Talk:2017 Supercars Championship

Too soon

With the only change change 2016 vs 2017 being the proposed Gen2 regulation, which the likelihood of is dubious at best, this article is WP:TOOEARLY. Given that V8 Supercars are usually pretty good at pumping out press releases when things are gong well, that the article is relying on a blueprint document from 2014 with nothing more recent, would indicate the timetable has slipped. For that reason the text was removed from the 2016 article. [1]

As we are now in April and the stated need for at a 12 month lead up, it appears highly unlikely to happen.

So the article really should remain as a redirect to the V8 Supercars article pending some significant announcements. Precedent was set last year to not start up the article until this happens, e.g. the calendar being released, at a deletion review. Impala27 (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple recent articles, from various sources, stating that Gen2 is to be introduced in 2017: official website, Speedcafe, The Australian, Motor Magazine and Fox Sports, not to mention the Gen2 page on the offical website. The only article I am aware of that suggests a delay until 2018 is this Auto Action one from January, but they have since released this, which states that the rules will still be introduced even if no teams decide to change their car.

Precedence was not set last year as there was no major technical regulation change between 2015 and 2016. The last time this occurred was in 2013, and the 2013 season article was created in April 2012. – Kytabu 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Kytabu on this — the changes are well-documented and substantial in their own right. Even if they don't materialise in 2017, they still come into effect in 2017. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

As per WP:COMMONNAME, I have redirected 2017 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship and all relevant links to this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

HRT announcement

With the HRT name moving to Triple Eight, how should this be displayed in the team/driver table? We do not use sponsor brandings on recent seasons, so I think the name "Red Bull Holden Racing Team" should not be used (and especially as it does not apply to Lowndes' car). Would something like this suffice?

Triple Eight Race Engineering / Holden Racing Team	Holden VF Commodore	88	Jamie Whincup
		97	Shane Van Gisbergen
		888	Craig Lowndes

– Kytabu 05:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave it as the generic Triple Eight Race Engineering, HRT is just a sponsorship brand much like Red Bull. Memdo56 (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Park support race

I feel like there should be some mention of the Albert Park race in the article somewhere. I appreciate that it's not a championship round, but at the same time, it is a race that happens during the season with all the regular teams and drivers. It's significant enough that it shapes the rest of the calendar because the other events need to be planned around it; after all, we have pointed out that the Newcastle round is yet to be scheduled so as to avoid the WRC round (and the GC600 clashes with MotoGP). Even if it doesn't have any bearing on the outcome of the season, it still influences the season, so I feel that including it in the calendar is justified.

Also, looking at the actual articles for the races, they're practically orphans. Especially since the consensus at WP:F1 is to leave support events out of race articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The other events are planned around the Australian Grand Prix, not Supercars' support event. The AGP would have an influence on the Supercars calendar regardless of whether or not they held an event there (I think it did in 2007 and 2010; events were scheduled either side of the Grand Prix despite V8 Supercars not attending the event).

The AGP round will go in 2017 Supercars season. Going back to 2003, the AGP event has a standalone mention in the 2013 article only (it is in the 2016 article as it switched dates with a championship round). Going back further, non-championship rounds such as Sandown and Bathurst are not mentioned in any of the ATCC articles in the years where the regulations, teams and drivers were the same.

Also, on the Newcastle date; the only reason the potential clash with the WRC is mentioned is because it has meant the date cannot be confirmed yet. The dates for the events either side of the Grand Prix are not listed as TBC. – Kytabu 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's quibbling. It's consciously separating information out across articles with minimal connection between them and trusting that they will be self-evident. The calendar put out by VESA includes the Albert Park round, and the consensus established for other motorsport season articles - Formula One, rallying, MotoGP, etc. - is to treat the body overseeing the sport as the authority on the subject. If VESA regard the race as part of the season (if not part of the championship), then we should, too. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the event is part of the season, but this article is not about the 2017 Supercars season. It is about the 2017 Supercars Championship, which the Albert Park event is not a part of. There will be a separate article for the Supercars season which covers non-championship events as well as the second- and third-tier series. – Kytabu 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Even though there will be separate, stand-alone articles for the Dunlop and Kumho Series and likely a race report for the Albert Park races. That's the way it's been structured in the past.

Sorry, but that's just completely redundant. The 2017 Supercars season article will only contain information that is already better-placed elsewhere, and apparently only exists to say that there is a non-championship Supercar race. If you look at other series with multiple tiers, like the WRC and MotoGP, none of them have this over-arching "season" article. If you put the non-championship round in this article, what purpose does the season article have?

I just don't get it. The race has the same cars, the same teams and the same drivers as the rest of the championship, and has been listed as an event on the calendar produced by the organisation that is the authority on the subject (a point which I noticed you neglected to address). As far as I can tell, the only place where the Albert Park races are considered completely separate to the rest of the season is this article, and to me that borders on original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Albert Park race is not part of the hapionship. Albert Park coerage goes in 2017 V8 Supercar season. It is part of the season but not parft of the hapionship. ery siple. Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that you're completely disregarding the points I raised. Here they are again:

1) VESA regard is as part of the championship calendar, even if it is a non-championship round. I cannot find a single season article that disregards or selectively applies the publications of a sporting body like this.

2) All of the information that will go in "2017 V8 Supercar season" will also go into a more specific and more relevant article, so the only piece of actual content is quite literally the existence of the Albert Park race—and even that gets its own article.

