Template talk:Infobox racing driver
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Suggested merger of "driver" infoboxes
There are are a range of "...driver" infoboxes in Category:Motor racing infoboxes. I suggest these be merged, into this one (note also discussion with WikiProject Motorsport). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, specifically for Template:WRC driver; rally drivers don't do "laps" or "poles". Other circuit racing infoboxes could possibly be merged, but unless the proposed overall template is cut down to remove such "performance" info (and I think you'll have a hard job getting that past Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, for example), then it's not quite compatible with rallying. --DeLarge 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Trying to shoe-horn all of the named box templates into one will result in a complete mess. How do you distinguish historical details from current? How do you differentiate records from different series/championships etc? And why do we need so much biographical detail? If you carry on down that route you may as well replace the whole page with one massive infobox. I can see where you thinking has come from, I just think it's misguided. Far better to have the flexibility of multiple boxes, and as they are all pretty much formatted to a standard they stack quite neatly (see John Surtees). Also, maintaining separate boxes allows each specialist Wikiproject to adjust their box details, without risking damage to something not linked to their field of knowlege. (As an F1/sportscar fan I haven't got a clue about NASCAR for example...) Pyrope 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- What we can and should have is:
- A general template for current and retired racing drivers, such as this work in progress, which will eventually become Template:Infobox racing driver or its replacement
- An F1-specific template to cover its unique details, for current and retired drivers
- A WRC template for the informational requirements of rallying
- A complete NASCAR infobox (again, for its specific needs)
- That's four templates, which is absolutely the bare minimum that is practical for all the subjects and WikiProjects involved. This merger proposal and the addition of unwanted biographical fields appears to have been born from a lack of understanding of motorsport. Adrian M. H. 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- What we can and should have is:
[edit] Standard biography fields
I've added the standard biography fields (date & place of birth and death; spouse, parents, children). All are optional. Please feel free to change the running order, if preferred. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, why include biographical details in the infobox at all? I don't see its relevance to the driver's career (which is what the infobox is summing up), and it may cause issues with those who enforce WP:BLP zealously. --DeLarge 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Curious, why would it "cause issues" with enforcers of WP:BLP? And BTW, I oppose inclusion of parents and children. I agree with inclusion of birth and death dates. I am undecided on inclusion of spouse. ZueJay (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I agree with the way BLP is enforced, I'm simply saying that biographical details not directly pertinent to a person's notability are often removed. In fact, there's a specific policy against exact birth dates being included at all for those of "borderline notability". And not every article is someone of the stature of Sébastien Loeb or Michael Schumacher. Lots of motorsports participants are notable in their field, but don't get great mainstream coverage; see Gwyndaf Evans or Derek Ringer, two pages I've authored. Heard of either of them? They're both internationally successful at what they do, yet they both need day jobs to support themselves.
- For the record, I'm not saying we should remove the info entirely, but where a person's birth/death dates are recorded in the lead sentence anyway (as they should be), having them in the infobox seems superfluous to me. --DeLarge 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Curious, why would it "cause issues" with enforcers of WP:BLP? And BTW, I oppose inclusion of parents and children. I agree with inclusion of birth and death dates. I am undecided on inclusion of spouse. ZueJay (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Shouldn't this be Template:Infobox Racing driver? --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does it really matter? This is navel gazing for Wiki Editors, and will have no effect on how Joe/Jane Public will use the encyclopedia. Pyrope 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deceased drivers
This template does not work well for deceased drivers as if you want to enter stats for the last series they drove in, it forces you to treat that series as a "current series" and then displays the current year, even though they are dead. See Paul Dana for how I tried to deal with it as best as possible. -Drdisque 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for such stats if they are retired, dead, or otherwise not competing. There are other templates for the series that warrant such levels of detail. Adrian M. H. 09:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no, there is no other template for that series. That's why I'm using this one. If a field exists for this template, it should work whether the driver is deceased or not. If your template doesn't work with deceased drivers, then it shouldn't even be built to handle such information. -Drdisque 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- But you should not need to have such detailed data in an infobox for a retired or dead driver. Only the F1 project insists on that level of minutiae. And if you think there are no templates for American single seater drivers, you should take a look at {{Former Champ Car driver}}. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- He is NOT a Champ Car driver. Also, why should retired or dead drivers have less detail than active ones? I see no reason why they shouldn't other than your personal opinion. -Drdisque 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for Christ's sake. I know that he was an IRL driver. I am not stupid, OK?As far as template usage is concerned, you will see that the former Champ Car driver template makes no specific reference to the series and could easily by called "former American single-seater series driver". It was obviously intended to be interchangeable between Champ Car and the IRL. How could it not be, given that they were one and the same until a decade ago?