Template talk:Infobox racing driver

Suggested merger of "driver" infoboxes

There are are a range of "...driver" infoboxes in :Category:Motor racing infoboxes. I suggest these be merged, into this one (note also discussion with WikiProject Motorsport). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, specifically for Template:WRC driver; rally drivers don't do "laps" or "poles". Other circuit racing infoboxes could possibly be merged, but unless the proposed overall template is cut down to remove such "performance" info (and I think you'll have a hard job getting that past Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, for example), then it's not quite compatible with rallying. --DeLarge 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Trying to shoe-horn all of the named box templates into one will result in a complete mess. How do you distinguish historical details from current? How do you differentiate records from different series/championships etc? And why do we need so much biographical detail? If you carry on down that route you may as well replace the whole page with one massive infobox. I can see where you thinking has come from, I just think it's misguided. Far better to have the flexibility of multiple boxes, and as they are all pretty much formatted to a standard they stack quite neatly (see John Surtees). Also, maintaining separate boxes allows each specialist Wikiproject to adjust their box details, without risking damage to something not linked to their field of knowlege. (As an F1/sportscar fan I haven't got a clue about NASCAR for example...) Pyrope 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we can and should have is:

A general template for current and retired racing drivers, such as this work in progress, which will eventually become Template:Infobox racing driver or its replacement
An F1-specific template to cover its unique details, for current and retired drivers
A WRC template for the informational requirements of rallying
A complete NASCAR infobox (again, for its specific needs)

That's four templates, which is absolutely the bare minimum that is practical for all the subjects and WikiProjects involved. This merger proposal and the addition of unwanted biographical fields appears to have been born from a lack of understanding of motorsport. Adrian M. H. 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard biography fields

I've added the standard biography fields (date & place of birth and death; spouse, parents, children). All are optional. Please feel free to change the running order, if preferred. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, why include biographical details in the infobox at all? I don't see its relevance to the driver's career (which is what the infobox is summing up), and it may cause issues with those who enforce WP:BLP zealously. --DeLarge 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, why would it "cause issues" with enforcers of WP:BLP? And BTW, I oppose inclusion of parents and children. I agree with inclusion of birth and death dates. I am undecided on inclusion of spouse. ZueJay (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I agree with the way BLP is enforced, I'm simply saying that biographical details not directly pertinent to a person's notability are often removed. In fact, there's a specific policy against exact birth dates being included at all for those of "borderline notability". And not every article is someone of the stature of Sébastien Loeb or Michael Schumacher. Lots of motorsports participants are notable in their field, but don't get great mainstream coverage; see Gwyndaf Evans or Derek Ringer, two pages I've authored. Heard of either of them? They're both internationally successful at what they do, yet they both need day jobs to support themselves.

For the record, I'm not saying we should remove the info entirely, but where a person's birth/death dates are recorded in the lead sentence anyway (as they should be), having them in the infobox seems superfluous to me. --DeLarge 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of all that explanation, the "spouse" field should not be included either. ZueJay (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Shouldn't this be Template:Infobox Racing driver? --thedemonhog talk • edits 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? This is navel gazing for Wiki Editors, and will have no effect on how Joe/Jane Public will use the encyclopedia. Pyrope 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased drivers

This template does not work well for deceased drivers as if you want to enter stats for the last series they drove in, it forces you to treat that series as a "current series" and then displays the current year, even though they are dead. See Paul Dana for how I tried to deal with it as best as possible. -Drdisque 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for such stats if they are retired, dead, or otherwise not competing. There are other templates for the series that warrant such levels of detail. Adrian M. H. 09:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, there is no other template for that series. That's why I'm using this one. If a field exists for this template, it should work whether the driver is deceased or not. If your template doesn't work with deceased drivers, then it shouldn't even be built to handle such information. -Drdisque 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you should not need to have such detailed data in an infobox for a retired or dead driver. Only the F1 project insists on that level of minutiae. And if you think there are no templates for American single seater drivers, you should take a look at {{Former Champ Car driver}}. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is NOT a Champ Car driver. Also, why should retired or dead drivers have less detail than active ones? I see no reason why they shouldn't other than your personal opinion. -Drdisque 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh, for Christ's sake. I know that he was an IRL driver. I am not stupid, OK?~~ As far as template usage is concerned, you will see that the former Champ Car driver template makes no specific reference to the series and could easily by called "former American single-seater series driver". It was obviously intended to be interchangeable between Champ Car and the IRL. How could it not be, given that they were one and the same until a decade ago?

