Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 24 Hours of Le Mans article.
Article policies
Al Holbert's Löwenbräu Porsche 962. This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Motorsport This article is part of a parent project - WikiProject Motorsport - which co-ordinates the motorsport-related WikiProjects, improves areas of commonality, and caters for subjects that lack dedicated projects. Consult the project page for further information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the Importance scale.
Peer review 24 Hours of Le Mans has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

The races section and the section right below it have been vandalized. ("This section was written by tom cruise")

Wow...that was a fast fix 66.31.245.240 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Jerry

[edit] Fuel

Is there any source about the use of illegal fuel (nitromethane) by Mercedes ? - Ericd 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio 4 programme "In Living Memory", 27 April 2005. They made it clear it was all hotly debated, but it seemed there might be something in it. Some of the victims had only internal injuries, of the sort you'd expect in an explosion, as opposed to being hit by wreckage. Flapdragon 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] duplication

The 1955 accident is described twice, once in "Accidents" and once under "History". Cut the "Accidents" section? Flapdragon 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. We will probably have to split the history section one day.... Ericd 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Surely the history section is aready split, into many subsections. Or is that not what you meant? It seems pointless to have two very similar (though not identical paras) giving the same info, first under "Accidents":
In 1955, Pierre Levegh was invited to drive a Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR. Racing for the lead, he hit the back of a slower Austin-Healey which had to swerve left in order to pass the Jaguar of Mike Hawthorn who suddenly moved over to the pits. The much faster Mercedes was unable to avoid the Austin-Healey, was catapulted upwards by the sloped rear end and crashed into the huge crowd opposite of the pit lane, disintegrating into parts. The driver and more than 80 spectators were killed, and many others were injured.
And then at "History":
In 1955, Pierre Levegh was allowed to drive a Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR after his excellent previous efforts. He was chasing Mike Hawthorn, when Hawthorn's Jaguar passed a slower Austin-Healey before suddenly braking to enter the pits on the right. This forced the Austin-Healey over to the left into the path of the faster Mercedes which was approaching at high speed. It ran into the back of the Austin-Healey, was catapulted into the air, and crashed into an earth bank designed to protect the crowd, disintegrating and killing the driver and 80 spectators, and injuring many others.
They even conflict slightly ("invited/allowed"; crashed into the bank or into the crowd?). If "accidents" is worth keeping as a section of its own perhaps the subheading in the history heading should just refer back to that. Flapdragon 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote split I mean "into several articles", however I think the article hasn't matured enough today to do this. As the 1955 accident was by far the worst accindent in racing history, I think it's important to keep something outside the history section. Basically I think two events happened in Le Mans that belongs to "general history" as opposed to "Sport history", "Auto racing history" or "24 hours of Le Mans history" : the 1955 accident and Jacky Ickx demonstration. Well that's only my opinion. However this article is need of a lot improvement, the Accidents section is mainly dealing with the 1955 accident. As I wrote this I have the idea that a lot of things could be packed together in a "safety" section. You also notice some contradictions... Well all the article has to be verified for accuracy and NPOV. There's a lot of of urban myths and legend about Le Mans. I have changed my mind several times about my own contributions as I discovered new sources. Ericd 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All that is absolutely fair comment, but I don't think any of it invalidates my point that the same paragraph shouldn't appear twice (with subtle variations) in the same article. I'll leave it to those who know something about the subject to decide where/how it should be presented and which version of the facts is correct, but it shouldn't be like this. Flapdragon 23:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marked for Clean-up

This article has a a few problems that need some attention, notably:

  • The previously mentioned duplication of the worst crash information,
  • The large size of the article. The History section should actually be moved to the page it claims you can find it at, and a short summary made for this page. Even by itself, the History section is lengthy and written in a non-flowing bullet form and could do with some reworking.
  • I split the first sentence but it might still need work - the way it was previously worded stated that it was the most famous endurance race to be held at Circuit de la Sarthe, instead of the world, which was intended.
  • Not necessary, but it would also be nice to have a picture of the track layout.