So please tell me why it is so important that the non-championship round goes into a separate article that appears to have been deliberately isolated from this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

How does it influence the season? I note you say that above, so let's hear how it does that. --Falcadore (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"If you look at other series with multiple tiers, like the WRC and MotoGP, none of them have this over-arching "season" article. If you put the non-championship round in this article, what purpose does the season article have?"

Comparisons with WRC and MotoGP are irrelevant because they have no non-championship events. You complaint is not about multiple tiers, but non-championship events. Of which NASCAR is a better comparison. --Falcadore (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So that justifies ignoring the publication from VESA? VESA have listed it as a round of the championship, albeit one that does not pay points. Like I said, all the same cars, drivers and teams compete. Show me one other championship where the publication from the sport's authority is ignored like this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

VESA have always said the Grand Prix event is not a round of the championship.

If it is a part of the championship why isn't it a part of the championship TV deal? It's covered by a different network. By different people. It's not carried on the primary coverage provider at all IIRC. It is also not screened in New Zealand for the same reason. In fact it is not included in ANY international V8 Supercars package.

It says here "demonstration event" and with V8 chief Warbutton stating "without championship status". [2]

Described here as a "standalone event" [3] --Falcadore (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

IndyCar and NASCAR events are split across broadcasters, but they're all included under the same article, so I don't think that argument works.

And you still haven't addressed the way all of the content in the over-arching article is included in a series of articles which is a better place for it, and so the over-arching article only really exists to point out that there is a non-championship round. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you also mention the 2001 Gold Coast event in the 2001 Shell Championship Series article? It featured the same teams and drivers as the championship. How about mentioning the 1998 FAI 1000 in 1998 Australian Touring Car Championship?

With regards to your second point above, the 2017 Supercars season links together all Supercar (or V8 Supercar) racing for the year—the premier category, the second-tier category, the third-tier category and any non-championship events (the Dunlop Series Bathurst round will now be there as well!)—as an article, rather than just having the category "2017 in Supercars". It is similar to how the MotoGP/2/3 articles used to be set up, with all three championships encompassed under "xxxx Grand Prix motorcycle racing season", except that for Supercars we just provide an overview of each series with links to the dedicated articles. – Kytabu 11:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you also mention the 2001 Gold Coast event in the 2001 Shell Championship Series article? It featured the same teams and drivers as the championship."

If it was included in the calendar, yes.

'How about mentioning the 1998 FAI 1000 in 1998 Australian Touring Car Championship?"

I am a little fuzzy on exactly what was happening at the time, but my understanding is that there were two 1000 races because of a split in the regulations. I believe that this could be regarded as extraordinary circumstances, and thus mentioning it may not be necessary.

"for Supercars we just provide an overview of each series with links to the dedicated articles."

It's a redundant system. There is nothing in the overview article that isn't already included in specific articles, and those specific articles are a better place for that content to be included.

All I am suggesting at this juncture is to add a row to the calendar, noting the inclusion of a non-championship round—and I am suggesting that it be included because all of the documentation released by VESA lists it as part of the championship, and VESA is the final authority on the championship. If they say a non-championship round is a part of the calendar, then a non-championship round is part of the calendar. It's the standard observed by editors for every single series except this one. Yes, it makes the overview article unnecessary, but it's already redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Indycar and NASCAR chose to be split across broadcasters. V8 Supercar did not. FOA refuses to release TV rights to support categories to alternative broadcasting methods. This is, along with shortened races reducing V8s track time, are the reasons for the non-championship status of the event. --Falcadore (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In years past in V8s there have been as many as five non-championship events and if you go back to 1990, there was more than one championship. A sprint and endurance championship that shared technical regulations but nothing else, not even events. This was not a multiple tier championship but a series of 7-10 sprint events running from February to August, then a 2-5 event Endurance Championship running from September to December with no overlap. Then there would be support events in March/April for Indycar and November for Formula One (the two would later swap over), then odd events here and there like a December New Zealand series at Pukekohe and Wellington, pre-season event at Eastern Creek. Plus a second tier AMSCAR series based at Amaroo Park up until 1993 that made a one-off comeback in 1996. Asia-Pacific series in 1988. The original World Championship in 1987. And back in the 1970s, regional championships in each state. And that does not include ANY Super Touring events. BTW 1998 FAI 1000 was not a Super Touring race. But it did not belong to any championship either. Completely stand alone race, like all endurance races were between 1992 and 1998.

It makes the history of Formula 3 in Britain look simple. --Falcadore (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Indycar and NASCAR chose to be split across broadcasters. V8 Supercar did not. FOA refuses to release TV rights to support categories to alternative broadcasting methods. This is, along with shortened races reducing V8s track time, are the reasons for the non-championship status of the event."

I'm sorry, but as far as reasons go for not including it in the article, that's a load of crap. For one, I cannot find a single precedent for not including such content in an article on the grounds that the broadcast arrangement is structured differently. As for the event format, VESA lists it as an International SuperSprint, the same as Pukekohe Park.

"It makes the history of Formula 3 in Britain look simple."

It also ignores the way the championship has been restructured several times. You're acting as if a change made here needs to apply to every single article, and you know perfectly well that that is not the way that Wikipedia works.

