Talk:2018 IndyCar Series

Tristan Gommendy

Figured I'd start of talk instead of risking starting an edit war. I was wondering about Tristan Gommendy's rookie status. Since he ran the vast majority of the 2007 Champ Car season, shouldn't he not have the rookie designation? I understand that he's an Indy 500 rookie regardless, but the fact that he ran he ran almost an entire season in Champ Car should mean that he is no longer a rookie, correct? Waluigithewalrus (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Depends on how you (or, more importantly, IndyCar) define(s) "rookie." If I recall correctly, Justin Wilson and Ryan Hunter-Reay were both contenders in the Rookie of the Year battle in 2008 despite having previous Champ Car experience. Of course, times have changed since then, but I'd say we should designate him the same way IndyCar themselves do. If they call him a rookie, we should as well. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The article announcing him on IndyCar.com says "He drove 11 Indy car races in the 2007 Champ Car World Series season for PKV Racing," which strongly suggests to me that they won't be considering him a rookie. We'd know for sure once they update their Drivers page for 2018, since they put a "Sunoco Rookie" icon next to each rookie driver. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be very bizarre if they didn't declare him a series rookie, given that someone else ran the entire 2007 season, was Rookie of the Year in 2012, and is now a series champion... Anyway, it's all speculation until they declare it properly, which likely won't happen until we get the St. Pete entry list in less than five months time. If we need to come to a community consensus, then I say tag him as a rookie owing to: limited AOWR experience and no oval experience. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 00:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot about Pagenaud...wasn't Rubens Barrichello only considered a 500 rookie though and not a series rookie? Interesting to see how IndyCar designates them, considering Rubens had ZERO AOWR experience... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely been inconsistencies in the past with regards to naming series rookies. Rubens wasn't a rookie in 2012 since he had 322 starts spending the last 19 years in F1; yet Mansell was a rookie in 1993 as the reigning F1 champ, and Emmo in 1984 as a two-time F1 champ. Anyway, I'm confident that since Gommendy doesn't have a massive wealth of experience coming into this race (hasn't raced open wheel in 7 years; only raced Superleague, partial Champ Car, half a year of GP2), he'll be a rookie in both 500 and series. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 15:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Why the horrible prefixes in parentheses for the different types of tracks?

