Motorsport
This template 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

I don't like how the template uses horizontal centering on several of its fields. See Mesa Marin Raceway for a particularly bad example. On my monitor I can't follow which field relates to which data. The template should have the field name at the top of the field IMHO. Why is it set to be centered? Royalbroil 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the way the template the old F1 template worked, although I agree it would be much clearer if it was top aligned. AlexJ (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the horizontal alignment was set because you start getting way too long on the template if you overhead the categories.Gateman1997 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the field names should be aligned straight across (to the left) from the top piece of data to its right. Royalbroil 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image on the right shows the changes that Royalbroil is proposing. AlexJ (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thank you! Royalbroil 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. The new one makes more sense. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlexJ, would you make the change since you appear to be versed in this template? Royalbroil 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, except I can't see what bit of the template is making it do that! The image to the right was photoshopped to show what it should look like. Perhaps a post at WP:MOTOR is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've come here thinking the same as AlexJ, except I'd suggest making the Major events entry horizontal rather than vertical, i.e. make "Major events" a subheading above the list of events below. Would this be okay?
  Also, since this template is an infobox, would anyone mind if I renamed it "Infobox Motorsport venue" and converted the code to use {{Infobox}} (simpler)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is we use subheadings to denote track layouts at the moment (see Brands Hatch as an example). Major events would need to be displayed sufficiently different to distinguish it from the circuit layouts. AlexJ (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to get an image to display in the infobox. Please see Volusia Speedway Park Gamweb (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the full image syntax, e.g. [[Image:Aerial_VolusiaSpeedwayPark01.jpg|250px]]. I've updated Volusia Speedway Park and the template documentation accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know my english is not good!

I found in the article Nürburgring an error in the track discription. The fourth lap record shall be a F1-record, but this is wrong. I think, I found the reason, is it an error in the template. Every value ends with 4, but the last value Record_class3 ends with 3? --Pitlane02 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{{Record_time4}}}|{{{Record_driver4}}}, {{{Record_team4}}}, {{{Record_year4}}}{{#if:|, {{{Record_class3}}}

Absolutely right - well spotted. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly! That was not the primary reason, however there was an error in this article. But yesterday my correction doesn't work, because the template error hide my corretion... ;-) --Pitlane02 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to modify this template to include length in meters and feet, along with number of turns. This would allow for information for drag strips on drag racing both from the National Hot Rod Association and from the FIA European Drag Racing Championships. Any thoughts on adjusting this as such? Chris (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to change the lap record to track record given the venues used are somtime stright line rather than circuit. Chris (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts - as drag strips have set lengths is there a point in mentioning it? Secondly: Rather than try to neutralise the lap record stat to allow it to be drag racing friendly - why not include a seperate line specifically for drag racing venues as drag strips tend to have two records - elapsed time and terminal speed. Would that not be better? --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since many venues close and re-open - might it be possible to jig the Opened, and Closed lines and include perhaps Opened2 and Closed2 to include when tracks re open many years after closing the first time? --Falcadore (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to set the "length" parameters so that only one would need to be filled in, with the other automatically being set via {{convert}}, similar to how {{Aircraft specs}} works? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely doable, yes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When only length_km is filled, there is bug :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penbay_International_Circuit&oldid=559020515
It "asks for" length_mi. But few people use miles !
Can some change the code to avoid this bug ? --Sovxx (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Frietjes to have a look at it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checking the code, we have a few options: (1) make it so that if you don't specify the other unit, that only one of the two units is displayed, (2) have the template automatically convert into the other unit if only one of the two units is specified, (3) leave it the way it is. making the change to option 1 would be very easy, and would require no changes to any articles. making the change to option 2 would be possible, but currently, the input is not raw numeric data, so we would probably need a bot to split these fields in articles into a length_km and length_ref. it would be possible to use some crafty string processing to extract the numeric portion from the field, but it's not clear how robust this would be. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went with option 1 for now, but can always generalize this to option 2 with a check for purely numeric input. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, thank you --Sovxx (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a parameter for longest straight? Maybe it should be discussed whether this is relevant to all different possible circuit layouts or only to the single longest straight available, I propose the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.20.209 (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few pre-Formula 1 Grand Prix race records have insufficient "Fastest Lap" data if any at all. More often, (completed race) times for the top finishers are furnished as the only means to determine the circuit record holder. Venues with multiple different layouts and race distances over more than a couple of years in their history, complicate establishing the circuit record for a given layout variant and period of use unless the median speed average is calculated for every race winner of that period. If venue "xyz" runs 250 km races on a 10 km circuit for 5 years and then 325 km races on a 4.27 km circuit for another 5, then a "race distance" and "race time" input field would help to get the circuit record time for that configuration period (a small "built in" (time/distance) converter could fill that data automatically...lol). MotorOilStains (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Road America article has it (an embedded Template:Infobox NRHP). I also see several other infoboxes with maps. Maxtremus (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently (at least once or twice a week) see (presumably well-intentioned) editors changing the details in the "(Race) lap record" field to the details of the outright lap record, only for the change to be subsequently reverted (often by me). I was wondering: would it be worth adding an "Outright lap record" field (for each layout) to avoid all the back-and-forth? The outright lap record of a circuit does seem to have some notability - the Sky Sports F1 commentators always make mention when the outright lap record for a F1 circuit is broken, as do the Fox Sports commentators when the outright lap record is broken for a Supercars circuit. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with it. Though I'd prefer using "Track record (all sessions)" and then changing the other to "Track record (race)". Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. These times are no officially recognized records. There are no regulations to the set-up of a car for an outright lap record. And it's not easily verifiable, as these time could also be set during testing.Tvx1 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're attributed correctly and supported by reliable sources what would the problem be? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still wouldn't be officially recognized.Tvx1 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: officially recognised by who? And so long as it isn't claimed that it is, why does that matter? -- DeFacto (talk). 04:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for someone to alter the template so to link the 'FIA Grade' subheading to the related article? I feel as though, despite its viability, the article is a bit of an orphan as it stands. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add a 'logo' item to this template? Double stacking it under 'image' is not ideal. Thank you in advance. --Ben Stone 03:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]