Furthermore, I see that you are 'still ignoring my question. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have asked it so many times that you cannot possibly have innocently overlooked it. VESA included the event as a part of the calendar, and the only place that does not recognise that is this article. By Wikipedia standards, that is simply unacceptable, and if you tried it on any other season article, you would likely be crucified for it. Furthermore, you emphasise the importance of the season article, but you make no attempt to like this article to it. Looking back over previous years, there is only the minimal effort made to link a championship article to a season article; the reader has no indication of the relationship between the two. The whole thing is fundamentally flawed, poorly maintained and appears to be drive by a desire to keep the non-championship round out of this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I answered your question very early on. Yes, Supercars has included the event as part of the season calendar. They have made it very clear, however, that it is a non-championship event. This is not an article for all Supercars racing in 2017. It is for the fourteen events that determine the 2017 Drivers' and Teams' Championships and the Enduro Cup. The Grand Prix support event is not one of them.

I would also like to point out that in 2013 [4], 2014 [5] and 2015 [6], Supercars included the pre-season test day at Eastern Creek on the official calendar. For 2015, the official website also said that "The 2015 season commences on February 7-8 with the free sydney.com V8 SuperTest at Sydney Motorsport Park..." However, we did not include the test day on any of the championship articles. – Kytabu 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you've ignored questions I've put to you too. Far as I can tell this is just recentism being applied to a series which has always had self-contained components based largely on V8 Supercars choosing not to list seperate calendars for championship and non-championship events.

And just because I'm semi-retired from wikipedia does not make what I type irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Well you've ignored questions I've put to you too."

How about you start answering mine, and I will start answering yours. Because you always do this. You decide what you want to do, and you won't hear any alternatives. You don't own the artucle, so stop acting as if you do. Seriously, "it shouldn't be included because the broadcast arrangement is different"? As far as arguments go, that's complete and utter garbage—and then when people who disagree with aren't immediately convinced, you talk down to them. Because apparently it's quite reasonable to expect that people answer your questions but you don't have to answer theirs.

"based largely on V8 Supercars choosing not to list seperate calendars"

Are you employed by VESA? Did you have a hand setting the calendar? Do you have any evidence from the organisation to suggest that they included it on the calendar as a matter of convenience? If the answer to any of these is "no", then why are you in a position to speculate on the context of their publications? Because that original research and synthesis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"So please tell me why it is so important that the non-championship round goes into a separate article". Because VESA have chosen to not give this event championship status even though that is their decision to do so. That they justify it by lack of tracktime publicly and because of TV broadcasting difficulties are just excuses. They have chosen to isolate the event themselves, but equally the event has always been isolated. Moreso they do not include results in career driver statistics and generally do not include it in season summaries. Surely the lack of appearance of results in driver stats like career victories and race starts has some currency. The event occurs each year, then it is forgotten until it comes up again the following year.

That no other wikipedia article does this is not important. Each championship the world over has its own idiosyncrasies. Motor racing the world over IS inconsistent. USA motorsport believes qualifying times go towards lap records and do recognise that second or third places are worthy of celebration at the podium. Engine capacity limits vary wildly. GTs like rolling starts, touring cars like standing starts. etc

With regards to TV broadcast deals I was explaining to you why they are different. You are free to disagree and reject the explanation, but it is written there anyway. You can insist upon evidence if you like and I would not be able to provide it. Yes wikipedia does insist upon evidence and I agree. As I said I was explaining it to you, not to wikipedia. It is up to you to believe it or not. It was not provided for inclusion.

There is decades long history behind the status of events. Stating that this history is irrelevant because a championship is re-organised, is also drawing a conclusion, speculation. You have decided because V8 Supercar list it as an event with all other events it is a championship round with no points. I provided links above which suggest otherwise.

The article is called Supercars Championship. Not Supercars Championship season. Yes the change is recent, but important.

Also, be careful of insisting claims of ownership so loudly. It is just as easy to reflect such an accusation back at you. I recall a discussion a year or so ago where you stated loudly that a summary of the Formula One season could not be written while the season was underway. Not should not, but could not. Of course it could. You just write with respect to the races already complete then update itwhen the next race finishes. If that sort of objection did not fit under an "ownership" then the term has no meaning. Stating "you always do this" is likewise as reflective. We have clashed frequently after all. --Falcadore (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"I recall a discussion a year or so ago where you stated loudly that a summary of the Formula One season could not be written while the season was underway. Not should not, but could not. Of course it could. You just write with respect to the races already complete then update itwhen the next race finishes."

I recall that same discussion; my argument was that going race-by-race was inappropriate because it focused too much on the details of individual races, which is what the individual race articles are for; instead, the review should focus on the season as a whole.

But feel free to take more of my comments out of context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Underlines the point of frequent clashes though.

Another thing I'd like to point out, if I can draw an opposing conclusion from a set of facts, then it suggest you've drawn a conclusion as well instead of stating a fact. So if you believe I can be wrong without lying then perhaps you are able to dial back to a set of facts without speculating a conclusion.

And in case that's confusing; I say a non-championship event is not part of a championship but you say it is. Then there has been a conclusion drawn. You've taken a calendar to mean one thing, I another, when really a calendar is just a list of dates. If two conclusions from a calendar can be drawn, then more facts are needed. --Falcadore (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Should probably be pointed out that V8s have frequently used the Grand Prix to experiment with different rules like different safety car restart methods, or a grid system where each grid row had to contain a Holden and a Ford in order to run an event where the rivalry between manufacturers was given greater emphasis than the rivalry between drivers or teams. Teams would occasionally run a different driver. You go back further and sometimes teams would sub-contract their grid spots out to another team. For example once John Faulkner Racing was subcontracted to provide cars and crew for Garry Rogers Motorsport so that GRM could preserve their cars for championship events. --Falcadore (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but JFR actually provided cars in Wynns livery at Indy and Bathurst in 1999 for Gibson Motorsport, partly to preserve its main car for Bathurst, but also because the second had been sold and there was a contractual need for two cars to be fielded. Re this topic, it is about the Championship not the whole season, so if points can't be scored then it shouldn't go here, but on the other 2017 article as suggested, Bit like the 2016 AFL season only covers the premiership season, with no reference to pre-season games. Memdo56 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting conundrum. I feel as though it should; while it may not have any bearing on the championship itself it is still part of the championship in the same way that the Australia 1000 was in '97-'98. We can't have orphaned articles lying around going unnoticed. I'd like to draw attention to the way this was handled in Formula One seasons with N/C events, such as 1951. Whilst there aren't enough N/C events to make a separate section, it is prominent enough to be included in some form. Be logical about this, and remember that at the end of the day (and this goes for everyone) Wiki is a reference centre and not a personal blog where you make the rules. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Table order