Who figured this would be a good idea? It's garbage... With the backgrounds changed you could tell at a blink what races are oval/road/street. Now you have examine closely the prefixes... Dqeswn (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You should ask User:Tvx1, it was his idea. He changed all IndyCar seasons and replaced background-color with prefixes. I can understand his point of view and I helped him with some articles. But I can understand the supporter of the colored tables, too. --Mark McWire (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It’s not my idea. It‘s following the guidelines. WP:Color tells us not use colors to convey information. It makes the text more difficult to read, it’s distracting and it puts way to much emphasis on information that really only relates to only one column of that table.Tvx1 14:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that if you have to use text, you should use suffixes, not prefixes. May look a tad less ugly. Nordicthrash420 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not have to use text, User:Tvx1 has not accurately described what WP:Color says. "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." There is nothing that says we can't use color at all, just that it can't be the only indicator. I've seen a lot of people who preferred the colors, there shouldn't be any problem with adding them back along with a secondary indicator. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And I know it's been months, but I still have a huuuuuge problem with User:Tvx1 unilaterally making that decision and taking it upon himself to change every damn article. Wikipedia says to be bold, it doesn't say it be inconsiderate. In the future he/she should recognize that other people put a lot of work into editing these pages, and the right thing to do would be to consult them first. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't go and label adding some simple colors under the guise of "a lot of work". I actually considered both, but when I looked at that in preview mode I realized that with the markers and legend the colors don't add that much anymore so I decided to remove them altogether. Colors shouldn't be used to make articles look fancy and different shades of lightblue are not helpful in anyway. And I don't have to consult anyone. No-one owns any article.Tvx1 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that no one person owns any article is exactly why YOU should consult others, rather than acting like your opinion is the only one that matters. YOU are the one violating WP:OWN, not the countless people who disagree with you. I'm going to re-add the colors, and I'll make a prediction: you're going to revert my changes, because you don't actually mean what you say, and you just want to force your beliefs on others. Please prove me wrong. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@JoeyofthePriuses: Read this discussion and ask me if you have any questions. Do not revert the page again. Colors are fully acceptable to use. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@JoeyofthePriuses: I would gladly work on editing the other pages, if you would only stop edit warring and just listen. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wicka, rather than arguing here and in the edit summaries, why don't you bring it up at WP:MOTOR, since discouraging the use of colours is something that's been going on across all motorsport-related articles for the past couple of years. Also, can we cool it on the edit warring lark... particularly as last time it happened, it turned out some of the people involved were actually sock puppets... 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 21:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that is the opposite of the way this should work. I am going to add colors back, and if people want to give good reasons why we should remove them, then we can decide that down the road. The colors never should've been removed to begin with. That decision was made based on a grossly flawed understanding of WP:Colors. Personally I think it should be incredibly obvious that color coding things makes it easy to identify them at a glance, and I'm not sure why this would ever be controversial. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The discussion is here. We are keeping the colors the way they were before you violated WP:OWN and unilaterally chose to remove them. Do not revert again without discussing it or the admins will be involved. Your behavior ends right now. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is objectively false that the colors add nothing, as they are a secondary and easier way to distinguish between road course races and ovals, without relying on text alone. If you think the specific color choices are distracting, work with us to make them better. Do not just revert over and over again because of sour grapes. I have no idea why you behave this way, but as I said above, it ends now. Work with us, not against us. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have tried to engage you in this discussion and you continue to ignore me and revert good faith edits as if you own the article. Please, for the love god, just discuss what you want to change and why. You are not in charge of this page. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not ignoring anyone. Typing a lengthy reply takes time and it crossed your overzealous actions. "We are keeping the colors the way they were before you violated WP:OWN and unilaterally chose to remove them. Do not revert again without discussing it or the admins will be involved. Your behavior ends right now." That seems to a very bullish attitude and is a very example of WP:OWN. Who is "we" anyway. It's not objectively false that the colors don't add anything. They just change the aesthetics. They do no add any information that is not already there in the table. You have no provided any justifiable evidence in favor of colors. You have no prevented any evidence substantiating your claim that colors make it beter to recognize things "at a glance". The colors don't have any embedded explanation so you have to study the legend even more than with the letters alone which actually are tied to the type of