Template talk:Infobox racing car

message: I have deliberately left the pro-forma above unformatted for ease of copy-pasting.  For Formula One articles, most details should be available.  For other series simply leave blank any unknown fields and enter n/a for irrelevant or highly variable fields.  Many customer cars will have had highly variable set up, I would suggest using either the most common configuration (if such a thing exists) or simply stating a brief range of options in leiu of precise specifications. Pyrope 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage notes 

message: imo it'd be better to have a picture of the actual car in the infobox instead of the company's logo. Or maybe change the field to "image/logo" or something like that and use a picture of the car if available and the logo when no picture of the car is available?--BSI 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not keen. The logo is an instant handle on the car's identity, whereas as photo (even if it is a good one) is nowhere near so useful. For one thing, with many racing cars, visualy many cars from a similar era all look alike, certainly to a non-enthusiast, so one, green, cigar-shaped '60s F1 car looks pretty similar to another green, cigar-shaped '60s F1 car. The second problem that I have is that the quality of the shot is highly dependant on who took the photo. So while an indistinct, poorly metered and composed snap might be ok for illustrating an article, it isn't any good for the instant recognition that an infobox illustration requires. Pyrope 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, what I did was add the image parameter back, but not for logos at all. The use of logos in this manner in any shape or form is a violation of WP:NFCC. On the other hand though, people were using the parameter for adding images of the cars in question, so I added the parameter back and removed the logos. — Save_Us † 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely decorative, or useful for identification? I'd argue that the latter was more the case, and as "uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use" then it was OK. AlexJ (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless, there is still a lack of proper rationales written for these images which you appear to be readding to articles. Read WP:NFCC #10 (c). If you're going to readd them back in, I would first right a rationale for its inclusion in the article and then I would take it to WP:NFCC's talk page for furthur review. — Save_Us † 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I didn't see you added the rationales to them before you readded them. Nonetheless, I'll probably go through and make sure the logos all have valid rationales, but all of the uses right now are mostly without any kind of rationale. — Save_Us † 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace "logo" with "image" ? 

message: I have removed the logo parameter all together. Most, if not all, of the logos being placed in these infoboxes did not have rationales for their inclusions written on the image description page and per WP:NFCC, their use in the infobox is purely decorative. — Save_Us † 13:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, what I did was add the image parameter back, but not for logos at all. The use of logos in this manner in any shape or form is a violation of WP:NFCC. On the other hand though, people were using the parameter for adding images of the cars in question, so I added the parameter back and removed the logos. — Save_Us † 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely decorative, or useful for identification? I'd argue that the latter was more the case, and as "uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use" then it was OK. AlexJ (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless, there is still a lack of proper rationales written for these images which you appear to be readding to articles. Read WP:NFCC #10 (c). If you're going to readd them back in, I would first right a rationale for its inclusion in the article and then I would take it to WP:NFCC's talk page for furthur review. — Save_Us † 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I didn't see you added the rationales to them before you readded them. Nonetheless, I'll probably go through and make sure the logos all have valid rationales, but all of the uses right now are mostly without any kind of rationale. — Save_Us † 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo parameter

message: Several of the fields in this template don't have "if" checks around them.  Therefore if you leave out a field it displays the field name.  This is not desirable.  When the 'logo' field was changed to 'image' it broke at least one page.  See Toyota MR2#SARD MC8-R.  If the fields were displayed conditionally there wouldn't be this problem and the template would be more flexible.  I don't have the experience yet to feel comfortable fixing this myself. swaq 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditional fields 

message: Why does it say to "Only fill (Y, yes, whatever) this field if the car is a pre-1980 F1" ? What's the distinction between pre-1980 and post-1980 cars? DH85868993 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the field that generates the "only includes World Championship results" footnote. After 1980 there were only two non-Championship races so that footnote is a waste of space. In fact, it is better to delete the field entirely if you are dealing with a >1980 F1 car or some other class of vehicle. Pyrope 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can also delete it if you choose to include Tasman/non-C/libre results. Definitely needs rephrasing in light of that, so I'll put some thought into how best to achieve that. Pyrope 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone object to me renaming this field "WC_results_only", to clarify its purpose? Obviously I would update all the existing transclusions. DH85868993 (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that sounds like a good idea. Pyrope 14:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (and transclusions updated). DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  F1 car field 

message: Could someone add a predecessor/successor field? This would be especially useful for modern F1 cars which are only used for a single season. 
Might need to add two options for both, as things like the new Merc could said to be successors of the BGP 001 and the Merc W54 or whatever the last racing one was. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be easy enough to do simply using the  operator. Pyrope 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor/successor 

message: I noticed Lotus 16 infobox says "Axle track" and confirmed its repeatability on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_racing_car/testcases#Example_testing_both_new_fields
when only one figure is entered for 'Track'.
Could someone fix it?  Separating it into Front Track and Rear Track might be problematic for 3 axle cars.  Yiba (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's OK as is - if the front and rear track are the same, the infobox just contains the one value, if they're different just set the parameter to "Front:<front track> Rear: <rear track>", as is done in Tyrrell P34 for example. As you say, separating it into two parameters could be problematic for 3 axle cars. DH85868993 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axle track ?? 

message: Is it possible to add the "caption" field, so that a caption could be shown right below the picture? Micap (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered that this template already provides "caption" field, but it was not shown in "documentation" subpage. I fixed the error. --Micap (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: There is discussion related to this template in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Template:Racing_car_and_hybrid_systems. DH85868993 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid systems 

message: I have noticed that the Infoboxes  in Aston Martin Vantage, Ferrari 488, and Porsche 911 do not have line breaks. I think this is a problem with the visual editor. Relevant issues filed are phabricator:T179259 and phabricator:T213922. The first one suggests that the problem are incorrectly defined templates. What can we do with the template to mitigate this problem? Bobi.1 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, as those infoboxes look perfectly fine and as they always have. What browser are you using? Pyrope 10:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , what I mean is that in the source code they are missing line breaks. If I click on edit source, it is a mess. Bobi.1 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No newlines in Infobox 

message: Hi. Named parameter  is shown when the mouse cursor passes over the infobox image. For example at Mercedes-AMG F1 W11 EQ Performance. Cheers, --LaFleur93 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas on how to fix this? DH85868993 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  DH85868993, fixed. Frietjes (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! DH85868993 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "image_title" parameter 

message: I added :Category:Pages using infobox racing car with unknown parameters.  you can see which parameters are being flagged as unsupported or ignored using "show preview" after opening the page in edit mode.  in some cases, this might suggest a new parameter that we should add, in other cases this might be a typo, or something trivial that should be removed.  at the moment there are only about 85 pages in the category, which is pretty good considering there are over 1000 transclusions of the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking