User talk:Apeiro94

The maps you have added to numerous articles of Spielberg do not provide a source for the corner names, and they contradict what evidence I can find for the current names of corners at the venue, such as on the venue's website. I have started a discussion at WT:MOTOR#Spielberg corner names if you wish to participate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again. The map you seem to insist on using for Spielberg fails WP:VERIFY. The venue's website lists different corner names. It cannot be used unless you can provide a source showing that those corner names are accurate at the time of the race that the map is being used for. It also doesn't provide a key explaining what different elements on the map mean, which other editors have complained about regarding previous maps. Please understand that WP:VERIFY is a core principal of Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first corner was renamed as Niki Lauda after the death of himself. If the mentioned map is unverifiable and we are not sure about all of the corner names, maybe it should be agreed to use the map of 2020 Austrian Grand Prix on also the other car races at Red Bull Ring on the years of 2017-2020, such as also for the 2018 Austrian Grand Prix or 2018 Spielberg Formula 2 round. Just, I would like to make consistency about the maps between years and to show the sector details as much as possible. Apeiro94 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The inconsistency between sources for corner names at the circuit leads me to believe that it's best to not use corner names for maps of the circuit. The only corner whose name seems to be consistent between sources is the penultimate corner, which most sources seem to agree is called Rindt (or in some cases Jochen Rindt). I am inclined to believe that the official names of the corners at the circuit change so frequently as sponsors come and go that many sources have given up on keeping track, and thus the names are not often used by sources and should not be used on Wikipedia as the corner numbers are generally the WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding them, please discuss it into Wiki Project Formula One or into the talk page.--Island92 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also link to the circuits. Linking to the Grand Prix is a textbook example of WP:EGG and will be changed. SSSB (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this coordinates template on the pages of MotoGP and Formula E seasons, and it my opinion it would be also useful for F1 seasons. Linking to Grand Prix was seen from the MotoGp chamöpionship pages, I would agree for linking the coordinates to the circuits rather than the GP, it is not matter. --Apeiro94 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the MotoGP pages link to the Grands Prix, it needs to be changed. SSSB (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed you've recently moved the page EuroSpeedway Lausitz to DEKRA Lausitzring. Was this move actually requested and approved anywhere? While I do think the previous name was obsolete and needed updating, I have two major concerns with the new one. Firstly, Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME, not official names, which would mean "Lausitzring" should be the title—even more so when DEKRA is an external company that simply owns the complex. And secondly, as MOS:CAPS outlines, commercial names should not be in caps unless they're an acronym. DEKRA, in this case, isn't—it's just how Dekra is stylised. MSport1005 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that by clicking "Move" button, I would firstly request for moving the page, and then the page move would be approved and done. But I directly moved the page. The formal name of the circuit is DEKRA Lausitzring now, but if it is better for not adding the company name, we can change the name of page as "Lausitzring". Thanks for warning me. Apeiro94 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree with moving the page to "Lausitzring". Will do now. MSport1005 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An error ocurred while trying to move, so I've requested it at WP:RMTR. MSport1005 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apeiro94. As you may have noticed, I've restored Template:Infobox motorsport venue to the "13 layout" version; the problem at Silverstone Circuit which was causing layouts 10-13 not to be displayed was an unnecessary underscore in the "LayoutN" parameters, e.g. "Layout_10" instead of "Layout10". As you already know, if we include 14 layouts in Template:Infobox motorsport venue, that takes the total number of header/data/labels to 101, which means that the last data item (website) doesn't get displayed. So it's a choice between 14 layouts (which means that all the Silverstone layouts can be displayed) or the website parameter, unless there's another parameter we can get rid of. I've repeated this info at Template talk:Infobox motorsport venue, so you may prefer to continue the discussion there. DH85868993 (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a suggestion, and this is just a suggestion. Since the Nürburgring page has all the fastest lap times/records listed for the Grand Prix Circuit variations, Betonschleife, and the Südschleife, but not the Nordschleife, I think we should include a section on that page for the race lap records for the different variations of the Nürburgring Nordschleife, in different racing categories, dating back to 1927. You don't have to agree with me, but I think this would be a great idea, and would really boost the page. Let mee know your thoughts. Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is also another page, which shows the fastest lap records at Nordschleife for the racing cars: List of Nordschleife lap times (racing). It is really up to you, the fastest race laps for the combined circuit can be added in the normal Nürburgring page, but the fastest lap records at all of the versions of Nordschleife (except the combined circuit variations) can be updated/added in the previously mentioned page. Every opinion could make sense for me. Apeiro94 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really suggesting an amateur series which occurred once in the history of a 95 year old racetrack, whose history is filled with world championships, is a major event? --Falcadore (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an amateur series, and even if it was occurred once; it would be considered to put it into the event section of the infobox. Even if I don't agree about your opinion, I would understand not to consider Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula 4, GP2, GP3, Porsche Carrera Cup etc. as a major event since these events are 100% dependent to F1 or any other national/international series. But sometimes some events can be organized both indepdendtly or dependently from more than one series. We cannot make distinction for most of the events specifically, so I put these types of events into infobox as much as I can. Apeiro94 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know how this is not an amateur series. They run a control car built by series organisers with a supplied engine. The drivers are a mix of older drivers and drivers who have failed to climb ladder series for professional categories. None of them are well known outside of the sport. Putting a NASCAR sticker on the cars does not make it professional. --Falcadore (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that the ISRS didn't use American rulesets like IMSA WSC. They run their own rulesets. A Benetton B197 with a 4.0 litre Judd sportscar engine is obviously not a Formula One legal car, it's a EuroBOSS car. A CART car with sportscar bodywork and a bigger USAC 3.3 litre stock block engine is not a CART car. Interserie is sportscar series. Many cars in it have open wheel backgrounds because even with sportscar bodies they are lighter than full bodied sports cars. But they have bodywork on them that is not legal in their original categories. Some of them change engines. Several Spice cars have been both C1 and C2 cars, because a change of engine moves from one to the other. Putting up a list in wikipedia doesn't mean a Dome S101 or Ferrari 333 SP is exclusive to IMSA WSC, or ALMS LMP900 or SR1. The record belongs to the ruleset they race under, not the ruleset they were built for and no longer comply with. --Falcadore (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. It aligns with the Formula One custom of refering to to cars as Benetton-Renault. Also by choosing the Benetton B197 you demonstrate a gap in your understanding. There are a pair of Benetton B197s who race with oversized Judd sports car engines. You do understand that many cars built for Formula One go on to have histories outside of Formula One. Why do you assume that readers know what may or may not be standard? If the engine is a control part then why list the car at all? Formula One and Sportscar racing have used the Constructor format since the 1950s and you propose to ignore that standard? There is also an alternative naming structure that labels cars as Benettn-Renault 197 or Alpine-Renault A442. this indicating the engine is more important that the chassis name. American formulae often omit the chassis constructor entirely which got Grand-Am in trouble briefly when one of it's race cars using a four litre Porsche Cayenne engine was refered to directly as a Porsche when Porsche did not participate in the construction of the car at all and they publicly objected to the practice. Do you need more reasons or do you plan to nit pick every car I alter while alls the same insisting that modified Interserie and BOSS cars are still belonging to their original categories? --Falcadore (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm typing to you I should mention the listing the categories that are expected to run at a circuit in the forthcoming year is, I believe against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, or even a violation of that policy. Wikipedia isn't a guidebook or promotion of future events. Wikipedia records what is, not what is not yet. --Falcadore (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware of the constructor format standards for the Formula One and sportscar racing, and I don't ignore that standard. I've made lap records sections for the circuits through the world almost for 2 years, and I did not have any objections like that before. I've made alterations usually for the cars such as for the F1 cars, F2 cars, GP3 cars etc. While looking at the pages of those cars, only one engine manufacturer is written. We don't need to call Red Bull Racing RB16 as Red Bull Racing RB16 Honda, Dallara F2 2018 as Dallara F2 2018 Mecachrome, Dallara GP2/05 as Dallara GP2/05 Renault, Lola B05/52 as Lola B05/52 Zytek, Ligier JS P3 as Ligier JS P3 Nissan, Williams JPH1 as Williams JPH1 Audi etc. I don't agree with this, but we can discuss this issue in the general motorsports talk pages with other writers if you want. Such as for the circuits in Hungaroring and Istanbul Park, I've already created another tab for the engine manufacturers, maybe we can go like that.