Past participations are clearly less relevant to the affected championship, so our motorsport templates below F1 level have traditionally not included such levels of detail. But, just to keep you happy, I have done what you could easily have done yourself - the template now has fields for a last series, for which you need to follow the pro-forma guides in the documentation. Adrian M. H. 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Striking part of my comment, which was a bit too harsh. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I really appreciate your work on this template and I care about this so much because I feel that a powerful yet generic infobox template can really improve the quality of WP:Motorsport articles and greatly increase infobox usage. -Drdisque 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation, Drdisque. My effort to improve it really grew out of the recent merge proposal and a desire to avoid a complete merger, but it needed doing anyway, to be honest. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-F1 racing drivers

I'm not sure this template can be applied that well to all the pre-WDC racers. Grand Prix racing then consisted of the majority of races not being part of any championship, so how should that be conveyed using this template? Readro 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it done currently, and with what template? Adrian M. H. 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template. I've been using the Infobox Biography template. Readro 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could add some fields to this (quite easy, though I'm not sure where to place them) and make another pro-forma, but perhaps it might be better if you were to make a dedicated template, depending on exactly what data you want to include and how you want to display it. I'm not aiming for total rationalisation of all the driver infobox templates, because that would just be counter-productive. Adrian M. H. 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous field

There's an ambiguoug field on the template "Best finish". I know this template says it should be the championship finish; however, some users will think it is the best race finish (ie - checkered?). I don't know how to solve this, yet, but perhaps others know of a way to make this more clear? ZueJay (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing really ambiguous about that for anyone who is knowledgeable about motorsport, and all they need to do is look at the pro-forma. It is the same term that we have always used, partly because of the width constraints. I tend to check each new use of the template to look out for formatting issues anyway, so I am likely to spot any mistakes. Adrian M. H. 10:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many users are knowledgeable about this kind of thing? Not enough. Truly, this encyclopedia is best used as a tool for understaning the basics (and finding references for more detail), users should not be expected to have prior knowledge of a subject before entering any single article. Thus, for those users without the proper background, this is an ambiguous field. I know there's a Championship, but the first time I saw this field, I thought for sure it was highest single race finish, not championship - and I'm certainly not any sort of lame-brain. Your response does not bring resolution to the problem, it just tells me why ya'll have never changed it. Can this perhaps be a wikilinked field to disambiguate the text? I'm not sure what it would be wikilinked to, but that might assist resolution. ZueJay (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who adds templates such as this to relevant articles will be doing so with some knowledge of motorsport, or they would have no need of such a template. Without some knowledge, they are not in a position to know whether anything that they add is suitable (not just in the template) and they would not have any particular interest in adding a template in such circumstances. You wouldn't find me doing anything other than basic typo/grammar fixing in a mathematics article, for example. There really is no issue here. I could change the field name in the code to make it clear for you, but if any field names don't match the displayed titles, I get other editors complaining and I'm not going over that old ground again. Adrian M. H. 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about me, it is not about editors - it is about users. Not all users understand that that is a Championship field; I'm looking for solutions/suggestions on how to disambiguate this field and alleviate confusion among users - I'm not looking for a brick wall. ZueJay (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "users" do you mean readers? If so, say so. So you don't think that your average motorsport fan will understand that "Best finish: 3rd in 2005" means exactly the same here as it does in the info panels of just about every English-language motorsport periodical in print? If they are not motorsport fans, why would they want to know about Ricardo Risatti or Sebastian Buemi? Besides, we are limited by infobox width, unless you want to overturn the decision taken earlier this year (with which I agree) that all motorsport infoboxes should be 24em. We have no room for lengthy field titles (particularly unnecessary ones). Adrian M. H. 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a user is the same as a "reader"; I prefer the term user because being an Internet user is a bit more active than being a reader, which is passive; this whole matter of clicking on links, typing things in searches, implies usage not just reading.
Now, what's to say that your average user is a motorsports fan? Do you look up articles about politicians? Are you a politics fan? Do you look up articles about authors? Are you an author fan? Do you look up articles about sandwiches? Are you a sandwich fan? You look up articles to learn something.
I do not believe the width should be changed, I think you all are quite right in that; it is already a "wide" box, relatively speaking. I do think that wikilinking the field "Best finish" to a descriptive article (there must be one with regards to "racing championship" or some such) would be useful in clarifiying the field, and is probably the best way to disambiguate it at this point.
I really don't think the accesibility we provide users/readers in these articles is irrelevant. Information in Wikipedia is not just for us, only editors, or only fans, its for everybody. Why wouldn't we want to make it accessible and comprehensible to the average person no matter their fanatic inclinations? ZueJay (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I hardly ever use WP as a reference source (that may change if the world runs out of paper any time soon), but when I do, my readings are confined to things in which I am interested and at least adequately knowledgeable. There is nothing precisely relevant to which the field title may be linked. Adrian M. H. 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors seem not to use it as a particularly strong reference; I tend to only use it for non-technical (ie - pop culture) and a place to look for outside references.
I realize now that there seems no particularly ideal article for such a link - I made an article request for Championship racing or something similar that can discuss a bit all those series with championship races; it is a very popular, common term/element in motorsport that makes sense to have an article for (or at least a list); I know only enough about motorsport to watch it competently and discuss it with others but not actually write articles. ZueJay (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better to post that at WikiProject Motorsport/Tasks. It will get a quicker result. Adrian M. H. 23:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. ZueJay (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we really need to do here is change the label of the field to "best season finish". There have been several cases lately where this has been changed to reflect the best race finish of a particular driver. I think that one word here will clarify. --rogerd (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even shorter would be "best series finish", maybe, in terms of width. ZueJay (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, List of motorsport championships was the result of a prior suggestion. ZueJay (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border shows red in IE6