circuit. I do not have a flawed understanding of the guidelines at all. I explained in my previous reply that I actually considered using both but that after add the letters the colors became redundant. You are only thinking about yourself here. You recognize these colors easily because you were used to them but that doesn't apply to every reader. Moreover some readers see limited or no colors. And adding a blue background to blue text is about the worst thing you can do for readability. Lastly, coloring entering rows of a table for information that only relates to one column of it is giving undue emphasis to that information. You're stance just amounts to I like it and I don't like anyone changing it. This issues has even been raised in an ANI discussion an the administrators unanimously supported my edits. There is little support for your stance so please stop your edit-warring for which you have already been warned. If you are that obsessed with incorporating colors, you can always use the system used to denoted the rookies in the results tables.Tvx1 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's comical that you constantly accuse me of violating WP:OWN, when in fact YOU are the person who made this change without gaining consensus to do so, and YOU are the person who blatantly lied about WP:Colors in order to get your way. You were never justified in shoving your opinion down our throats to begin with, and you WILL now attempt to gain consensus before removing colors again. If you think blue is a poor choice of color, SUGGEST A BETTER COLOR. You're helping absolutely nothing by simply reverting. The colors will stay until you gain consensus to remove them, because you never should've unilaterally removed them to begin with. Work with us, not against us. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You have violated 3RR and will now be reported to the admins. Thanks. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I work with you when you keep attacking me, don't reed my replies and keep shouting "The colors will stay" which is a clear-cut example of WP:OWN. You keep acting like you have some authority here. I have given my good-faith reasons and you have little support for your stance. That you don't want to accept any arguments against the colors is your problem. And learn to count. I did not make more than three reverts.Tvx1 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Buddy, you violated WP:OWN when you changed the article to begin with, and you continue to violate WP:OWN by refusing to even discuss these changes. I, on the other hand, am trying to return the article to its original state, and open the topic for good faith discussion. Why are you so opposed to this? Actually, don't answer. I will wait for the admins to get involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, you haven't made a single argument against the colors. WP:Colors doesn't apply, and if you don't like blue, use a different color. You haven't given me one reason why colors shouldn't be used at all. Not even one. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made my arguments. Even in my last reply. For a start, not everyone sees them. And did not violate OWN in any way when I made my original edits. It's clear you do not understand WP:OWN.Tvx1 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I KNOW NOT EVERYONE SEES THEM! That's why I kept your text when I re-added the colors! It should be an acceptable compromise, and yet you still continue reverting, because you think you are the only person who is allowed to make this decision. Textbook example of WP:OWN, and an awful way to handle what should be a collaborative encyclopedia. Let me know if you have any actual reason to get rid of the colors. I'm waiting with bated breath. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but these are just baseless accusations. I have stated above how the colors don't add anything the letters don't already convey and why coloring entire rows is overkill. I have even suggested a compromise myself, but you obviously didn't read my entire post. Also, I'll repeat that you have little support for your stance.Tvx1 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And I have explained numerous times in the past that colors are a secondary way to identify what the letters do, and they allow readers to parse that information at a quick glance, without reading each row. You have never responded to this explanation. Furthermore, you objectively have NOT suggested any compromise, period. That is an obvious and blatant lie you are making solely because you want to look good now that the admins involved. You have made your stance incredibly clear: nothing is acceptable except EXACTLY what you want. And you know how we could find out who has more support? Uh, let's re-add the colors, like before you unilaterally changed the page, and open it up for discussion. Why do you refuse to accept this? Wicka wicka (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you would finally bother to fully read all the replies I posted you would find the compromise I suggested. Also I did respond to your explanation by cleary stating that only works for you because were use to these colors and there intentions. A reader who is not used to them needs to go the legend as well to find out why they are needed. Moreover the letter do not require the entire row to be read. They are bolded and clearly stick out. One can easily just read those letters and the legend.Tvx1 18:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, right now, what your compromise is, or I will assume it does not exist. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: What is your compromise? Tell me your proposal. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read my lengthy post. It's there.Tvx1 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have read every word you posted. There is no compromise proposal. If I am missing something, god damn it, just tell me what it is. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN was able to find it. I don't know why it's such a struggle for you.Tvx1 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a struggle because it's NOT a compromise. It ignores every reason why colors are valuable.