- Past participations are clearly less relevant to the affected championship, so our motorsport templates below F1 level have traditionally not included such levels of detail. But, just to keep you happy, I have done what you could easily have done yourself - the template now has fields for a last series, for which you need to follow the pro-forma guides in the documentation. Adrian M. H. 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Striking part of my comment, which was a bit too harsh. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no, there is no other template for that series. That's why I'm using this one. If a field exists for this template, it should work whether the driver is deceased or not. If your template doesn't work with deceased drivers, then it shouldn't even be built to handle such information. -Drdisque 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you. I really appreciate your work on this template and I care about this so much because I feel that a powerful yet generic infobox template can really improve the quality of WP:Motorsport articles and greatly increase infobox usage. -Drdisque 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the appreciation, Drdisque. My effort to improve it really grew out of the recent merge proposal and a desire to avoid a complete merger, but it needed doing anyway, to be honest. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-F1 racing drivers
I'm not sure this template can be applied that well to all the pre-WDC racers. Grand Prix racing then consisted of the majority of races not being part of any championship, so how should that be conveyed using this template? Readro 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- How is it done currently, and with what template? Adrian M. H. 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no template. I've been using the Infobox Biography template. Readro 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I could add some fields to this (quite easy, though I'm not sure where to place them) and make another pro-forma, but perhaps it might be better if you were to make a dedicated template, depending on exactly what data you want to include and how you want to display it. I'm not aiming for total rationalisation of all the driver infobox templates, because that would just be counter-productive. Adrian M. H. 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no template. I've been using the Infobox Biography template. Readro 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguous field
There's an ambiguoug field on the template "Best finish". I know this template says it should be the championship finish; however, some users will think it is the best race finish (ie - checkered?). I don't know how to solve this, yet, but perhaps others know of a way to make this more clear? ZueJay (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing really ambiguous about that for anyone who is knowledgeable about motorsport, and all they need to do is look at the pro-forma. It is the same term that we have always used, partly because of the width constraints. I tend to check each new use of the template to look out for formatting issues anyway, so I am likely to spot any mistakes. Adrian M. H. 10:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- How many users are knowledgeable about this kind of thing? Not enough. Truly, this encyclopedia is best used as a tool for understaning the basics (and finding references for more detail), users should not be expected to have prior knowledge of a subject before entering any single article. Thus, for those users without the proper background, this is an ambiguous field. I know there's a Championship, but the first time I saw this field, I thought for sure it was highest single race finish, not championship - and I'm certainly not any sort of lame-brain. Your response does not bring resolution to the problem, it just tells me why ya'll have never changed it. Can this perhaps be a wikilinked field to disambiguate the text? I'm not sure what it would be wikilinked to, but that might assist resolution. ZueJay (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone who adds templates such as this to relevant articles will be doing so with some knowledge of motorsport, or they would have no need of such a template. Without some knowledge, they are not in a position to know whether anything that they add is suitable (not just in the template) and they would not have any particular interest in adding a template in such circumstances. You wouldn't find me doing anything other than basic typo/grammar fixing in a mathematics article, for example. There really is no issue here. I could change the field name in the code to make it clear for you, but if any field names don't match the displayed titles, I get other editors complaining and I'm not going over that old ground again. Adrian M. H. 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not about me, it is not about editors - it is about users. Not all users understand that that is a Championship field; I'm looking for solutions/suggestions on how to disambiguate this field and alleviate confusion among users - I'm not looking for a brick wall. ZueJay (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- By "users" do you mean readers? If so, say so. So you don't think that your average motorsport fan will understand that "Best finish: 3rd in 2005" means exactly the same here as it does in the info panels of just about every English-language motorsport periodical in print? If they are not motorsport fans, why would they want to know about Ricardo Risatti or Sebastian Buemi? Besides, we are limited by infobox width, unless you want to overturn the decision taken earlier this year (with which I agree) that all motorsport infoboxes should be 24em. We have no room for lengthy field titles (particularly unnecessary ones). Adrian M. H. 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a user is the same as a "reader"; I prefer the term user because being an Internet user is a bit more active than being a reader, which is passive; this whole matter of clicking on links, typing things in searches, implies usage not just reading.