I noticed that this template's outer border is bright red in IE6. It looks fine in other browsers. There was a redundant hex colour value (#FF0000) in the style declaration, but removing it and clearing my cache has made no difference. The correct #dfdfdf colour value is still there and should be being picked up by IE. Can anyone look into this please? 83.67.34.115 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK now. I figured out that IE does not like CSS shortcuts if the colour is placed first. 83.67.34.115 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver background means dead

Um, I was just looking at the template now that the red border in IE has been fixed, and what I see is that all these race car drivers are dead when utilizing the standard applied to Template:Infobox actor and Template:Infobox musical artist (gold=alive, silver/gray=dead). Not good. I would suggest a change, but to what color, I'm not sure. The gold of those infoboxes might be okay, or maybe a shade of blue. Options can be viewed at WP:Color. ZueJay (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, it is great the red border was fixed. Now, though, the solid gray background is more prominent and it immediately made me think of the infobox style used at Template:Infobox actor which distinguishes between "living" and "deceased" persons, in part, by shading the infobox differently for those states: gold and gray, respectively. Maybe some will not see this as an issue, but we could create greater consistency, unity, etc. across the wiki by addressing this issue. ZueJay (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical artist uses color coding to differentiate between different types of performers, not alive/dead status. Template:Infobox Football biography, probably the most widespread infobox uses blue for everyone. Other common sports templates Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox Gridiron football person use team colors for active players and gray for retired ones (living or dead). I think this is a non-issue and this sort of context only exists in Infobox Actor. -Drdisque (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's why I check before making changes, and why feedback to a question, not matter how inane the question might seems, is always useful. ZueJay (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken microformat

Despite this notice, the hCard microformat in this template was removed in this edit. Could someone who understands the aims of that edit please restore the microformat mark-up? Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused parameter

The Achievements parameter in the second example appears to not be used. I am not sure if the code is wrong or the parameter was removed.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addition of modules

I added a few new parameters to this template to allow for "record/career infoboxes" to be embedded in this one. to give you an idea what I am talking about, compare this version with this version. notice how in the first version, there are actually three infoboxes at the top of the page. since they are not joined together, and the widths are mismatched, we get a big whitespace gap around the boxes. however, in the second version, I have embedded the second two boxes inside the top box, and the problem is solved.

what I have in mind is that we consider (1) adding the ability to embed to all the infoboxes in Category:Racecar driver infobox templates, (2) merge multiple boxes into one box as I have done in the Andy Priaulx example, using {{infobox racing driver}} as the base infobox. we can reduce redundant information by moving all of the common stuff (name, birth, nationality, death, ...) to the top by using {{infobox racing driver}}. If all goes well, I envision the specialized boxes as being simple "record/career section" boxes that just get embedded into the main racing driver box. what do you think? Frietjes (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about the idea, and will give it further consideration. A couple of points to note though:

The only reason the infoboxes were different widths in the "old version" of the Andy Priaulx article is because "Autosport British Competition Driver of the Year" is {{nowrap}}ped}} - for most drivers, the infoboxes are (deliberately) the same width - see Alex Zanardi as an example.
If the series infoboxes are embedded within {{Infobox racing driver}}, then the column widths for all the series will be the same (which may or may not be a good thing) - see John Surtees for an example where the column widths in his F1 and Le Mans infoboxes are quite different.
Even if the consensus ends up towards embedding and we end up moving all the "common stuff" into {{Infobox racing driver}}, I'd be tempted to leave the Nationality parameter in the F1 infobox (at least) in case the nationality under which the driver raced in a particular series differs from their "general nationality" (whatever that means) displayed at the top of the infobox (in F1, a driver races under an identified nationality; the same may be true for other series).

