# Talk:2018 24 Hours of Le Mans

The link for the GTE Class Porsche 911 goes to the 911 GT3 page. The 911 RSR is not a 911 GT3. It is a purpose-built race car. See https://www.porsche.com/usa/eventsandracing/motorsport/racingcars/991-911-rsr/
Am0210 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it true that if the non hybrids laps fasters than the Toyota's they get a drive through penalty? 

 Mobile mundo (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for asking questions about the subject of the article. With that said, that doesn't sound accurate to me. Non-hybrid cars will likely have to make a few extra stops due to poorer fuel economy, so there's already a penalty of sorts. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking that if it was true and it was a new rule it would be added in a changes from last year section.(Mobile mundo (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC))

In the hope that this won't sound overly nitpicky, when the results for this race become available, I would argue that the column iterating the finish should be Distance/Retired, not Time/Retired, as I have already done for 1923 24 Hours of Le Mans. (This honestly should be true for all Le Mans races to date.)
Le Mans is an endurance, not a sprint race; the winner is determined as the team to have traveled the longest distance over (number of laps in 24 hours elapsed time); see [[1]] It makes sense to have a Time/Retired column in say, the Indianapolis 500, where the winner is the driver to complete 500 miles in the shortest period of time, and in fact, officially that winner IS listed by time (e.g. Will Power in 2018, 2:59:42.6365).
I'd argue that to properly show Le Mans finishes, a Distance/Retired column should look like this:

Doing it this way shows first 'the distance traveled by the winner', and then 'the time in which that was done', allowing for competitors on the same lap to be implied as traveling 'that distance' but in a longer period of time. Just a thought. Skybunny (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

But you're naming the column Distance, then listing cars on the lead lap by Time.  And listing both for the race winner. The359 (Talk) 04:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@The359: @46.211.114.123: Please stop your edit warring. Discuss your content here. From my opinion, the chart does show more detail about the event. However, it may show too much detail, where it's a burden for readers to scroll down a lot to see the chart. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 14:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The entry list has been removed from the article after the race results are posted as 90% of the information is made redundant by the addition of the results table.  This has been repeated every single year for the past I-don't-even-remember-any-more years.  We have several good articles on the subject, none of which have an entry list table.  All had an entry list prior to the race that was removed after the race.  The information that was removed was either replaced with prose or can be easily found on the official PDF file entry list, which has been listed as a source in this article.  The only detail that is missing after the change is what series each car came from.  As Le Mans is not a round of any of those series except the WEC, the information is not as relevant as everything else that is listed in the race results. The359 (Talk) 14:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not remotely as clear like this and removing it means there's no LeMans entry list on wikipedia (the one on the WEC page is, obviously, missing most of the cars) and the fact it's been done before is not a reason to do it.  Far better would be to massively simplify the results and leave the entry list in place as they do in every season article on the site. More than once in the past I've come back to a year to try and reference an entry list and found a list ordered by finishing position rather than anything useful completely useless for the task. Duds 2k (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Everyone who entered the race is in the results table. I don't see how that's not clear. The only difference is it doesn't list which series the cars strem from. But that isn't very relevant here anyway. The only thing that matters is that we distinguish the classes which are actually scored (LMP1, LMP2, LMGTE Pro and LMGTE America). The actual entry list is in the article as a source. Click on the link if you want to read it.Tvx1 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a race, why would you be annoyed to find that the race result was listed in the order they finished?  The emphasis is on the race result, not on the entry lists.  I sometimes want to know Toyota's best finished every year since 1985.  I might have to put in some effort to read and search to do it just because we don't have a nice little chart that tells me that information instantly.  We are not here to make any and all information available to everyone with ease.  And as Tvx1 clearly points out, the information you seek is freely available in an outside source, in exactly the way you wish to see it.
The fact that it has been done before establishes a precedent, and the fact that it is not featured in any of the GA-rated Le Mans articles further establishes that precedent.  To change that precedent, you need something more than WP:ILIKEIT. The359 (Talk) 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 Administrator note I've now blocked the person using 46.211 for a week for repeated block evasion. The article and talk page are protected for four days but if they edit before the weeks is up, anyone can revert and be exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the default to retain the disputed edit, surely the article should be restored to how it was pending the discussion? Duds 2k (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Duds 2k: I reverted because the dynamic IP got an edit in before protection (they should've been blocked). I have no comment on content and you are certainly welcome to restore the material. --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think we both know what would happen if I did that Duds 2k (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Duds 2k: I don't. To be clear, unless edit warring breaks out again, I have absolutely no intention of taking any other action. --NeilN talk to me 20:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The359 in an edit war, gee. What. A. Surprise. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 24 Hours of Le Mans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Beginning review. Will take a few days. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Still working. Some notes below in the interim:
First, thanks for the hard work on this. Most of the fixes are minor and where I could, I just did them myself. Those I had questions about I listed below.
The second sentence in the Background section reads as if the race was "conceived" "by" person A "to" people B and C. Perhaps "proposed" is better than "conceived" here? Not sure what is meant though.
Have reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In Background: "In the GTE Drivers' Championship Billy Johnson, Stefan Mücke and Olivier Pla of Ford Chip Ganassi Racing led on 25 points from the Porsche duo of Michael Christensen and Kévin Estre in second and AF Corse's Davide Rigon and Sam Bird third." Should this be "led by 25 points"?
No that would be an inaccurate edit MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In Automatic entries: "Automatic entry invitations are earned by teams that won their class in the previous running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or won championships in the European Le Mans Series, Asian Le Mans Series, and the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup." Should this be "or the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup"?
No. All winners of the series mentioned above earned entries into the race MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, so besides winning a previous running of 24 Hours of Le Mans, to earn automatic entry, a team has to win all three of the latter series/races, not just one of them? --Airborne84 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No that is not the case. A team is not required to win every one of the series mentioned to earn an automatic invitation to the Le Mans race. MWright96 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. However, the conjunction "and" in the sentence seems to imply that championships in all three of the latter series/races must be won to earn automatic entry. Is the following correct then? "Automatic entry invitations are earned by teams that won their class in the previous running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or won championships in the European Le Mans Series, Asian Le Mans Series, and or the Michelin GT3 Le Mans Cup."
Have reworded the entire sentence MWright96 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In Automatic entries, the term "FIST-Team AAI" is used. Some explanation of that term would be useful for the reader.
The definition of the team is non-existent MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In Automatic entries: "JDC-Miller Motorsports, which was invited via driver Misha Goikhberg winning the Jim Trueman Award as "the top sportsman" in the Daytona Prototype International (DPi) category of the 2017 WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, told ACO officials on 9 February that it was to forgo its automatic invitation due to financial trouble concerning its entry." Should this read "it was going to forgo"?
Changed MWright96 (talk)
In Warm-up: "Hanley was the fastest non-hybrid LMP1 in the DragonSpeed BR1 and was third." Not sure what this means or who was second.
Clarified MWright96 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Should be done in 2–3 days. Listed the above in case you want to work in the meantime.
--Airborne84 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Notes: 