210.49.61.125 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding the third issue, attempted rewriting it for better fluidity in English. Chr.K. 07:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "please copyedit"

What's with all this "please copyedit" stuff in recent edit summaries? Surely not just a request for someone else to do the spadework because the editor making changes can't be bothered?! Can I suggest it's not exactly good practice to knowingly add badly badly garbled and misspelt text and just hope all the errors get picked up. It's not asking much for people to read through and spell-check their own edits, rather than expecting someone else to do the job of sorting it all out. This article is in bad enough need of cleanup already. Flapdragon 17:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's a good practice ? As of today I am the main contributor in this article (which is too large and needing cleanup I admit, but well better something than nothing IMO). I've noted in other article a lot of well writing contributions that have a very week relationship with truth. I've try to expand this article with factualy correct contributions. I'm not a native English speaker and it requires considerable efforts from myself to write well spelled English with style. I can write French with good style and very few spelling errors but I've definetly made the choice to contribute in the English-speaking Wikipedia, because I think it's more universal. What's the sense of collaborative work if the strength of one can not correct the weakness of the other ? If you think it's disrepectful exepecting others to do the job I know I can't do well, I think I'd better go elsewhere.... Ericd 19:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's great that you have contributed so much to the article but it would be even better if you would spend just a little of that time checking what you have written before submitting it. That's what the preview button is for, not to mention spellcheckers and dictionaries. I'm not talking about subtle shades of English style and idiom, or the odd rare grammatical slip-up, but obvious mistakes in almost every line: "The mainweaknesse of the 1972 670 ... was taht...", "The race went on at planned", "a serious differential problems", "[he] choose the lowest optionmuch tio the surprise of Porsche management" and so on -- these are just fautes de frappe and fautes d'inattention which could easily be avoided. When it starts to make the text incomprehensible (I for one don't understand "On Shelby's iniative T the GT-40's were fitted with engine as the Cobras") then it's not helping the article, and at the moment the quality of this one seems to be going down not up. If the idea that "it's better than nothing" leads to a substandard, incomprehensible article then that is doing Wikipedia a disservice. In the age of spell-checkers and online dictionaries it really doesn't take "considerable efforts" to avoid basic spelling and grammatical errors. Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it? -- that makes the History much more "cleaner". Would you be keen to spend your editing time correcting the slips of other people, when you could be doing something interesting instead? Incidentally, if you don't feel your English is good enough (and I'm sure that's not true) what would be so wrong with contributing the facts to the French Wikipedia, from where they could be translated to add to the English one? That kind of collaborative effort might be just as fruitful as expecting others to clean up basic slips. Wikipédia has 176k articles, hardly a lost cause unworthy of anyone's time. That way both wikis would get the benefit of your knowledge, without creating tedious spadework for other people. Best wishes, Flapdragon 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not use a word-processor to create the text you plan to add and get it ready before you upload it ? Simply because it's not my kind of work especially on that kind of subject I process by rough notes about what I believe importatnt and then try to turn that mess into something that has some coherence. Have you ever spent two weeks writing a two page article just to notice that your work was already done by another contributor ? A very frustrating experience. Ericd 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be an editing tool. Apart from anything else, by making continual tiny changes in "stream of consciousness" mode, you end up hogging the article when someone else is trying to edit, and their edits, unconnected with what you were in the middle of doing, will be interspersed with yours, making it much harder to follow the progress of what's happened, revert vandalism or whatever. Just take a look at what a mess it makes of the History pages if you continually save without even looking at what you've written. Of course no-one would spend two weeks writing text without even checking that someone else isn't doing the same work, that's ridiculous, but there's nothing at all to stop you spending two minutes writing at least a single coherent paragraph and checking it for errors before uploading it. That's the place for turning your rough notes into serviceable text. Anyway, however often you save, there's still nothing to stop someone else making the change you were going to make, or one that contradicts it, at any moment. That's just the way it goes. Flapdragon 22:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winners bar graph

The graph illustrating the number of wins per team is interesting but its also misleading in the sense that one might construe that all teams have entered all races. If a parallel set of bars could be added to the graph denoting the number of races entered per team that would put it in perspective. I.e. Mercedes have had relatively few wins but of course they dropped out for quite a while.--Hooperbloob 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no offense, but

while it's odd enough that you consider miles' having actually won two races and finishing first in the third (but not winning only because he was ordered to back off) to be "speculation" regarding his winning all three if he had not backed off, it's your belief that the previous version was in English that I find really stunning. (^_^)Gzuckier 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innacurate Bar Graph