DH85868993 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the main reason why this came up is due to Infobox V8 Supercar driver closed as merge. I was trying to figure out how to merge it, and realized that the easiest thing to do would be to change it to something like Template:Infobox BTCC record. you make a good point about the label widths, and it's not entirely necessary that the label widths have to be the same. by embedding a borderless, distinct table, I can make the label widths different for each subsection. or, yet another option, would be to do what we did for the campaignboxes in {{infobox military conflict}}. in that case, the campaignboxes are visually distinct boxes, but they are attached to the bottom of the infobox (basically doing what is currently done with {{stack}} but the stacking is done by the template). in any event, perhaps the broader suggestion here is to reduce the redundancy between these boxes by putting the common information in this template and reducing the specific templates to "record/career" templates. how these are combined is a separate matter. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That merge is an interesting discussion - all of the people who understand how the motorsport driver infoboxes work were opposed and the merge comments weres from the people who knew nothing about motorsport. I wasn't aware of the discussion. I think it's a lousy idea to merge these driver infoboxes. They resulting merged infobox would be far too complicated to be useful. The problem is what accomplishments are important in some series are not important in others series. A top 3 (podium) finish is the mark of a high finish in some series (formula 1, motocross, off-road racing like TORC, and IndyCar). A top 10 finish is the mark of a good finish in NASCAR. Also, different feeder series are important in particular genres. That's why there's separate infoboxes were made. There is very little information that is common between the motorsport genres. Maybe driver name, hometown/country, image/size/caption, pole positions, and number of wins. Royal broil 04:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, with the exception of a few common fields, what's being proposed is not a merger of the existing single-series templates into {{Infobox racing driver}}, but the ability to embed instances of the existing single-series templates within {{Infobox racing driver}}, such that instead of multiple infoboxes, the reader sees a single infobox with multiple sections. For example, in Sébastien Bourdais' article you would have:

{{Infobox racing driver
|name               = Sébastien Bourdais
|image              = Bourdais.jpg
|caption            = Bourdais during his ChampCar days
|nationality        = {{flagicon|FRA}} [[France|French]]
|birth_date         = {{birth date and age|1979|2|28|df=y}}
|birth_place        = [[Le Mans]], [[France]]

| record template1  = 
  {{Infobox Champ Car driver|embed=yes
  |achievements       = 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 [[Champ Car|Champ Car World Series]] Champion<br />2002 [[International Formula 3000]] Champion<br />1999 [[French Formula Three Championship|French Formula Three]] Champion
  |awards             = 2003 [[CART FedEx Championship Series]] Rookie of the Year
  |years              = 2003–2007
  |Total_Champ_Races  = 73
  etc
  }}

| record template2  = 
  {{Infobox F1 driver|embed=yes
  | Years         = {{F1|2008}}–{{F1|2009}}
  | Team(s)       = [[Scuderia Toro Rosso]]
  | Races         = 27
  etc
  }}

| record template3  = 
  {{Infobox Le Mans driver|embed=yes
  | Image       = 
  | Years       = [[1999 24 Hours of Le Mans|1999]]–[[2002 24 Hours of Le Mans|2002]], [[2004 24 Hours of Le Mans|2004]], [[2007 24 Hours of Le Mans|2007]], [[2009 24 Hours of Le Mans|2009]]–[[2012 24 Hours of Le Mans|2012]]
  | Team(s)     = [[Larbre Compétition]], [[Pescarolo Sport]], [[Peugeot Sport]]
  etc
  }}
}}

Frietjes, please advise if I have mischaracterised your proposal. DH85868993 (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is exactly what I am saying. the idea is to not make a single template for all motor sports, but to move all the common information to this template, and to allow for the templates to be glued together as DH85868993 has illustrated. if the article is split into distinct sections for each sport, then they need not be glued together, but there is no reason to list the same information multiple times in each box. whatever works well for the particular article, but the option to glue them together is there. by the way, this module idea is not new, if you check the code for {{infobox person}} it has module fields, and {{infobox military person}} can be embedded in that template to add additional military information. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having given it some further thought, I think the best approach is to amend the individual series templates so that they can be embedded within {{Infobox racing driver}} (which has already been done), but not to remove the "common fields", so they can still be used as standalone infoboxes if desired (including locating different infoboxes in separate sections of an article). DH85868993 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sounds reasonable, although I think it's best if we don't repeat name/birth_date/death_date information. nationality is, of course, a different matter if that nationality is related to the particular series. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the name/birth_date/death_date fields from the single-series templates, then that obliges us to add {{Infobox racing driver}} to all the articles which currently have one of the single-series templates but don't have {{Infobox racing driver}} (which includes at least 500 F1 drivers) - that seems like a lot of work to me for not much benefit. Where articles currently have both {{Infobox racing driver}} and one or more single-series templates, the name/birth_date/death_date fields are not populated in the single-series templates, so the information is only displayed once (at least that's what is supposed to happen - on the odd occasion when I come across the same information displayed in multiple infoboxes, I remove it from all but the top one). DH85868993 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? It's done already. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is definitely a viable option. The only drawback of that approach is (1) it does easily lend itself to splitting the individual records into article sections, and (2) it requires the editor to use the appropriate field labels for the particular sport. on the positive side, it doesn't require maintaining distinct templates. another example is what has been done for {{infobox motorcycle rider}}, which is less flexible in terms of series ordering, but effectively achieves the same thing. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, we can't apply the template to all racing drivers. I was thinking of making a American motorsports driver template based off of that, excluding the fastest laps of course, but including former teams a driver has driven for.Gaeaman787 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeaman787, check the sample of my template. All fields are optional, so it adapts to most forms of motorsport. --NaBUru38 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one thing that your example demonstrates is that we should really do something about the year/title alignment issues in the "Championship titles" section. the only reliable way to fix this is to split the section into years1/title1, years2/title2, ... or to use "nowwrap", but nowrap could cause really wide boxes. another advantage of using years1/title1, years2/title2, ... is that is fixes wp:accessibility problems, since the information is aligned in a way that can be properly parsed by a screen reader. to see the issue, try to cut and paste the contents of the section, and you will see that you get all the years followed by all the titles, rather than year/title, year/title, ... of course, this is not a problem with just your example, but one that exists in most of these templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "Championship titles" section needs a new format. Your proposal can work. How about a simple box, there you write whatever you want? So you would write "2006 W Championship< br / > 2010 X Championship < br / > 2011 Y Championship". --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to previous series fields

