaphalus 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at WP:F1

Seeing as you folks all seem to have taken an interest in this navbox and its underlying formatting, perhaps you would like to contribute to a generalised discussion at the Wikiproject F1 talk page? This way we can address all your concerns at once, rather than deal on a box-to-box basis. Pyrop e 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former drivers

In order to prevent any future possibility of controversy over who constitutes a "notable former Ferrari driver", might it be a good idea to replace the drivers currently listed with a link to Category:Ferrari Formula One drivers?--Diniz (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "Other noted drivers" has been added back in again. I think we probably don't need both "Former drivers" and "Other noted drivers". DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Long distance" vs "Sports Racing"

Wouldn't it be more accurate to categorize the non-F1 cars in this template as Sports racing cars rather than "Long distance"? While many of these cars participated in endurance races, they weren't exclusively produced for and raced in these type of events. And the wikilink to Le Mans Prototype makes no sense as all of these cars either don't fit this classification or were produced long before the LMP class was even developed. Rssyng (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]