Looking at the table order, I cannot help but notice that it's out of step with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. Supercars is one of the last major series to arrange its team and driver tables by number, but a different system is used for Formula One, WRC and MotoGP (among other series) pages. Other series arrange their tables in the following order:

1. Alphabetically by manufacturer.
2. Alphabetically by team within the individual manufacturers.
3. Numerically by drivers within the individual team.
4. Drivers arranged by round (less of an issue here, as the numbers tend to be assigned to the car rather than the driver).

To illustrate, here is an extract from the current table:

Season entries
Team	Vehicle	No.	Driver
Walkinshaw Racing	Holden VF Commodore	2	Scott Pye
		22	James Courtney
Prodrive Racing Australia	Ford FG X Falcon	5	Mark Winterbottom
		6	Cameron Waters
Rod Nash Racing (PRA)		55	Chaz Mostert
Brad Jones Racing	Holden VF Commodore	8	Nick Percat
		14	Tim Slade

And this is what that same table would look like when brought in line with the style used by the wider project:

Season entries
Manufacturer	Team	No.	Driver	Rounds
Ford (Ford FG X Falcon)	Prodrive Racing Australia	5	Mark Winterbottom	1—14
		6	Cameron Waters	1—14
	Rod Nash Racing (PRA)	55	Chaz Mostert	1—14
Holden (Holden VF Commodore)	Brad Jones Racing	8	Nick Percat	1—9, 12—14
			Jason Bright	10—11
		14	Tim Slade	1—14
	Walkinshaw Racing	2	Scott Pye	1—14
		22	James Courtney	1—14

Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging Kytabu, Falcadore and Holdenman05 to draw their attention to this as they're the most active editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned about the use of this with the potential for alternate models in the future. For example, if there are two Ford teams but one runs the Mustang and the other runs a Falcon, how do we show that in a clean way? It's an issue in the World Rallycross articles I do and, in my opinion, it isn't done well but really can't be changed. If we don't end up with that hurdle, I'm in favour of changing it. Holdenman05 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This would be in the style of a World Rallycross article:

Season entries
Manufacturer	Team	Car	No.	Driver	Rounds
Ford	Prodrive Racing Australia	Ford FG X Falcon	5	Mark Winterbottom	1—14
			6	Cameron Waters	1—14
	Rod Nash Racing (PRA)		55	Chaz Mostert	1—14
	DJR Team Penske	Ford Mustang	12	Fabian Coulthard	1—14
			17	Scott McLaughlin	1—14
Holden	Brad Jones Racing	Holden VF Commodore	8	Nick Percat	1—9, 12—14
				Jason Bright	10—11
			14	Tim Slade	1—14
	Walkinshaw Racing		2	Scott Pye	1—14
			22	James Courtney	1—14

Holdenman05 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Holdenman05 — that works well enough for me. I was mostly just lifting it from 2017 World Rally Championship as a visual model of what I had in mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally object. The majority of smaller series all sort by number in wikipedia, and the current wikipedia sorting was more or less edit-warred into place in Formula One by Eightball whose obsession with constructors order at one point saw him obsessively sorting the follow season's table according to the constructors championship of the then current season.

Far from being out of step with the wider motor sport project there is a general lack of consistency. Formula One is alphabetical, but the order proposed here is not. Rallying is a poor example as numbers are allocated on a rally-by-rally basis with the aim of using the race number as a ranking system and leaving as few numbers missing as possible. While in recent years WRC has begun allocating numbers to competitors for full time entrants, the numbers are still allocated to teams so drivers will share race numbers depending on who is driving in each rally.

Sorting by manufacturer also misrepresents the history of the Supercars championship and the preceeding Australian touring Car Championship where in the past race teams were not restricted as to what vehicle they could build and race teams would build cars entirely by themselves from scratch, a principle recently returned to the series when Erebus Motorsport built and raced Mercedes-Benzes without the support from the manufacturer. --Falcadore (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, Indycar sorts alphabeticall by team name then race number, ignoring the manufacturer involved. NASCAR sorts by manufacterer. European Le Mans sorts by race number as does Formula E again ignoring manufacturer. As does World Touring Cars and World Endurance. If anything the current order is in step and Formula One, World Rally are not. DTM is different again - sorting by manufacturer - than by race number instead of alphabetical, placing Mercedes-Benz ahead of Audi and BMW.

Perhaps when there is consistency within the wider Motorsport project then a claim of consistency could be applied here. However the complete lack of consistency suggests the current method is perfectly fine. --Falcadore (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"a principle recently returned to the series when Erebus Motorsport built and raced Mercedes-Benzes without the support from the manufacturer"

In which case, they would be listed as "Erebus", not "Mercedes-Benz", which is how they were officially recognised by the series. To draw a parallel, Ford officially have no factory presence in the WRC, but allow the Fiesta RS to be used. Officially, the cars are recognised as M-Sport, not Ford.