1a. Pass. Big challenge in this article is the "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" part. I made some changes throughout. I'm OK with where it is, but I see you've nominated other articles of this type for GA, and I'd encourage you to give those a check for the type of changes I made in para 3 of the lede here. E.g., instead of writing "Signatech Alpine", write "Signatech Alpine team", and instead of "G-Drive Racing Oreca 07", the average reader will probably digest "G-Drive Racing Oreca 07 car" better. I'm not a racing aficionado and I just didn't know what an Oreca 07 was, for example — I just got bogged down in the prose a lot.
1b. Pass. Only issue here was that the lede isn't quite representative of the proportionate weights of the article. Practice, qualifying, race, and post-race form the bulk of the article but get little coverage in the lede. Results and standing are robustly represented. Probably OK in that a racing reader might want to be able to see that up front vs. the story of the race, which is why I'm OK passing on this criterion. Just something to consider for other similar articles and if taking this to FA.
3b. Hold. I'm concerned that the article is 144kb in length with 11,000 words of prose. WP:SIZERULE isn't written in stone, but I'm going to do a bit more research on this before coming back to it
--Airborne84 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Airborne84: I've done a large amount of copy-editing to the article to further help the non-racing enthusiasts understand it better and have made it more concise. With regards to the page size per WP:SIZERULE, I've got User:Dr pda/prosesize installed and it states this page has a readable prose size of 39kb. MWright96 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Some of my research on similar articles that have reached GA status was helpful. That and your comments, have alleviated most of my concern. I'll make one last complete pass through in the next 24–48 hours (busy IRL), make any final tweaks possible related to readability and conciseness, and should be OK from there. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm good with it and will pass it. A couple final notes:
Thanks for going through and working on the readability for the average reader. You may have actually gone further than needed, and I pulled it back a bit. I'll suggest for other similar articles using this general rule: if it's a car the average reader wouldn't see on the road, use a clarifying noun for more digestible prose for the layman. E.g., CEFC TRSM Ginetta G60-LT-P1 car, Oreca 07 vehicle, or Cetilar Vilorba Corse Dallara car. If it's a vehicle the average reader could see on the road like a Ford GT, BMW, Aston Martin, Porsche or even the more exotic Ferrari, no "car" or "vehicle" clarification is needed, at least IMO.
Good work on the article. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)