Here is my proposal:

1. Colors AND text denoting the type of race track.

2. We work to chose a color you find non-distracting.

What are your problems with this proposal? Wicka wicka (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already fully explained my problems with that. Coloring entire rows reduces the readability of the table and puts undue emphasis on an aspect that only affects one column of the table. The track type has no relevancy to the date, the race name, and the city it takes place in. Moreover it creates massive problems for people who don't see all colors and none at all. Lastly with the addition of the letters the colors have become redundant. They don't convey anything the letters, accessible to everyone, already convey. It's just overkill. I also don't see why using a colored box "ignores every reason why colors are valuable".Tvx1 20:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Coloring entire rows reduces the readability of the table" How?

"undue emphasis on an aspect that only affects one column of the table" Then what if we colorize only the cell that contains the track name? Do you see how compromise works, rather than simply forcing through your ideas?

"Moreover it creates massive problems for people who don't see all colors and none at all." No, it literally doesn't. Then they just don't see the colors, and they rely on the text.

"Lastly with the addition of the letters the colors have become redundant." Again, incorrect. The colors are an addition to the letters, and some users (like me, and those above who complained about the letters) may prefer that.

"It's just overkill." That's fine if you, personally, think it's overkill. But guess what? We can have it both ways. We can have the colors, and the text, and everyone wins. Why are you so opposed to a solution in which we all win? Why must you be the sole winner? Why can no one contribute to this article but yourself? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I'd like to remind you of the very first comment in this section, the one that called your prefixes "horrible," as it explains perfectly why we find value in colors. "Who figured this would be a good idea? It's garbage... With the backgrounds changed you could tell at a blink what races are oval/road/street. Now you have examine closely the prefixes." Do you understand what he means by "at a blink"? Do you see why that's valuable to us? Why are you so obstinate that you refuse to let us design a page that works well for everyone, not just YOU? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That one other person and you are used to the colors and their intentions. Not every reader is. Readers who aren't have to refer just as much to the legend as with the letters. And I don't need to be lectured about "design a page that works well for everyone". If anyone has taken as much people into account as possible it's me. I have clearly explained how different groups of readers are affected by coloring entire rows and cells.Tvx1 01:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've included below a sample schedule table. I believe it addresses all of your concerns. It includes both colors and text. It replaces the blue with a dark gray, which works better against the blue link color, and I would argue makes the links stand out even more. And the coloring is limited only to the cell that contains the track name, not the entire row. If you are editing in good faith, you should not have any problems with this compromise proposal. It may not be exactly what YOU want, nor is it exactly what I want, but a good faith editor should understand that is a good compromise for everyone involved.

Schedule

Rd.	Date	Race Name	Track	City
1	March 11	Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg	(R) Streets of St. Petersburg	St. Petersburg, Florida
2	April 7	Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix	(O) ISM Raceway	Avondale, Arizona
3	April 15	Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach	(R) Streets of Long Beach	Long Beach, California
4	April 22	Honda Indy Grand Prix of Alabama	(R) Barber Motorsports Park	Leeds, Alabama
5	May 12	IndyCar Grand Prix	(R) Indianapolis Motor Speedway Road Course	Speedway, Indiana
6	May 27	102nd Indianapolis 500 Presented by PennGrade Motor Oil	(O) Indianapolis Motor Speedway	Speedway, Indiana
7	June 2	Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix Presented by Lear Corporation	(R) Belle Isle Park	Detroit, Michigan
8	June 3
9	June 9	Texas Indy 600	(O) Texas Motor Speedway	Fort Worth, Texas
10	June 24	Kohler Grand Prix	(R) Road America	Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin
11	July 8	Iowa Corn 300	(O) Iowa Speedway	Newton, Iowa
12	July 15	Honda Indy Toronto	(R) Exhibition Place	Toronto, Ontario
13	July 29	Honda Indy 200 at Mid-Ohio	(R) Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course	Lexington, Ohio
14	August 19	ABC Supply 500	(O) Pocono Raceway	Long Pond, Pennsylvania
15	August 25	Bommarito Automotive Group 500 Presented by Valvoline	(O) Gateway Motorsports Park	Madison, Illinois
16	September 2	Grand Prix of Portland	(R) Portland International Raceway	Portland, Oregon
17	September 16	Grand Prix of Sonoma	(R) Sonoma Raceway	Sonoma, California

  (O) Oval/Speedway

  (R) Road Course/Street Circuit

Or what if we use a color code instead of coloring the entire cells? Like so:

Rd.	Date	Race Name	Track	City
1	March 11	Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg	Streets of St. Petersburg  R	St. Petersburg, Florida
2	April 7	Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix	ISM Raceway  O	Avondale, Arizona
3	April 15	Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach	Streets of Long Beach  R	Long Beach, California

O Oval/Speedway

R Road Course/Street Circuit

Alternatively, the codes could be put in their own column to make it even more clear.