"While in recent years WRC has begun allocating numbers to competitors for full time entrants"

They've been doing it for at least twenty years. It's not a new trend as you suggest.

"the current wikipedia sorting was more or less edit-warred into place in Formula One"

And in the long run, the current system worked out for the best, because the articles are stable and consistent year on year, even if the numbers change wildly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

In which case, they would be listed as "Erebus", not "Mercedes-Benz", which is how they were officially recognised by the series. To draw a parallel, Ford officially have no factory presence in the WRC, but allow the Fiesta RS to be used. Officially, the cars are recognised as M-Sport, not Ford.

Pure nonsense. There have been dozens of cars constructed privately for the championship over the decades, Toyotas, Mitsibishis, Fiats and so on. Chevrolets won championships without manufacturer support. And none of them have ever been recognised by the racing team. --Falcadore (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It is additionally, beside the point. Suggesting that this format is reflective of the wider Motorsport project is still far from the truth. You can state that either there is no consistency as to tabling or that by number remains the majority option amongst many. --Falcadore (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

For a series like Supercars where manufacturers are easier to use as the "distinguishing base" of a table than the likes of Formula E due to the amount of manufacturers involved, it has also been historically more important to the series than others - such as ELMS - and is therefore a more logical "base" of the data, which is what that first column should be used for. Yes, it is not used universally however it would be a more appropriate fit in this situation. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. Pick up any race program you've ever seen and how do they sort them?

Racing numbers is such a distinctive part of motorsport, and the entire reason for it is identification. It is motor racing's built-in sorting mechanism. First column content is easily changed.

Racing drivers also distinctly identify with their race numbers, it's frequently featured in merchandise and drivers used to take their number from car to car, some still try to. --Falcadore (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't a race program. This is Wikipedia, where we are required to provide information in a simple (i.e. broad) way that the masses can relate to the topic they are searching. VASC is not one such series where drivers usually take numbers with them to other teams; after all, Dale Wood did not take the #21 to Nissan this season. It makes sense that the easiest distinguishing factor - in this case, the manufacturer - is the key sorting device. Holdenman05 (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That change is recent. Wood is a poor example as he has never had a number associated with him specifically. His team mates however, 7 & 15 have been assocated with the Kelly brothers for some time and Caruso has used 23 in more than one team. Nick Percat has taken his race number from team to team and category to category.

That being said, the easiest distinguishing factor is the driver. It always has been. It is after all a competition for drivers not manufacturers. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You mention the Kellys but Kelly Racing was founded out of Perkins (which had the #7 prior) and HSVDT (which had #15 prior). When else has Caruso run #23 (apart from maybe the DVS although I seem to recall he ran the #777, which was used by Patrizi when the FRSR team moved into the main series in 2008)? #23 is a globally recognised Nissan number (2-3 in Japanese is 'ni-san'). That said, no category is sorted by driver unless number, team and car are not available (which is incredibly rare) making your argument invalid. Holdenman05 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorting by manufacturer makes no sense in this case as, at most, the manufacturers offer financial support only; there are no factory-run teams. Indeed, Ford has withdrawn its support entirely. We may as well sort by each car's major sponsor. Additionally, the cars have almost no relationship to the production models made by the manufacturers. The table design above implies that the manufacturers play a key role, which they do not. It also suggests that there is a link between teams of the same manufacturer, which is also not the case.

Sorting by lowest team number has worked for years, there is no need to change it. The race number is the primary identification of cars (listen to the race director when a penalty is awarded - he says "pit lane penalty for car X") in the series - why should it not be here? 124.149.79.23 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice attempt at puppeteering. You know you went down a dead-end with my argument an in an attempt to maintain the monopoly of power you think you have over motorsport articles you have tried a new tack - one of the key reasons I have avoided articles under 'your' domain. Knowing your lack of popularity around here, I can tell from my well trained eye that this is of your own doing, Mr Falcadore. We do not accept that here on Wikipedia, no matter who you are. I suggest you quit playing keyboard warrior and start working for the benefit of these articles. Holdenman05 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That was not me - remember I connected number 23 with Caruso, NOT with Nissan. I believe you owe me an apology. Unless of course you can fabricate some proof that I wrote the above. --Falcadore (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A side-point; I should probably point out that this accusation has upset me quite a bit, and I have reacted strongly elsewhere within wikipedia. I apologise to anyone else who may have read any strong language I have used. This is not however important to this debate and I would hope standards of edittorial behavior do not sidetrack the issue at hand and if you wish to debate behavior I welcome it, but do so at my personal talk page, and not here. Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Turns out upon research - I was wrong about Caruso and 23. I had it in my head he had used #23 in his Formula 3 days. But this isn't true having used #2, #11 and #27. #23 is a pupolar Formula 3 number, just not with Caruso. Memory cheats as they say. --Falcadore (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry guys, forgot to sign in before adding my reply. Been on a break from Wikipedia but still keeping a loose eye on things. – Kytabu 05:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All's fair boys. I see your points, however I stand by my previous position on the debate. The only place I see numbers used in the key column is somewhere like MRF Challenge where the chassis are the same and there are no 'teams' per-se. The key here is the blanket approach the first column is designated for, as it provides key information and should be easy to interpret for users and visitors. Putting manufacturers first would achieve this quite well, see the 2014 season table (in current form) on the 2014 season article vs. an updated one in my sandbox. Holdenman05 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

See, I just think that misrepresents the sport. It makes it seem as though all of the manufacturers are directly involved, which is not the case. It places too much emphasis on the type of car, which is not the biggest influence on performance in this series; that is the team.