There's a discussion in progress at WP:MOTOR regarding possible changes to the "previous series" fields of this infobox. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, a discussion which may also affect this template. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current series year

I think it is unhelpful for this template to automatically prepend the current year to the current series heading, for a couple of reasons:

it doesn't cater for seasons which span year boundaries, e.g. 2014-15 Formula E season (the infobox displays "2015 Formula E")
if an infobox is not updated for some time, it can present the incorrect information that a driver is competing in the current season, when in fact they are not.

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion makes more sense than current protocol. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the current year from the heading and added the word "career", for consistency with the F1, Le Mans, NASCAR and IndyCar infoboxes. DH85868993 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Driver Categorisation

Hi all,

How about to add the FIA Driver Category to categorised drivers, for example: Jeroen Bleekemolen, FIA Driver Category: Platinum (2017).

Full list here

Thoughts? Poppo154 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have advertised this discussion at the Motosport WikiProject. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that driver rankings are not static. Are you proposing that every ranking a driver holds in his career be added to the chart? Listing only his most recent ranking is a bit of WP:RECENTISM in my mind. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The359, is that much different than only including the driver's current team, rather than every one in every championship, as we do now? I don't know if we do need this or not, but I don't think WP:RECENTISM is a problem here. QueenCake (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a field "Racing licence" under a "xx series" field - just like in Template:Infobox WRC driver. In some cases a specific country's racing licence is necesssary to drive that certain series or the matter of age etc. Btw, sometimes the licence is also confused with nationality, which this field helps to avoid. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:Tooltip has been deprecated. All transclusions of {{tooltip}} on this template should be replaced by {{abbr}}. This change has already been carried out for the sandbox.

I also have an identical edit request at Template talk:Infobox writer § Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2019 e^πi (talk | contribs) 15:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just a minor MOS fix, per MOS:NUMERO could you change:

| label13 = Car no.

to

| label13 = Car {{abbr|No.|number}}

Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done, sort of. Since the left column has "Championships" and "Former teams" in it, there is plenty of room for "Car number" without a potentially confusing abbreviation that many readers will not understand. I changed "no." to "number". – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

RfC on making an exception to MOS:FLAG for motorsports

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC was rendered moot when MOS:FLAG was edited in the middle of the discussion. Which version editors have in mind is unclear and so no clear consensus is possible. Withdrawing question as original poster per WP:RFCCLOSE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the guidelines at MOS:FLAG be applied to motorsport topics and infoboxes, consistent with any other topic, generally only using flag icons "where the subject officially represents that country or nationality"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (motorsport flags)