Now, what's to say that your average user is a motorsports fan? Do you look up articles about politicians? Are you a politics fan? Do you look up articles about authors? Are you an author fan? Do you look up articles about sandwiches? Are you a sandwich fan? You look up articles to learn something.
I do not believe the width should be changed, I think you all are quite right in that; it is already a "wide" box, relatively speaking. I do think that wikilinking the field "Best finish" to a descriptive article (there must be one with regards to "racing championship" or some such) would be useful in clarifiying the field, and is probably the best way to disambiguate it at this point.
I really don't think the accesibility we provide users/readers in these articles is irrelevant. Information in Wikipedia is not just for us, only editors, or only fans, its for everybody. Why wouldn't we want to make it accessible and comprehensible to the average person no matter their fanatic inclinations? ZueJay (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)- Since you asked, I hardly ever use WP as a reference source (that may change if the world runs out of paper any time soon), but when I do, my readings are confined to things in which I am interested and at least adequately knowledgeable. There is nothing precisely relevant to which the field title may be linked. Adrian M. H. 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most editors seem not to use it as a particularly strong reference; I tend to only use it for non-technical (ie - pop culture) and a place to look for outside references.
I realize now that there seems no particularly ideal article for such a link - I made an article request for Championship racing or something similar that can discuss a bit all those series with championship races; it is a very popular, common term/element in motorsport that makes sense to have an article for (or at least a list); I know only enough about motorsport to watch it competently and discuss it with others but not actually write articles. ZueJay (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most editors seem not to use it as a particularly strong reference; I tend to only use it for non-technical (ie - pop culture) and a place to look for outside references.
- Since you asked, I hardly ever use WP as a reference source (that may change if the world runs out of paper any time soon), but when I do, my readings are confined to things in which I am interested and at least adequately knowledgeable. There is nothing precisely relevant to which the field title may be linked. Adrian M. H. 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a user is the same as a "reader"; I prefer the term user because being an Internet user is a bit more active than being a reader, which is passive; this whole matter of clicking on links, typing things in searches, implies usage not just reading.
- By "users" do you mean readers? If so, say so. So you don't think that your average motorsport fan will understand that "Best finish: 3rd in 2005" means exactly the same here as it does in the info panels of just about every English-language motorsport periodical in print? If they are not motorsport fans, why would they want to know about Ricardo Risatti or Sebastian Buemi? Besides, we are limited by infobox width, unless you want to overturn the decision taken earlier this year (with which I agree) that all motorsport infoboxes should be 24em. We have no room for lengthy field titles (particularly unnecessary ones). Adrian M. H. 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not about me, it is not about editors - it is about users. Not all users understand that that is a Championship field; I'm looking for solutions/suggestions on how to disambiguate this field and alleviate confusion among users - I'm not looking for a brick wall. ZueJay (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone who adds templates such as this to relevant articles will be doing so with some knowledge of motorsport, or they would have no need of such a template. Without some knowledge, they are not in a position to know whether anything that they add is suitable (not just in the template) and they would not have any particular interest in adding a template in such circumstances. You wouldn't find me doing anything other than basic typo/grammar fixing in a mathematics article, for example. There really is no issue here. I could change the field name in the code to make it clear for you, but if any field names don't match the displayed titles, I get other editors complaining and I'm not going over that old ground again. Adrian M. H. 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- How many users are knowledgeable about this kind of thing? Not enough. Truly, this encyclopedia is best used as a tool for understaning the basics (and finding references for more detail), users should not be expected to have prior knowledge of a subject before entering any single article. Thus, for those users without the proper background, this is an ambiguous field. I know there's a Championship, but the first time I saw this field, I thought for sure it was highest single race finish, not championship - and I'm certainly not any sort of lame-brain. Your response does not bring resolution to the problem, it just tells me why ya'll have never changed it. Can this perhaps be a wikilinked field to disambiguate the text? I'm not sure what it would be wikilinked to, but that might assist resolution. ZueJay (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- All we really need to do here is change the label of the field to "best season finish". There have been several cases lately where this has been changed to reflect the best race finish of a particular driver. I think that one word here will clarify. --rogerd (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