Looking at other major touring car championship articles (as opposed to the F1, MotoGP and rally examples given), the WTCC and BTCC pages currently use the same format as Supercars for their non-manufacturer entries. Only DTM uses the spanning manufacturer format, but in that case the teams within each manufacturer do appear to have some sort of relationship (i.e. all the BMW teams are known as BMW Team X). – Kytabu 23:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Stock Car Brasil? They have very little manufacturer involvement and use this format. Holdenman05 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

Each REC is assigned a number, so when there is a transfer of ownership the number goes with it, e.g #18 remained attached to Charlie Schwerkolt's former DJR REC, hence DJR had to use another number for its second car, despite having used #18 for over 20 years. If the new owner wishes to change the number, they can apply to V8SA and if not otherwise used, will likely be approved. There have been many examples of this in the past.

If the sought after number is in use, then both REC holders need to agree on the transfer, e.g. when the #888 plate moved from Brad Jones Racing to Triple Eight. If there is an impasse, then V8SA would make a ruling, have a vague recollection this happened when Rod Nash was reluctant to allow Perkins Engineering to use #7 in 2006, who wanted it to tie in with their Jack Daniels Old No 7 sponsorship.

Until such time as anything is confirmed, the incumbent numbers should remain, i.e. #111 with the Super Black now Blanchard REC and #21 with the Britek REC when its destination is announced. Given that Bright has no historical connection to #21 and BJR does, both parties may agree to the transfer, but we should not assume this will happen. Cwr09 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Both #21 and #111 can be assumed valid for Tim Blanchard's entry next year, so until there is official confirmation on which number he uses I say we should just put TBA instead of 21 or 111. TZealot (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Super2 WildCard Entries

Was just curious on how the wildcard entries will be implemented into this years drivers table. Jack Le Brocq has already been essentially confirmed to drive in Ipswich and another round, and with Supercars pushing the teams to compete to give a little more competition, I daresay that he won't be the last. I can only think of two options at this point in time.
1) Just implementing every wildcard entry into the current drivers table, which may look cluttered depending on how many drivers.
2) Making a whole new section for wildcard entries, which may look like overkill if there were only, say 5 wildcard entries throughout the season.
Tagging Kytabu, DustyFapper, Holdenman05, Prisonermonkeys and JRam Wiki as they are recently active editors. TZealot (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Do option one if/until you reach a certain number (lets say six) and then (for option two) implement a system such as the one I use in the World Rallycross Championship articles for "Non-Permanent Entries". Holdenman05 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That rally table seems logical. I don't do much editing outside of V8s so I don't really see these other formats. Thanks :) TZealot (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to do it like this:

Season entries						Endurance entries
Team	Vehicle	No.	Driver	Rounds		Co-driver	Rounds
Walkinshaw Racing	Holden VF Commodore	2	Scott Pye	All		Warren Luff	10–12
		22	James Courtney	All		Jack Perkins	10–12
Wildcard entries						Endurance entries
Team	Vehicle	No.	Driver	Rounds		Co-driver	Rounds
Homer Simpson Racing	Powell Homer	49	Handsome B. Wonderful	10		Max Power	10
Source:						Source:

I'm generally opposed to unnecessary complexity - colour-coding, icons, split tables, etc. Information should be arranged in the simplest possible form. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we may as well make it neat now before we get a flood of wildcard entries. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Satellite Teams

Kytabu, DustyFapper, TZealot and Prisonermonkeys - Has there been previous consensus as to what should occur with satellite teams (following this recent change)? And, if not, what should be done about it? Having seen the edit summary, I can already see PMs position. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, not all changes require a consensus going forwards. Major changes, certainly, but not every decision needs to be discussed in advance.

Secondly, I'll just reiterate my position here for the benefit of people who may have missed it:

What is a satellite team? It is a team operated by an existing team, but structured as a separate entity. And that's it. It doesn't have any tangible effect on the championship—satellite teams score points independently of the parent teams. The only thing that it has any impact on is the pit lane order. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss changes to the way wildcards are handled in the table, then this change should be open for discussion as well to maintain consistency. Changing the way this table has been formatted for a while I think requires a consensus. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the satellite teams are separated or not, but I will say two things:

1. The link between the satellite team and the main team should still be mentioned, as the main team has a direct influence on the performance of the satellite team (the satellite cars are built and prepared alongside the main cars; data is also shared between the garages).
2. If this change is made, it needs to be applied to every series article back to 2009. – Kytabu 06:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"The link between the satellite team and the main team should still be mentioned, as the main team has a direct influence on the performance of the satellite team (the satellite cars are built and prepared alongside the main cars; data is also shared between the garages)."