Rd.	Date	Race Name	Track	Type	City
1	March 11	Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg	Streets of St. Petersburg	R	St. Petersburg, Florida
2	April 7	Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix	ISM Raceway	O	Avondale, Arizona
3	April 15	Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach	Streets of Long Beach	R	Long Beach, California

O Oval/Speedway

R Road Course/Street Circuit

Or even like this:

Rd.	Date	Race Name	Track	Type	City
1	March 11	Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg	Streets of St. Petersburg	R	St. Petersburg, Florida
2	April 7	Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix	ISM Raceway	O	Avondale, Arizona
3	April 15	Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach	Streets of Long Beach	R	Long Beach, California

O Oval/Speedway

R Road Course/Street Circuit

To address your replies:

"Coloring entire rows reduces the readability of the table" How?

It reduces the contrast between text and background making the former more difficult to read. Having large parts of table colored is distracting as well, no matter what color you use.Tvx1 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"undue emphasis on an aspect that only affects one column of the table" Then what if we colorize only the cell that contains the track name? Do you see how compromise works, rather than simply forcing through your ideas?

That still shades text that does not need to be shaded. The track names shouldn't be affected by this.

"Moreover it creates massive problems for people who don't see all colors and none at all." No, it literally doesn't. Then they just don't see the colors, and they rely on the text.

It's not that simple. Those people don't see the correct and thus don't have the correct contrast either. This makes the text more difficult to see.

"Lastly with the addition of the letters the colors have become redundant." Again, incorrect. The colors are an addition to the letters, and some users (like me, and those above who complained about the letters) may prefer that.

They don't bring any new information. They only convey what the letters already convey. Thus they are redundant. The letters convey all you need.

"It's just overkill." That's fine if you, personally, think it's overkill. But guess what? We can have it both ways. We can have the colors, and the text, and everyone wins. Why are you so opposed to a solution in which we all win? Why must you be the sole winner? Why can no one contribute to this article but yourself? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about winning. And stop these baseless accusations. I have never made any claim that no one else can edit this article. In fact you are the one who have demonstrated a refusal to accept any edits regarding the colors. You have quickly reported two users to the administrators when they did and issued aggressive posts like "We WILL KEEP these colors and if you remove them I'll report you." I really don't understand why you're so obsessed that I have bad intentions.Tvx1 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(opens watchlist, sees 39 edits since last visit) - jfc lads. Right, let me try and summarise a whole bunch of reactions to all this what has gone down into one. At this stage I'm at the point where I'm willing to say that categorising the types of tracks on the schedule is pointless and should be done away with entirely. NASCAR articles don't explicitly label their very few road course races as such, so why should AOWR articles? As for when Tvx1 got consensus for his edits in the first place - consensus was implied when there was limited reaction to when he originally made the edits in the first place over eight months ago, and what discussion was spawned and brief and understanding. He is right on the money when he says that the use of colours is purely a visual aid that doesn't benefit everyone. Now as for how best to convey the different track types, if indeed we are still going to do so, ideally the solution would be to utilise the pictograms that IndyCar uses on their various downloads and social media banners (the sideways S and the box with a curve through it), but I suspect they are copyrighted and can't be freely used on Wikipedia. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have to apologize and own up to making a mistake here. In the heat of the discussion yesterday I simply failed to properly visualize what you were suggesting. I probably should've mocked up your suggestion as well as mine so I could've seen what it actually looks like. I think your first suggestion above, with the color coded icons, makes a lot of sense. I don't think it's necessary to break out track type into its own column. One thing I would want to consider is whether the icon should come before the name of the track, rather than after:

Rd.	Date	Race Name	Track	City
1	March 11	Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg	R  Streets of St. Petersburg	St. Petersburg, Florida
2	April 7	Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix	O  ISM Raceway	Avondale, Arizona
3	April 15	Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach	R  Streets of Long Beach	Long Beach, California