Ive removed the bargraph of winners that was on the page because it was innacuratly stating the number of wins by some manafacturers, and ommissing some manafacturers completly. The Image can still be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Le_Mans.gif if reasons are found to justify its inclusion LuNatic 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videogames

I would suggest that this section be split out into a seperate article and then refer to it here via a "Main article" or "See also" link. I'm not sure of the proper naming convention for the new article, so I based it on this article, but maybe the video gamers use a different convention? --Brian G 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've split the section into its own article. JustinH 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names for the race

I'm wondering if "Grand Prix of Endurance" should be used in the intro, at least as an alternative extension or historical synonym, as it is in the individual race pages (eg 1923 24 Hours of Le Mans). I've seen this phrase referred to elsewhere as a former name, but have yet to identify any distinct date of cessation. FWIW, I did run across a listing for a poster for the 1924 race [1] that bills it as "[Sur le circuit permanent de la Sarthe, le] 2ème Grand Prix d'Endurance de 24 Heures" (with no use of "Le Mans"), which I suppose could translate as "[on the permanent circuit of Sarthe, the] 2nd Grand Prix of 24 Hour Endurance", but I don't know if that sort of thing borders on original research. At the very least, there should be consistency between the nomenclature of 24 Hours of Le Mans and the subordinate articles on individual races. ENeville 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Belatedly, I see that the French page has a copy of a poster for the first race. ENeville 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate track map

The track map doesn't include the most recent changes between the Dunlop chicane and the Tertre Rouge esses. There's a map at the old Motor Racing Circuits database (which now resides on a new server since the old owners abandoned the original site):

[2]

Would have to be modified (shrunk and turned 90 degrees) to fit on the current page tho. John DiFool2 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current rewrite is full of errors

For instance it's a WM not a WP that broke the 400 km/h barreer and it was during the race not during practice.... Ericd 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1 = full of errors? If you have something more specific, point it out or fix it? The359 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can find other errors, but I have no time to list them yet. I don't understand why a rewrite introduce wrong information when the good information was in the previous version. Ericd 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there are errors, point them out and/or fix them. It's foolish to sit here and say you don't have the time to list them while you clearly have time to edit the article multiple times. The only two errors you have fixed has been to remove the Matra-Simca picture (which was found in the Category:24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons) and put back in the schedule start time which I had forgot to replace. The359 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is error and innacuracy in the article. And why did you made an an history structured by decades ? Why did you rewrite the article without consideration for the information that was in the previous versions and such a lack of respect for previous editors. What's foolish ? Yes I had enough time to make some edits and verify the hour of the start this year but I have no time and desire to rewrite it... What else ? The MS-650 photo was in the category 24 Hours of Le Mans on Commons. Well I think you acted in good faith, but it's rather weak reguarding information accuracy, anyone who has some knowledge about the Matra prototypes knows this is a road going version. Ericd 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's go : "early competitors cars were street cars with their bodywork removed". Look at the Bentley. Early competitors had to be street legal (unlike GP cars) . Most cars were cabriolets or torpedos. The regulations required the car to run a number of laps with the folding top up.

Most competitors had noticed than reducing the front surface will bring better performance. Look at the small windshield of the Bentley. Aerodynamics was known since the beginning of the 20th century, even if it was at pre-scientific stage. Look at La Jamais Contente or seek for pictures of the Serpollet Oeuf de Pâques.

To be continued... Ericd 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Going on : "two scoring the only victories for a privateer" Well no... The Wyer GT-40s were arguably private cars with very low support from FoCoMo. The last victory for Ferrari was a NART entered 250LM.

1979, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996 and 1997 races were also won by a privateer.

Ericd 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Going on : "Pierre Levegh crashed into the crowd of spectators". It's a complex matter. He crashed for sure, but not in the crowd. Most people were killed by the blast or the engine that was projected in the crowd. Ericd 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then...
  • The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?
  • I rewrote the history because the previous editors had jumped from discussing history to discussing rules and various things with no real structure. The article was a complete mess with huge gaps, poor layout, and lack of explanations.
  • I forgot to add the time for the start back in. I had moved it in the original edit it but had forgotten to place it back into a proper section.
  • I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that.
  • Early cars were ones without bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a usual road going coupe. They were, as you specifically say, torpedos, which were cars without excess bodywork. And I'm well aware most were cabriolets.
  • I also know that those cars had this bodywork removed for weight and aerodynamics. I don't see anything in my edits that says otherwise.
  • It clearly says privateer constructors in the article. I never said privateer teams.
  • And Pierre Levegh's car did partially crash into the crowd. The entire incident is well covered at 1955 Le Mans disaster, the blurb in this article was meant to just sum the events up quickly.