That's how Holden manage the relationship between all of their customers. They want all customer Holden teams to run chassis built by Triple Eight. And a lot of the Ford cars run common components. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@FullHouse97 — check talk pages before making changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lowndes is not part of a satellite team. If he was, the article would say as much. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys I just think that satellite teams should be recognised as such. The best example is Rod Nash Racing, with PRA able to directly manipulate most, if not all things in that team. Such as splitting Winterbottom and Mostert up. I apologise however for not reviewing this page, I changed my username within the past week from TZealot, Holdenman's ping toward my old username did not ping me. If you have an alternative to display these teams as satellite teams, thats great, and it could be better than the current system, but until/if your idea is implemented we should just maintain consistency. FullHouse97 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for that one mate, wasn't aware of the change. Holdenman05 (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

All good, that one was my fault. I never made it clear to anyone. FullHouse97 (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@FullHouse97 — satellite teams are structured as completely separate teams to their parent teams, and score teams' championship points independently of parent teams. For all intents and purposes, they function individually; if they share staff, components or data with other teams, then the same can be said of all teams running a particular chassis. Tekno and LDM run a Triple Eight chassis, and share data with Triple Eight. Likewise Erebus, who run Walkinshaw chassis.

In the case of Winterbottom and Mostert, Mostert was moved to Rod Nash Racing so that he wouldn't share a pit boom with Winterbottom (he shared with Pither and will now share with Bright) so that the two could pit together without double stacking. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of why Mostert was moved, but it still shows that in essence Rod Nash Racing is just Prodrive's 3rd car, like T888 with Lowndes. It is just under a different team name. That is the only difference between #55 and #888.FullHouse97 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is original research. It doesn't matter what Mostert's car is "in essence", it matters what Mostert's car is in reliable sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A sentence from the official Rod Nash Racing website, as found here. "RNR is now fully-integrated into PRA and the team will enter its fifth consecutive V8 Supercars Championship in 2016." Its not original research. Its fact that Rod Nash Racing's entry is run by PRA. To not specify this on the article is misinforming people that Rod Nash runs the #55 on its own, which he simply does not do. FullHouse97 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Its fact that Rod Nash Racing's entry is run by PRA."

So why don't RNR's points count towards PRA's tally? If they were as fully integrated as you claim, this wouldn't be an issue. RNR could call themselves a ballet school and it wouldn't make a difference because VESA treat them separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't Craig Lowndes' points count toward T888 tally? Because he's the third car. Its kept to two cars to keep competition fair.. FullHouse97 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

So why not disambiguate in the driver table? In its current state, it implies Triple Eight have three cars eligible to score points, and Nissan have four. Why do you think I separated the satellite teams out? As a precursor to separating Nissan and Triple Eight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nissan and Triple Eight should not be separated in the team/driver table. All we need is a note under the Teams' Championship table explaining why each team is listed twice. The team/driver table is not there to tell us how the Teams' Championship points are allocated. – Kytabu 08:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But it does imply that all three/four cars are run as one team, which they are not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What!? How are they not run as one team!? All of the cars in each team are built and prepared at the same workshop. All four Nissans are listed under the entrant name Motorsport Holdings Pty Ltd on the official entry list, while all three Triple Eight cars are listed under Triple Eight Race Engineering Pty Ltd. This is the difference between these teams and those that have satellite entries; cars 1 and 6 were listed under Prodrive Racing (Australia) Pty Ltd on the official entry list last year, while 55 was listed under Rod Nash Racing Pty Ltd and 111 under Super Black Racing Pty Ltd.

The current table does not imply anything about Triple Eight having three cars eligible to score points. It tells us that the team will run three cars in the 2017 championship. How the cars are split for the Teams' Championship should be left to that particular section of the article, where it can be explained that only two-car combinations can be entered into the Teams' Championship. – Kytabu 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm big on the simplification of tables right now. Probably because some of the WRC and MotoGP tables have been a mess in recent months. As it stands, I think that including satellite teams and multi-entry (T8 and Nissan) without distinguishing beteeen them and the regular teams adds a layer of complexity because it assumes the reader is familiar with the subject enough to know the difference going in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on the satellite teams, as they are in fact entered by a separate party, but separating Nissan and Triple Eight is wrong. There is nothing to distinguish between in those teams. I would go as far to say that you would be adding complexity to the table by doing so, as then we would need to explain why cars from the same team are listed separately in the table. – Kytabu 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated before I have no problem with you seperating the satellite teams in the teams table - as long as somewhere in the article acknowledges that Rod Nash, Britek, and Tim Blanchard Racing are satellite teams of Prodrive and BJR. The only real difference between running satellite team cars and running their own cars is the team name, nothing else. The satellite teams use staff, data, cars, everything from their parent team. To not acknowledge this gives viewers the idea that they are independently run. I realise teams like Tekno use technical data and old chassis from T888 BUT they are still independently run. They have their own staff, own management, etc. FullHouse97 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Think the format that has been used in previous years is fine, i.e. with satellites grouped with parents as irrespective of the ownership of the individual RECs, it reflects the team groupings as in how they appear on pit lane. As previously stated by splitting, further complicates by needing to explain the relationship.

While Britek and RNR once were once stand alone race teams with separate management, workshop etc, today along with TBR they really are just holding companies that own RECs. For all intents and purposes, BJR is a three-car team with two RECs owned by BJR and one by TBR. For testing purposes they are grouped as one, otherwise BJR could test on 3 days and TBR on another 3. Impala27 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nissan and T8 should not contain any separation whatsoever. As Kytabu has already said, it would make for unnecessary complexity. I would prefer that we keep the original format, but the decision is not up to me. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The views on the satellite teams seem rather split, I believe we should have a consensus or vote on it for the regular editors. I don't mind if it isn't stated in the table, but I would prefer that it was, as it still needs to be mentioned. FullHouse97 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Source 38 - the pit lane order - lists Mostert and Bright as PRA entries and Blanchard as a BJR. The source comes from Supercars itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Event map

Looking at a couple of other championship articles—like 2017 World Rally Championship, 2017 Formula One season and 2017 British Touring Car Championship—I have noticed that they frequently include maps showing locations of events. For example, this is the one that the BTCC article uses:

Circuit locations for the 2017 season

I think it might be worth making something similar for Supercars; I'd do it myself, but I edit from a mobile device and have no skill with images. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a file somewhere on Commons with a plain white map that just contains Australia/New Zealand? This may be worth having a crack, but if there isn't ample scale space between certain places (e.g. Sydney and Bathurst) it's not going to work. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Holdenman05

"Is there a file somewhere on Commons with a plain white map that just contains Australia/New Zealand?"