[Blanking this comment, changed my mind, will re-vote below.] Herostratus (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Yes, only when formally representing that country, in lists. The rule says it clearly like ten times over, and it's sensible IMO. According to the rule MOS:SPORTFLAGS, you can also include flags in the person's infobox in their bio, but only of countries they've formally represented, and guess all-or-none is common sense. I don't think that's a great idea, but the rule does say you can. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The usage is already compliant with both FLAG and SPORTFLAG and no exceptions are being made, so the premise of this RfC is flawed. International motorsport is governed by a long-standing set of rules (ratified by the governing body) that determine the competitor's national representation, those competitors must be recognised by their national motorsport association and have a licence issued by that association, and both national identities and flags are widely used by both official and unofficial reliable sources when representing the sport to the general public. The use of national identities and flags is about as official as you can get in international motorsport. I know some people have difficulties in understanding that you don't need to be part of an exclusive team to represent a nation, but that's how it is in this sport. Pyrop e 20:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (RfC initiator) I haven't heard any workable arguments to allow flags in general templates like {{Infobox racing driver}} or {{Infobox motorcycle rider}} that wouldn't apply equally well to any and all sports, rendering MOS:SPORTFLAGS meaningless. Competitors are often hyped with national identity to appeal to fans, but that's as true in boxing or tennis as motorsports. If we're going to have MOS:FLAG at all, it should apply to motorsport the same as any other topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see no reason why motorsports should be an exception to the general rule. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes~~Follow the guideline, the guideline should be followed. If a driver represents a nation the flag should be there, if not it shouldn't (you'll notice Nikita Mazepin doesn't have a Russian flag). The grey line (and presumably what inspired this discussion) is which drivers are/aren't representing their nations. This is a case-by-case issue and can not be sloved by a blanket RfC.
SSSB (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear question Since racing drivers rarely, if ever, represent a nation in a meaningful sense (F1 drivers represent teams which are definitively not national [Hamilton races for Mercedes, not the UK], North American racing drivers (NASCAR, Indycar) represent something which is clearly not a national team, ...), I don't see what this RfC seeks to change. If this is to make more explicit the existing consensus regarding usage of flags, then yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do not merely represent their teams as you claim. Drivers and teams compete in separately scored championships and drivers represent their countries in the drivers' championships. Likewise, drivers and teams winning races are celebrated separately. Most importantly, representation does not only happen as part of a "national team". People can easily represent their nations individually as well.T v x1 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drivers "represent" themselves in the drivers' championship. The "representation" of the country is not in a meaningful way (nobody says "the UK won the last 4 F1 championships in a row"). I mean, yeah, sure, they play the anthem at the end of the podium ceremony, but it's purely ceremonial and not really the crux of the matter. An example where individuals represent a country in a meaningful way would be Test cricket or the Olympics or any other of a plethora of sports where individuals or teams represent their country in an obvious way. Not racing. In regards to the clarification request below, my direct opinion is that athletes should not have a flag unless they're formally representing their country, and that in the context of racing they are mostly not doing so, and that the guideline already says this, hence a "yes, follow the darn guideline as written". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, that’s the same problem that keeps recurring over and over again. On overly strict personal opinion of what formally representing means. Just because they don’t say “the UK won the last 4 championships” it doesn’t mean there is no formal representation in any way. You’ll still find countless of sources stating that a British driver won the last four championships. Representations can take many more forms than just competing with some formal “national team”. The whole saga surrounding the Russian drivers this season is clear cut proof that there is formal representation. As for the “darn guideline”, it has now transpired that its wording had recently been changed without any discussion. This entire RFC is flawed because of that. Is it incidents like that why each guideline has a “use common sense” warning on top. Mindlessly enforcing these things to the letter is plain stupid since even IP’s can change them to their whim. Guidelines are not laws and should not be treated as such.T v x1 16:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even the now (reverted?) guideline still reads the same thing, that is, that putting flags gives undue prominence to one field in particular. Whether "officially" or "actually" (FWIW, the best word would be "meaningfully" - someone playing cricket or football for England does represent the country "meaningfully", a racing driver: not really), F1 is not a discipline where driver nationality is really important. No point wasting our time, since it appears we fundamentally disagree on that.
No - The discussion below makes it clear why this would only add to confusion. It appears people would use this simply to demonstrate racers nationality at their own whim on when its appropriate, not when they are officially representing a country i.e. they are a nationally designated racer/racing team member. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, But only when formally representing their country. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the driver is formally representing their country a flag should be there. The rule is clear about that. Sea Ane (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Ane, BristolTreeHouse - the main problem is that they are NOT representing their countries - new users and IPs are falling into bad habits, encouraged by the breakaway F1 faction giving themselves dispensation to claim national teams. It's just decorative fancruft to riders, teams, circuit layouts, fastest laps from a group of regulars, often in the Far East. See this example, 15 May (without edit summary, editor new December 2020).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Save for the fact they ARE representing their countries. Representation does not only happen as part of a "national team". People can easily represent their nations individually as well. And I also do not appreciate your bad-faith characterization of a "breakaway F1 faction" There just is no such thing. Every article within WP:MOTOR dealing with an officially sanctioned international championship is dealt with in the exact same manner. F1 does not get a special treatment in any way.T v x1 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per above. ~ HAL333 23:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, Pyrope, 24.77.42.223, SSSB, BristolTreeHouse, Sea Ane. I would strongly suggest you reconsider your support !votes here. The initiator's actual intention seems to be the mass removal of flags from motorsports article through an overly strict application of what official representation involves. The discussion below clearly shows their belief that official representation does not exist in motorsports and the flags thus don't belong in their articles. Thus by stating your support for the RFC question you are actually stating that flags should be removed, and that does not match the rationales you have provided. On a side note it must admit that BristolTreeHouse and Sea Ane's wording of formally representing is much more suitable in general.T v x1 01:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying Tvx1, but I am not going to go down their underhand and disingenuous route of saying one thing and trying to do another. The problem is that we are not asking for an exemption, and the current usage of flagicons in motorsport articles fully complies with SPORTFLAG already. International motorsports drivers are just as officially representatives of their nations as are soccer players, Olympic sportspeople, or any of the other team sports that they say they have no problem with. Their viewpoint is not supported by the rules of the sport, the practical organizaion of the competitors' registrations and licencing, nor the representation of the sport in the vast majority of reliable sources. Pyrop e 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why it would be better to withdraw your support. This RFC is inherently flawed and it concluding with a support consensus will result in dramatic consequences.T v x1 02:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that I do support the application of SPORTFLAG to motorsport articles. This RfC was raised specifically to reinforce that SPORTFLAG and similar MoS guide principles should apply in international motorsport. They do, they are, and they have been for years. So why would I now argue that they don't? I am not going to debase this process by saying something I don't believe in just because the originator of this RfC plainly has another issue that they are trying to force through by misrepresenting the current consensus. Pyrop e 02:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying you should be against your principle. I’m saying that that this RFC is inherently flawed. There is a misapplication of the wording. There should really not be any consequence of this RFC. It should be withdrawn or declared invalid because of its flawed premise. I too agree that use of flags for motorsports is appropriate in case of formal representation. I do not agree however with the overly strict application of official representation. And that’s what this RFC actually intends to achieve. Limit the usage of the flags in motorsports to a very strict set of cases of an overly strict view of official representation. That’s why I don’t support this RFC’s question and I really think you should reconsider your stance to the RFC question. Bottom line, nothing needs to be newly applied because WP:MOTOR is already properly applying MOS:FLAGS.T v x1 03:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the last 15 years I have tried to believe that Wikipedia operates on logic, evidence and collegial discussion. I will not abandon that belief now. If this RfC results in "dramatic consequences" then I'm afraid that will, for me, be the final nail in the coffin for that set of fundamental principles. The logic and the evidence says that motorsport articles already comply with both FLAG and SPORTFLAG, and that Wikipedia's presentation of motorsport topics is entirely consistent with the manner in which the sport is presented in pretty much every reliable source out there. If this RfC states that RS are to be ignored then Wikipedia itself has a fundamental problem because that isn't an MoS guide, that is hard policy. I have already been withdrawing from Wikipedia over the last few years as the number of unpleasant editors has grown. I am tired of having to deal with people who would rather browbeat and threaten others rather than present reasonable argument in good faith supported by proper evidence. I am tired of people who think that any criticism of their discussion tactics is a "personal attack" and that they can themselves get away with attacking others by bluelink spamming in absence of evidence. If this topic is the hill that my Wikipedia career dies on then I will be sad, but I can't say I didn't see it coming. Pyrop e 03:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is very clear. It is also very clear that a yes consensus here doesn't give him the power to do anything as he must first determine that drivers in any individual series do not represent a country, which would require a completely new discussion. Dennis Bratland knows this because I pointed it out to him below.
SSSB (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to "The initiator's actual intention seems to be the mass removal of flags from motorsports articles...", well, I was bot-summoned and I get that that was his intention, and it's fine. It's a legit intention to have.