O Oval/Speedway

R Road Course/Street Circuit

I think this looks better because all the icons are lined up vertically, which makes it a little easier to read. Let me know what you think. @TheChrisD: Sorry for all the churn. I would argue that the type of track is much more notable in IndyCar than NASCAR because there is a much more even split between the two major types. NASCAR has like 30 races and only 2-3 are on road courses. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

TheChrisD, I too have wondered why this distinction is so important to create a visual distinction for it. But apparently, there is quite some interest for it. I will note that in IndyCar the teams were allowed to use different configurations (aero kits) depending on whether the race was on on oval or on a road course/street circuit. However, if I'm not mistaken that practice has been abolished from this season.

Wicka wicka, I prefer having them lined up vertically. That's why I proposed the separate column in the first place. If using them as a prefix works as well, that's fine for me.Tvx1 19:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems we are in agreement here. By the way, there are still different aero packages for road courses and ovals. What was abolished was the manufacturer-specific aerokits that differed between Chevy and Honda teams. I had honestly never thought about that way, but I suppose the fact that the cars use different configurations on the two types of tracks is a justification for calling them out in the season schedule. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

While we're kind of on the topic - we use an orange R icon to donate rookies in the points standings table. Should we use this same icon in the teams and drivers table, for consistency's sake? Wicka wicka (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We probably should.Tvx1 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated sourceless edits on the page

After the Gommendy-Calmels deal was taken off the table, the 77 car was also taken off the table. There is NO evidence that the 77 car will be entered in the 2018 Indianapolis 500. You do not add something to the article that is unsourced and unconfirmed. Michael Shank Racing also may be associated with Schmidt Peterson Motorsports, but they are entered as their own team, as you can see on the IndyCar website. Their entry will be alphabetically listed just as every other entry is. Buddy Lazier's entry is also not numbered yet. There is no evidence that he will be running his car with the number 44 again. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly who are you to assert this authority? On the contrary, where is the evidence that the 77 is off the table? Just that the French murderer wont be sponsoring it. I can gladly point to sources where that say Schmidt is still trying to sell the 77 and will be added on my next edit. I haven't been the only user editing this, and you were seriously flirting with WP:3RR yesterday. Watch your assertive tone. Nordicthrash420 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I can either do that, or I can remove the Dreyer & Reinbold entry as well, since they're at about the same stage. Nordicthrash420 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I find it funny that a user with a very limited edit history is constantly reverting Joey, who has a history of being stalked by an Internet troll, and is becoming a nuisance and trying to force an edit war to start up? 🤔

As it stands, the two DRR entries have been very loosely confirmed by the team owner back in November. As for the 3rd SPM, after the disassociation from Calmels, there is no source saying that they are still trying to line up the 3rd car for Indy, at least not at the moment. So can we please all just calm down and quit bickering over something so trivial as a single row in a table? 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 16:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• New source from 1 hour ago: https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news/spm-rules-out-montoya-patrick-for-indy-500-third-car-994002/

Yes, now that it is officially confirmed that they will be entering another car in the Indy 500, it can be in the article. It was not confirmed before today. Sam Schmidt's words were "might" before. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And the source from earlier that said Sam is still selling the car: http://www.racer.com/indycar/item/145547-spm-calmels-indy-500-deal-uncertain

Thank you and goodnight. #vindicated Nordicthrash420 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And BTW I did start any "edit war" You must be a friend. Nordicthrash420 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No need for team nationallity flags

In my oppinion we should remove the flagicons on the teams - there is no point in that since all teams including Carlin ar US-based. Ivaneurope (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone's gone through and done it with previous seasons as well. I'm with you on this, it's entirely pointless when only once in a blue moon does IndyCar get an entrant that's not American. I say remove them as well. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to add to this and maybe make a stronger case for why we shouldn't include team flags - IndyCar doesn't officially recognize a team's nationality. In F1, something like 2/3 of the teams are UK-based, but most are registered under a differently nationality. IndyCar has no such provision. Carlin and Juncos are British and Argentine owned, respectively, but are based in the US. There's no way we could decide which flags to use there. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rounds column

