Talk:2011 Intercontinental Le Mans Cup

Class colors

Class colors should be included on tables. They are those that are specified by ACO and FIA for these classes. They add visual distinction to the table and assist the reader in easily getting the information. ACO used these colors iteself when presenting similar tables (see [1]). See WEC's own materials for more info. Josh (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not a spotters guide. The individual classes are specified in text, headings, and section titles, the addition of color to some result matrix tables does nothing to distinguish the classes if the reader does not know what they represent. The specific race results use colors because they have an easily identifiable key and help distinguish different types of results with ease. Their addition is simply coloring for the purposes of coloring. Simply because the ACO uses them does not mean they are necessary to be reused on Wikipedia. They use as a guide to help fans quickly identify classes on a busy race track does not transalte to an encyclopedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd further add that your use of a gray to represent LMGTE as a whole, a color borrowed solely from a PDF file, has no actual representation in the ACO or FIA and is, quite frankly, made up. Which would help to throw the argument of the colors representing something out the window. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The PDF file you mention is an official publication by the ACO. There is no reason to throw anything out the window or to presume that we know better than they do. Josh (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Being an official publication by the ACO doesn't mean the color of a header is valuable information. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your statement was "a color borrowed solely from a PDF file, has no actual representation in the ACO or FIA and is, quite frankly, made up." That statement was categorically incorrect. We can discuss the usefulness of using these official colors below. Josh (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that the colors may not help readers who do not yet recognize the scheme directly. However, they will help readers who do recognize the scheme, and will help familiarize those who do not with the scheme (a scheme that they will encounter in other research into this topic and thus useful information to relay to the reader). After all, an encyclopedia should not be limited to information that the reader already knows. As you state, they help observers quickly identify class distinctions, and as you also state, colors help distinguish different information in a table with ease. I do think you are right that they should be included in the key, as is done with the specific race results, that is an excellent suggestion. Josh (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not my suggestion. The "useful information" is already stated (LMP1, LMP2, LMGTE, etc.), the color does not add anything to the information as every instance of its use also includes the exact information it is trying to convey. If someone wants information on LMP1, they simply look for LMP1. Having the red color does not ease anything in any way. This is why tables have headers and sections have titles. If the cells were filled with some other information or blank, then a color would be relevant. There is absolutely no merit to having the colors repeated, again, in a key.

Their use on physical cars does help observers quickly identify class distinctions, but in an environment where reading "P1" on a moving car would be difficult. This is an encyclopedia, it is not a fast-paced environment. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is completely and utterly redundant. We now have "LMP1", in red, in two places, within mere pixels of each other. If the header were not red, and the key did not mention LMP1, how well do you think the average user would be able to deduce that the top section of the Manufacturers Cup table is for LMP1? The fact that it says LMP1 in the header explains everything, perfectly and succinctly. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

They can be in the key or not in the key as far as I am concerned, they don't hurt anything one way or the other. Josh (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You just made the case that "race results use colors because they have an easily identifiable key and help distinguish different types of results", yet now you say that color where "every instance of its use also includes the exact information it is trying to convey" is without merit. If the race result has "1" to show first place, it does not need gold color to repeat that information, yet it is widely recognized that adding the color makes the chart easier to read, and that a key ensures that those unfamiliar with the color scheme are able to learn it. Why does this logic not apply equally to class colors? Josh (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As for WP not being a face-paced environment, why intentionally make access slower? Users should absolutely be able to access the information as quickly and easily as possible. The colors may not be helpful to you, but they don't hurt anything. They are helpful to some people, as I am sure you are aware different people process information differently. For some the words themselves are the fastest cue, but for others colors and shapes are much more readily keyed in on. When looking for LMGTE Pro results, simply spot the green as opposed to scrolling down a long gray list trying to pick out a text string from the list. I am not understanding your vehemence in opposing them on the sole basis that they are not useful to you. Josh (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Remove the key completely from the page. Take an average user, show them the championship table. Can they figure out what the gold, silver, orange, green, blue, and purple cells stand for without the key? Maybe some of it but probably not all of it. Can they understand what NC stands for, or Ret, or DSQ? Most likely not. The information conveyed by the color requires a key for its understanding.