I guess car racing is a complicated middle ground. But still, we have to decide one way or the other, right? It's no good having articles doing it differently and fighting over it. Well, I was bot-summoned, and after considering the matter I say ditch the flags.

So, a couple things: the RfC is clear enough (it's not written perfectly, but I think everyone is getting what the question is). Don't ask for it to be quashed just because you're losing. It's not browbeating if people are just not agreeing with your point.

Second of all, it's just flags. It's not worth shitcanning a 15 year career over. It's not mission-critical to what we're doing. I get that if you work and sweat in a particular area you want your articles to look (what you think of as) pretty. It's reasonable that the person who does the work should get to decide non-critical things like layout and prettifications. You work and sweat and here's some bot-summoned mook telling you can't. It sucks, I get that.

But I guess there was an impasse so somebody made an RfC. When that happens you're going to get people like me dropping who isn't up who's doing the work and anything else about the politics here. Got the break the impasse somehow, and this is the usual method.

Anyway... I've had to swallow losing various wars that I felt strongly about. If feels bad, but at the end of the day you're going to lose some. There's nothing wrong with the process here. People just don't like flags that much and and want to use them as conservatively as reasonably possible in marginal cases rather than liberally. They may be dumb, but you can't make them change their minds, so don't worry about it too much. It's just business.

