Talk:List of Bathurst 1000 vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Portal	List of Bathurst 1000 vehicles is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
List	This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian motorsport.

Please don't split the models into sub models. We'll have 20 different Falcons and Commodores, eight different Escorts, six Toranas, etc etc. If we keep it tight it will represent a more interesting list to a casual reader, because the racing fans will already know where the splits in performance models are. Write for the audience, not for yourself. --Falcadore (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're making a mess of it - if people want to know exactly which model raced they will click the year and go there - please don't go splitting and splitting. --Falcadore (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting performance models

Copied from talk page..

Responding to the bit mentioning a turbocharger probably severed of separate listings, the same reason why I separated the lot from my edits. After reading this section two years ago (ETCC details and Volvo's tricks of the trade) thus your edits on that page was why I ended up broken some of these bits off.

I will accept the Corolla bit as I only suggested because there is a separate page for the AE86, which the info for the AE85 is bundled into.

My reason for separating the XR4Ti is, although there is a Sierra XR4i (2.8 litre), but there is no Sierra XR4Ti (turbo 2.3 litre) as it is simply a rebadged US market Merkur XR4Ti, that is what Andy Rouse said in an interview for the January 2008 issue of evo (page 101), plus he said that they were used to develop the Sierra Cosworth. Also there is an article for it, so that is why I split it off.

Replying to The BMWs were split because there is no such road car as an E36 so how do you list the BMW 318i & 320i. There is, it an article called BMW 3 Series, BMW downsized the 320 to its 318 because BMW said back in '94 believed that the latter is more rev happier.

As for Supras, this is like saying that the FT0 should be put in the same listing as the Galant FT0 and the recent GT-R should be put in the same listing as the Skyline GT-R. They were simply nameplates that ended up being separated off from its usual range, plus the Celica Supra was a top range Celica as it was based on the same chassis and used the same bodyshell.

Just to point out that I am not a big expert on The Great Race but a fan of the track and the race, so I am not going to know every car that entered the race, hence I don't plan to take the split any further as I have as done much as I can. Willirennen (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not just the turbo charger. The 1979 242GT was a naturally aspirated car with no performance mods other than a roll cage, not even as far as Group N mods for performance. The Volvo Dealer Team cars of 85/86 were thoroughbread Group A turbos.

BMW 3 series is just as arbitrary as as E36. There is not a single car anywhere that has a badge that reads 'E36' or '3 Series'. The cars were called 318i and 320i. It is what the public knows them as. The road cars have different engines, the race cars do not.

There was only one Celica Supra touring car in Australia. It was universally referred to as a Supra throughout its life.

No Skyline RS or GTS-R were sold in Australia. While there is a case to separate the Nissan GT-R, the R30 and R31 were just Skylines according to the Australian public. Splitting the RS and GTS-R makes little sense here as they do not point to separate articles.

The Sierra and Sierra RS500 should be recombined for the simple reason that the Sierras were actually the same cars that had raced previously as RS500, they removed the turbos to comply with Super touring regulations but otherwise was the exact same car.

Your splits are technically correct, but are against the spirit of the article. The cars were listed according to how they were known and sold to the public regardless of how they appear in Wikipedia or how they were built. I feel splitting from those definitions makes the article less readable. If anyone wanted to know about about the performance models, then they could read further by clicking onto the links. It will also encourage other editors to further breakdown other models at a later date.

Concise, and writing for the audience. --Falcadore (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)