• About the alternative naming structure, I know that some cars can be written with the engines, such as Red Bull Racing RB16 as Red Bull Honda RB16, Benetton B197 as Benetton-Renault 197, Ligier JS P3 as Ligier Nissan JS P3, Arrows A22 as Arrows-Asiatech A22 etc. But those namings were not the official names of those cars. Again if we need to write the names of those cars with them, why did not we discuss the article name changing such as for Formula One cars by altering the car names as Red Bull Racing RB16 Honda, Scuderia Alpha Tauri AT02 Honda, Haas VF-22 Ferrari, Williams FW44 Mercedes etc.
• For Benetton B197, I am aware of the Benetton B197 Judd EuroBOSS cars and they are already written like that such as in the pages of Anderstorp Raceway and Brands Hatch. But for the Autódromo Oscar y Juan Gálvez, we already know that the record was made with the standard Benetton B197 in that year's race, 1997 Argentine Grand Prix. That's why I've made this changes for the records of that circuit.
• I don't have any problem such as the alterations of car names of Chevrolet Camaro NASCAR to Chevrolet Camaro, or even the F3 car names.
• For the fastest laps related with American formulae, Interserie, BOSS GP and classic car racing; the fastest lap records for those categories were mostly added by @Davism0703, not by me. You can discuss this issue especially with him. And I haven't made any change after your corrections especially for the Interserie fastest lap records.

Apeiro94 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apeiro94, Could I please have some help improving the page contents of the aforementioned page above? It has been marked for deletion, which I think is unnecessary. Do you think the information from this page should be transferred from this page to Reunion Arena and marked as a redirect? I think the content of this page are very important, and the Reunion Arena page itself didn't have any information related to, or regarding the Dallas street circuit. Let me know your thoughts and tell me what you think. Thanks, Davism0703 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just seen that the circuit also hosted Trans-Am races in 1993–1994, I can add an improve contents to this page by that. In my opinion, the page contents would be transferred to Reunion Arena or the page can be named as Dallas Street Circuit (Reunion Arena), both ideas would seem OK for me. Apeiro94 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What every you think is best. Thanks for adding that information. I'm happy with it both ways. Davism0703 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the usage of WSC as a lap record class link to IMSA GT Championship if it is a IMSA ruleset and not a European LMP regulation? -- Falcadore (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMSA GT Championship lap records are usually added by @Davism0703, not by me. And also WSC class is mentioned a lot in the article of Le Mans Prototype, especially in the Name variations and History sections. I am open to any idea for the discussion of this class. Apeiro94 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Apeiro94. I'm Nascar9919; I've been expanding the pages on racing circuits to hopefully advance them into GA status. I want to talk about the addition of the racing events list that you've been putting; particularly, my concerns. The format of how you add them isn't up to GA standards; it shouldn't start as "such and such is listed as", along with how the events are formatted in general; we already have a major events section in the infobox, which consists of first-tier races. In addition, the sources used for the section isn't reliable enough for a GA, they're user-generated and thus aren't reliable. In my opinion, I do believe it's best to remove the section and just list major events in the infobox only for it to be consistent with a GA/FA article. Let me know what you think. Thank you! Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 19:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I actually try to make all of the world's circuits to have event and lap records sections separately. And especially I did not understand why were the sources removed for the lap records. That's why I try to read lap record and event sections again. I try to read the GA status section, and there can not be one and only viable way to assume the pages to have GA status. That's your opinion, the event section should be necessary for me, but I do not add anything to event section right now. Maybe, some major/national popular events should be added into the infobox.

Besides the event section, I did not understand your decision to remove "As of xxxx 202x" part from the lap records section, and I do not agree to remove it despite agreeing some of your concerns about the events section. Apeiro94 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeiro94: Honestly, after some further thought, I'd probably put it up for discussion in perhaps the WP:MOTORSPORTS talk page. I'd love to gain a consensus on there and see what solutions we could come up with. There's only two good articles of racing circuits (and the one which has the racing events listed in the way you did it was promoted in 2010 and hasn't been reviewed since), so renewed discussion would in my opinion be extremely beneficial.

As for your comments on the lap records, I see your point on that after some thought. Makes enough sense. I'll agree on that and won't mess with it. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]