Category talk:Tracks

Use this page to discuss the main article. The GPVWC Wiki forum topic should be used in preference to this, especially with longer discussions.

Track Infoboxes

Some thoughts on the infoboxes. (Seen a bloody enough of them today!)

The 'Surfaces' option. I think we could do away with it to be honest. Not a lot of tracks on wiki have this option and would require a fare amount of research to ensure we have it right.

For the 'Type' - we could set up pages for the various types (Road Course, Street Course) etc etc and link them back to it. Add a little more colour in that infobox which looks awfully plain with the black text ha!

Something we could do with adding is for the different track layouts. Obviously for long standing tracks, there are times where we have used different layouts. I like the way they work it on Wiki for the different layouts. Can that be done? (Take Spa's wiki page as a reference of what I'm talking about).

There would be the main things I can think of off-hand in regards to those things anyway to look at. Probably be a few more when I sit down to think more on it. -- Philip Cullen

I've tweaked the infobox a little so let me know what you guys reckon.

I never really got what was supposed to go in the 'Surface' option so I've taken that out and I've made it so it links to the circuit type to pages yet to be created. As for the tracks with different layouts I'm not sure what can be done without making the infobox too cluttered, although one possibility might be something like the wikipedia page for Spa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spa-Francorchamps --Chris williamson 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Spa, Chris. Ideally - that's the sort of infoboxes I think we should run with! Nice, clean and lets us talk about multiple options. --User:Philip cullen