Can they figure out what the header LMP1 stands for? Yes, given what is described in the article and in other tables, and because it says exactly what it is. A key is absolutely not necessary and adding color to it does not in any way help anyone in understanding what the header is. A key that says "Red = LMP1" has provided no more information than if the key wasn't there at all, the header already says "Red = LMP1"! That's the most rediculously redundant thing I've ever seen. And how does it not confuse readers to have one key that says "Gray = LMGTE" and another key that says "Green = LMGTE Pro" and "Yellow = LMGTE Am"? If they're looking for green, they're sure as hell not going to see gray.

Now, removing the key once more, can you find all information on LMP1 cars and their respective championships on 2015 FIA World Endurance Championship? Section headers lead a user directly to the necessary tables direct from the contents section at the top of the page, which by the way you removed from this article by combining tables from various classes into one huge pile. Explain to me how this makes it easier to find information? Further, how exactly does one easily search such a long article for "Red"? It's certainly far easier to click a link to a section title than it is to scroll through an entire article looking for red. To add to that, how exactly are you going to identify something such as a combined "LMP" championship? Invent a color?

Colors are meant to be used sparingly and only to help convey information in a useful manner. Coloring for the sake of coloring is trivial. It has been almost universally accepted by WP:MOTOR that colors are useful at conveying information for championships to help readers understand sometimes complex regulations and points systems. Beyond that, colors are used sparringly and only where necessary. This is not a personal issue, the use of red/blue/green/orange colors has been removed from Wikipedia many times over the past several years. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd also point out that you are mixing colors on the key. "Red = LMP1" may make sense to you, but "Red = DNQ" is also on the key. Same with green, blue, and orange. That is not how keys are supposed to work, and not how you accurately and precisely convey information to a reader who does not have a deep understanding of the article in the first place. Now my example of the 2015 WEC does use the colors red and green for different purposes, but in different sections of the article and each with a key unique to that section. Your key has everything in one single chart that can easily confuse someone who does not understand why there are two reds. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a consensus at WP:MOTOR specific to the red/blue/green/orange colors. That's all that needed to be said. Colors removed. Josh (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There has not been a specific discussion of Le Mans colors, just discussions of colors and tables in general. Colors are used elsewhere, such as 2015 Porsche Supercup, but again, these are used to provide helpful information within context to help beginning readers without becoming redundant or overbearing.

Specific removal of Le Mans colors has occured for several years as other users have attempted to use the coloring in various forms which is unnecessary and overwhelming on the reader. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of Tooltips

To quote directly from Template:Abbr (the redirect for Template:Tooltip):

Please note: Do not use {{abbr}} or <abbr> to mark up material other than abbreviations or acronyms. Using it to generate tooltips elsewhere is a misuse of the underlying HTML and causes accessibility problems.

Tooltips are intended for abbreviations, as seen with Rd. for Round and Pos. for Position. Having a tooltip on almost every cell in a table is completely unncessary. Manufacturer is not an abbreviation, and its meaning should be prefectly clear and should not require further explanation. Having the race results key, in a visible location, easily identifies colors and the summary of point values available at the top would allow any user to deduce points. We are not here to hold every reader's hand and explain every possible piece of data.

Further, tooltips do not function on most mobile browsers, negating their usefulness in this way, and unless a user specifically clicks every tooltip, they would not easily be able to identify LMGTE engine bonus points. This information should be easily visible. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point! I was not aware of an accessibility problem, and wholly agree that the information should be a cleanly and readily available as can be done. Josh (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Intercontinental Le Mans Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228024346/http://www.lemans.org/en/races/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/2011-ILMC-Calendar_2459.html to http://www.lemans.org/en/races/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/2011-ILMC-Calendar_2459.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/1/1/ressources/Pdf/2011/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/classement_ilmc_2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/1/1/ressources/Pdf/2011/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/classement_ilmc_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131052538/http://www.lemans.org/en/races/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/updates.html to http://www.lemans.org/en/races/intercontinental-le-mans-cup/updates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)