Would anyone be opposed to be changing the Rounds column so that it's similar to what is done on the NASCAR pages? To use Kyle Kaiser as an example, instead of saying "2–3, 5–6," it'd just say 4 (as he's entering four races), and then when you hover over on the number it shows each race he's entering. We could also rename the column to make it more clear, or do exactly what the NASCAR pages do and just put that number directly beside the driver name. I just think this would make the table look a lot cleaner and less cluttered. While we're at it, would it be worth splitting the Entries table into two tables, one for full-season entries and another for part-time entries? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would be opposed to the rounds. NASCAR is the exception to the established norm across motorsport articles since there are so many races in the Cup season that makes it visually unfeasible to list all the numbers in the table itself. As for part-time/full-time split, personally I think it would be nice; but we've gone away from the years where there would be ~40 entries at Indy and half of them consisting of part-timers or one-offs; so splitting them isn't as necessary anymore. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 21:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you not think that, for entries like Coyne and Carpenter, it would valuable to make the rounds column more compact? Wicka wicka (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be time to do this the number of part time and split entries has risen dramatically this season and it's not making anything easier. I would like to make a few more suggestions that may be a little arbitrary but make everything easier to read. First, I would list Indy-500-only entries as "Indy 500" or simply "500", perhaps with a color box like with Rookies. Entries to races other than the 500, but not a full season, should have a number added indicating the number of rounds they will participate in, with a hover-over which gives the short names (not numbers) of the races they participate in. That would be something like "St. Pete, Long Beach, Indy 500, Mid-Ohio, Portland, Sonoma" for Harvey right now. NASCAR's numbers for rounds could work too, but I don't see the necessity of brevity and with Indycar the issue isn't that a track is visited twice. Finally I would like to suggest that we indicate what rounds each car is entered into, separately from the drivers. For this I'd insert a column between the entry number and the driver. This would make it easier to separate split entries running full season from partial season entries. I made a couple different suggestions in this line on the 2017 talk page. Perhaps those suggestions could be combined with what's been suggested here. Anyway, I'll let everyone have their say before implementing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintinohthree (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So I've now tried something out to see what could work. This is what I came up with:

Team	Car			Driver(s)
	Engine	No.	Round(s)	Name	Round(s)
A. J. Foyt Enterprises	Chevrolet	4	All	Matheus Leist  R	All
		14	All	Tony Kanaan	All
Andretti Autosport	Honda	25	500	Stefan Wilson  R	500
		26	All	Zach Veach  R	All
		27	All	Alexander Rossi	All
		28	All	Ryan Hunter-Reay	All
		29	500	Carlos Muñoz	500
Andretti Herta Autosport with Curb-Agajanian		98	All	Marco Andretti	All
Carlin	Chevrolet	23	All	Charlie Kimball	All
		59	All	Max Chilton	All
Chip Ganassi Racing	Honda	9	All	Scott Dixon	All
		10	All	Ed Jones	All
Dale Coyne Racing	Honda	19	All	Zachary Claman DeMelo  R	Par  10
				Pietro Fittipaldi  R	Par  7
		63	500	Pippa Mann	500
Dale Coyne Racing with Thom Burns Racing		17	500	Conor Daly	500
Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser-Sullivan		18	All	Sébastien Bourdais	All
Dreyer & Reinbold Racing	Chevrolet	24	500	Sage Karam	500
		TBA	500	TBA	500
Ed Carpenter Racing	Chevrolet	13	500	Danica Patrick	500
		20	All	Jordan King  R	Par  11
				Ed Carpenter	Par  6
		21	All	Spencer Pigot	All
Harding Racing	Chevrolet	88	All	Gabby Chaves	All
Juncos Racing	Chevrolet	32	Par  8	René Binder  R	Par  4
				Kyle Kaiser  R	Par  4
Lazier Partners Racing	TBA	TBA	500	Buddy Lazier	500
Michael Shank Racing with Schmidt Peterson	Honda	60	Par  6	Jack Harvey  R	Par  6
Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing	Honda	15	All	Graham Rahal	All
		30	All	Takuma Sato	All
Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing with Scuderia Corsa		64	500	Oriol Servià	500
Schmidt Peterson Motorsports	Honda	5	All	James Hinchcliffe	All
		6	All	Robert Wickens  R	All
		7	500	Jay Howard	500
Team Penske	Chevrolet	1	All	Josef Newgarden	All
		3	Par  2	Hélio Castroneves	Par  2
		12	All	Will Power	All
		22	All	Simon Pagenaud	All