So where are these errors? The359 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Early cars had bodywork, as in the kind of bodywork you'd see on a road going car of that era.

"I nowhere claimed to be an expert on the Matra-Simcas, so I think it is inane to harp on about including a picture of a car which as far as I knew was similar to one of the winners as an example from that era that was NOT another Porsche. If you assume good faith, then leave it at that." Well no, the car was blue like the winning cars, nothing else. Good faith isn't enougth. Collaborative work is summing up knowledge. Ericd 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all Le Mans cars had full bodywork, some were torpedos as you yourself stated. And Matra-Simca MS650s raced at Le Mans, even if it was not that particular one, and that picture was in a Le Mans category, so yes there is plenty of reason to assume it is a suitable picture to place in when I wanted a picture of a Matra-Simca that ran at Le Mans. Good faith is more then enough reason to place that picture there.
Sorry, good faith id probably enough to put a picture here. But not enought to revert my edit 62.212.105.216 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you are EricD - You removed the picture claiming it was an MS650 from the Tour de France. However MS650s did run at Le Mans, so I put the picture back simply as an example of Matra-Simcas. It was only on the second removal that you specified that the car was not the same as the MS650s that ran at Le Mans. The359 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are so more errors you wish to point out, I see no reason to continue to bash this rewrite. It is, quite frankly, a huge improvement on the article that was here a week ago. The359 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The history section was put into eras, mostly based on the types of winners at the time. It'd be foolish to have one single long history section without some division. Pre-War races, Post-War races until the change from street-based cars in 1970, the Group 6 era, the Porsche 956/962/Group C era, the GT era, and the modern era. Makes sense to me?