I would imagine so, but I haven't actually looked. I'll see what I can find.

"This may be worth having a crack, but if there isn't ample scale space between certain places (e.g. Sydney and Bathurst) it's not going to work."

In that case, would it be worth including a map insert?

Although it may be avoidable if you position the labels cleverly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I made this back in 2014. Eastern Creek and Bathurst are fine, especially with Homebush now gone, but QR/Gold Coast and Sandown/Phillip Island might be an issue. – Kytabu 09:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kytabu — that's exactly what I had in mind. I don't think that QR/GC and Sandown/PI are that big an issue; although they're close together, you can make out that there are two dots for each, even on a mobile screen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I know it's pretty much the same as what was suggested above, but how about this? Only problem is that I'm not sure how to make it a working file (coding has never been my strong point). Holdenman05 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Holdenman05 — almost there, but I would keep the Gold Coast and Symmons Plains labels on one line. The nowrap template might help. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

They are on one line on desktop, and my attempt at nowrapping came to nought. It might be best if someone else tries (you are free to take the template I updated). Holdenman05 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nowraps keep everything on one line. Since you're already seeing everything on one line in the desktop version, you won't see the nowraps working. But they definitely work on mobiles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gen2 in 2017

@Impala27 — please stop changing the article to claim that the Gen2 regulations have been deferred until 2018 unless you have a reliable source to support it. Although there are no cars running under Gen2 rules this year, it does not mean that the regulations have been pushed back. To claim so without reliable sources is speculation and original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Gen2 rules are still valid for 2017, its just no team decided to do a major switch on chassis this year.FullHouse97 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Article in V8X Magazine on future powerplants in December 2016, including an interview with the category technical director, confirms that Gen2 has been pushed back until 2018. That the only cite is back from when the concept was announced in 2014, seems to reinforce nothing is happening. If it were the very press savvy SC would likely have made multiple releases on the subject. Impala27 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This page on the official website says the Gen2 regulations are in effect from 2017. The only reason SC have not made a great fanfare about the new regulations is because no teams have built a car under the new rules for this year. – Kytabu 01:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So at best it is just an event on paper with nothing tangible to show, not really worthy of inclusion in the lead. The link above may be out of date. That the technical director says it has been deferred (and it is ultimately him who will sign off) must carry some weight. The ultimate proof will be in the official regulations. Not sure if they are available online. Impala27 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedcafe article from 16 December 2016 also states that Gen2 is in effect from 2017. It also mentions that GRM could have run a Chevrolet engine in the S60 body had Volvo not wanted the cars returned to Sweden. This would only have been allowed under Gen2. – Kytabu 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Kytabu on this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Supercars Gen 2 page quoted above can probably be discredited, with it stating guidelines to be defined in final quarter of 2015, so clearly not updated in over 12 months. The operations manual is published online (2016 version is still up), so once updated, this should clarify. Impala27 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 operations manual has no mention of the Gen2 coupes or V6s. It still states that cars must be a four-door production sedan with a 5 litre V8. Rule C1.1 is where you'll find it. JRam Wiki (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Tooltips

Mobile and tablet readers cannot see Tooltips at all. As such, I used notations so that they can get that information without adversely affecting the ability of desktop users to read the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditorAU — please familiarise yourself with the conventions of the WikiProject before making changes. The "Rounds" column clearly indicates who is driving car #3 at the enduros, so your concerns are unfounded. Secondly, we don't add rows to a table to add something as minor as a number change, especially when it is done for a single round for promotional purposes (if it was a long-term change, it might be a different story). The notation system is the most accessible for all users and the least intrusive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I refer to the 2016 season table. It clearly shows that Chris van der Drift is only driving alongside Shae Davies and that Karl Reindler is only driving alongside Lee Holdsworth. If you don't like tooltips, this is clearly the better option as it is visibly obvious to both desktop and mobile users. WikiEditorAU (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditorAU — I'm talking about the use of Tooltips in the number column, not the driver column. Please read comments more carefully in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Kelly brothers in results table

Why are the results for Nissan Motorsport&mdash#7 and#15—left blank in the teams' championship results matrix? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now the Walkinshaw results aren't showing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Numbers

Do we really need the numbers in the Drivers' championship table? What value do they have there? Some drivers even used multiple numbers throughout the season. Surely the names are sufficient to attribute the results. No other motorsports articles seems to have these numbers in that place.Tvx1 21:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — some teams enter more than two cars under the same team name. They're internally divided for points-scoring purposes. Nissan Motorsport enter cars #7, #15, #23 and #78 under the "Nissan Motorsport" name, but cars #7 and #15 are treated as a separate team to cars #23 and #78. Likewise, car #888 is separate to cars #88 and #97, even though all three are run by the same team. The number column is necessary to distinguish between individual teams competing under the same name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m talking about the drivers’ table here, not the teams. If you remove those numbers, we can still distinguish which drivers the points belong to because their names are still there.Tvx1 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)