R Rookie

All Full season entry

Par Partial season entry

500 Indy 500 only entry

As you can see all entries have markers to separate full-season from partial entries (with different colours in addition to different text) and among partial entries those that participate in the Indy 500 only and those that participate in other races too (with different text only). Partial entries have a number indicating the number of rounds they enter and hovering over that number gives a tooltip with the actual races entered. Also, car entries are listed in a separate column from the drivers

There are still a couple issues with this. Easthetically the "All" marker is narrower than the "Par" and "500" marker, which is distracting. Further, the legend does not have the corresponding text colour and the text overflows the boxes. Of course it's still an open question whether we should have these markers or whether we need less distracting markers. Maybe white and black backgrounds would work better.

Overall though I wonder if any of this is an improvement over the current implementation. I'm still not sure whether a deviation from the norm is useful here. I do think this provides easier access to some of the informaition, but then other information is less accessible. Quintinohthree (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Wilson's Rookie Status

I've noticed there is some confusion on the Rookie status of Stefan Wilson and would like to clarify this here and allow for discussion of how to include this in the article. First of all, here are the official rules on Rookie status as of the 2017 Indycar Rulebook:

• Rookie Driver - A Driver is a Rookie Driver in the Indycar Series if the Driver has 1) not particicapted in more than four (4) Indycar Series Races in a Racing Season or ii) partcipated in less than eight (8) Indycar Series Races in his/her career.

• Rookie Driver - Indianapolis 500 - A Driver is a Rookie Driver in the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race if the driver has not participated in a previous Indianapolis 500 Mile Race.

Stefan Wilson has so far participated in two Indycar races, the 2013 Baltimore Grand Prix, and the 2016 Indianapolis 500. According to the rule above then, he qualifies for Rookie status according to both criteria. However he does not qualify for Rookie status for the Indianapolis 500, which is the only race he is participating in.

Given there is a separate article available for the 2018 Indianapolis 500, I suggest showing him as a Rookie as he is still a Rookie to the series. In the Indianapolis 500 article, he should not be shown as a Rookie, as though he may be a Rookie to the series, he is not a Rookie to the race. Quintinohthree (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

He is listed as a rookie on the IndyCar site, so he should be listed as a rookie here. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Past winners denominator key.

Hello. I have started a discussion at Talk:2018 Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix regarding having the "key" denominate past winners as well as rookies that I think can be expanded on here, as I think in general, we should only be denominating Rookies, except for the Indy 500, as I do not believe the Series nor the broadcasters do this. I would like to hear some feedback before I go BOLDly reverting a potential established consensus and remove the "Winners" key entirely. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fastest in the qualifying group

Does the fastest driver in the qualifying group of the slower group get points too? Don't understand the reason why it is highlighted in the championship standings table. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is clarified under the table. "At double header races (i.e. Detroit), the fastest qualifier of each qualifying group earns one championship point." The answer is yes, but only at Detroit, being the only doubleheader. Anywhere else only the pole position is granted a single bonus point. Quintinohthree (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have overlooked that, thank you. But may we should special symbol instead of Template:Hover title due to Accessibility issue? Corvus tristis (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)