Makes sense to you... There was no change "from street-based cars in 1970" Ericd 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The last street-based car to win (until the 1990s) was in 1969, hence it was a key point to set a date. It would be similar to breaking up the history of the Indianapolis 500 to mark the last win by a front-engine car and the change to rear-engine dominance. And what does my choice of eras to break the Le Mans history into have to do with the article being "wrong?" Nothing is factually wrong in that history, hence you have no legitimate complaint. The359 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that the Wyer GT-40 that won in 1969 was a street based car ? Ericd 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd have to go back to the 1950s to find a winner based on a production road car. The GT40 was a production car of sorts, of course, but not any more so than a Porsche 917 or 935. - Ian Dalziel 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They built 31 street legal GT40s. Granted, they appeared after the GT had already been racing, but that's no different then moddern homologation specials like the Porsche 911 GT1 and Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR. The Porsche 917 did not have any road going counterparts nor did they share any road going parts from other Porsches. The359 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The GT-40 was designed from the start to win Le Mans. Ford intended to meet the production requirement to homologate the car in GT but as soon as they had won Le Mans they gave up. If you count the GT-40 as a street car you can also count the Dauer 962 that was arguably designed for street use before being raced. IMO there's only one street-based car that won Le Mans after WWII it's the Mc Laren F1. The car was designed for street use when there was no category in racing to race such a car. Ironically this car saved Le Mans : at that time there was not enougth cars to have a decent starting grid. Le Mans defined its own regulations to allow racing the Mc Laren (as well as anything that was fast and spectacular enougth to be appealing for the spectator). The car was a very expensive toy for street use but a real bargain for private team seeking a good performance at Le Mans (especially if you rented the car instead of buying it like the Kokusaï racing that won in 1995). This 1995 victory is a real winner-winner game Mc Laren rented the car, the sponsor had maximal notoriety for minimal cost and the value of the car immediately grew to higher than a new one ! Ericd 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Porsche 911 GT1, Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR and CLK LM, Toyota GT-One, Nissan R390 GT1, and others were all intended to win Le Mans first. Their production versions usually came later as well. That does not negate the fact that they were homologated street car-based racers. Ford clearly did not just give up on building stret cars if they built 31. They may not have built enough, but they still intended to build a road car for homologation purposes. And yes, the Dauer 962 Le Mans is a street car as well. Five road cars were built total, four of which came after the car had won Le Mans. And actually Porsche did not come to Dauer's door asking to race the 962 until after construction of the initial 962 road car had begun. The359 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK and you know about the Lancia Stratos ? Ericd 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do. What does any of this have to do with the article on the 24 Hours of Le Mans? Because this is becoming ridiculous. The359 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not ridiculous... This is only a collective effort to have some intelligence on a topic... an hundred lines on a talk page for two lines in the article is the right amount to write a featured article IMO. The Lancia Stratos is a street legal car (hmm... well at least in Italy...) but it is widely considered as the start of a new era as the first car designed from scratch to win in rallies. Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ford built Twelve pre-production Ford GT (the name GT-40 came later)-Chassis numbers 101 to 112- for racing by works team(s). this was enough to race for 2 years. The stock GT-40 (4-digits chassis numbers) were stock cars in the sense that were customers cars for racing by private teams (altougth everal stock cars were used by works teams with various racing tuning). Yet, who built the GT-40 ? Early pre-production cars were probably built at Lola plant with various sub-contractors like Abbey Panels of Coventry. Later, Ford established a new subsidiary under the direction of Wyer, Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd (FAV) to built the car. After the 1967 wictory, FAV was sold to Wyer and became Wyer Automotive Ltd. Wyer Automotive keep the right to build Ford GT-40 while being an independant company. The deal was peanuts for FoMoCo executives but a jackpot for Wyer... And who built the various road-going GT-40 ? Wyer, making money of what was peanuts in FoMoCo accounts... What else , a road going car ? Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW your rewrite as some qualities IMO. Ericd 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to reply on the McLaren F1 bit, on the August 2003 issue of Classic and Sportscar magazine, (from what I can recall as that issue is stashed away somewhere in the house, therefore it is tricky to dig it out) Bscher and Bellm brought a road going F1 with converting it for racing in mind, McLaren got wind of that and decided to build a homlogation special for privateers to race, so therefore that could make the fact that year was won by a homlogation car. Also to reply to that bit about how 1996 was won by a privateer, didn't Porsche lend Joest some factory support that year, should all their 911 GT1 not make it to the finish line, Porsche only dropped support the following year to prioritise their GT1s and only came back backing them for the following year. Willirennen 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
McLaren F1 cars raced at Le Mans were in fact mostly F1 GTR, a racing derivative made by McLaren and sold to privateers. Ericd 07:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is, really, making no sense whatsoever now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my choice to divide up the history into certain periods that make some logical sense. Therefore your stance that the article is "full of errors" is wrong, since you've only really pointed out a mistaken picture and the race's starting time accidentally being left out. If you have anything to actually add to the article to help it, please add it. Debating what the GT40 is is rather useless, since its quite clear that the Porsche 917 was completely different and clearly the mark of a whole new era. The359 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out other errors than a picture and missing information about the schedule. Read above. For instance Pierre Levegh car did not hit any spectator. Ericd 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What is "quite clear" is that neither of those cars was based on a production car. Purpose built racing cars which are capable of being adapted for road use are not the same thing as "production-based" cars.
I don't see why a Porsche 917 would be any more difficult to use on the road than a Ferrari P4 - your "era" just doesn't work. -- Ian Dalziel 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is those two were never made into road cars, the GT40s were. The359 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Most historians will consider 1968 as the start of new era as it was the first year were engines were limited. Ericd 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be silly to attempt to break up a history section right in the middle of Ford's win streak. 1969 nicely bookends the end of Ferrari, Jaguar, and Ford's dominance and the start of Porsche and Matra-Simca's dominance before we get to the full Group C era. If that doesn't make logical sense, I don't know what does. The359 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The 24hrs of Le Mans seems to have been forgotten almost, compared to Formula 1 and NASCAR. It needs expanding much more, with many more pages. There ought to be one explaining each of the four classes, LMP1, LMP2, LMGT1, LMGT2. It also needs to be a lot easier to navigate from the main page to the sub-pages.

[edit] The biggest loser?

How many starts has Terada had, through 2006? Trekphiler 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fans and spectators

Would there be any objection if I added a short chapter on the culture and tradition of fans attending the race - this seems to be lacking in the main body of the article and I think is an intrinsic part of the race's DNA. Thoughts please? Warburton62 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering it had been an important part of the event, can't see why not. Willirennen 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg

Image:Le Mans 1955 crashed car remains.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)