And genuinely sincere appreciation who for you guys who are building up this part of the Wikipedia while I'm off in my area. As a bot-summoned drop-in: thank you all. And I hope this doesn't affect anyone's enthusiasm for the work. Herostratus (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not losing anything, because this is not a battle. Secondly, people are not disagreeing with me either. Almost everyone has supported flags being used in motorsports articles. Just like I do. And that's where your claim that "People just don't like flags that much" falls through as well. It's actually just a handful who hate flags and go to no lengths to get rid of them. This whole guideline was imposed by a very small group without any community discussion let alone decision. They even boasted how controversial the application of the guideline would be. In reality, people actually like them very much and not just because they "look good" but because they are a handy instrument to make the parsing of information much easier. That's why all sports articles dealing with international competitions and their competitors have them. And that's why I raised this concern. The people who supported the RFC's question just misunderstood what they are supporting. They think they are supporting inclusion, or rather retaining, of the flags when they are in reality supporting deletion.T v x1 13:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a battle. Examine your emotions, you know it's true. And that's OK. We're humans. We want to keep the battling lowkey here, we don't always succeed 100%, and that's life. And both sides feel strongly I guess, it's not just one side.

So... alright, I'm not up on the politics of all this. I guess what I'd suggest is to advise the closer of the situation, where people are voting wrongly and opposite to what they think they are. Definitely something she should know. Put it as a top-level comment, bolded like a !vote, so she can see it. Mabye caps to get her attention. I have done this several times.

Alright. On consideration, maybe project members (if they're doing significant real work and not mostly fussing about formats) should get special consideration. Projects do and are allowed to set their own standards for formatting and naming. The ships project names their articles different from all other Wikipedia articles, and fine, whatever. So the motorsports project does not have to defer to the FLAGS rule if you really don't want. And people here should say "I don't like the flags and I think they detract from the look or mislead the reader" rather than "must be removed per FLAGS". Cogitate on WP:1Q... which we all use a lot, even if we don't know it. Nobody thinks "The flags are really good, and appropriate, help the reader and make the article better, but alas I must vote to delete per FLAGS". Good thing too because that'd be silly and robotic.

Whoever wins the RfC, write it down somewhere and point to the permalink for this discussion.

This is something I think you can ask the closer to consider: "Please count heads of project members/contributors, you will see that the project members want such-and-and-such and it's common to give significant deference to project members majority wishes on minor formatting stuff like this". You can ask. You need to tell the closer about the voters being maybe confused, but while you're there you can make this ask also I suppose.

Anyway, Our main goal here should be maximum gruntlement. Flags, shmags, that's secondary, and I don't much care. If editors are going to be demoralized over this and feel like quitting, we want to make that as few as possible. And a good editor who feels really really really strongly about the issue counts more than a bot-summoned mook like me. Because that good editor might quit, and I won't. There's something to be said for weighing passion on the scale as well as headcount and strength of argument. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this RFC should be withdrawn. It's based on a flawed understanding of the subject by the initiator. The insinuation that WP:MOTOR deals with this guideline differently in relation to articles on its competitions and competitors than other sports wikiprojects with similar articles is simply incorrect. The problem that is raised here just doesn't exist. In any case I cannot support the RFC question because of the initiator's overly strict interpretation of official representation.T v x1 01:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Go with the nation assigned to a driver by secondary sources, which should be the country they officially represent. I note that in the lengthy discussion below, the nominator has only ever used primary sources and WP:OR to back their position. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just reverted an undiscussed change in the guideline which is quoted in the question.
SSSB (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was something that didn't add up. I was a participant in the motorsports RFC years and I remember very well that there was no such strict clampdown on "official" representation as there was presented here. It turns out that just six months ago a user unilaterally changed that wording without any form of discussion regarding that. That changed wording just didn't reflect the actual spirit of this guideline. With the original wording I actually support the question but it will reiterate that it's moot because WP:MOTOR already applied the guideline with that wording. I, therefore, reiterate my suggestion that this RFC should be withdrawn.T v x1 14:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus, Pyrope, Dennis Bratland, RandomCanadian, BristolTreeHouse, Sea Ane, HAL333, and LaundryPizza03: based on this your yes/support votes are now ambiguous. Do you mean that motorsport articles to use flags in line with the guideline, or the more constricted, only when "officially representing"? Please clarify your votes accordingly. (I will also add a {{TB}} message at the IPs user page, as they cannot be reached with ping).
SSSB (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I hear you. I will change my vote to "no vote". Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting GO/NOGO, instead, here's my "vote": Defer to headcount of project contributors (if there's a significant majority either way), and/or strength of argument; ignore MOS:FLAG. I'm not voting because this question is too complicated and politically/emotionally fraught for bot-summoned randos like me to vote. I don't care a whole huge lot either way, really. These guys do and they're the ones doing the work. Just will point out that MOS:FLAG has little standing here if the members mostly don't want to use it, since by tradition and practice projects are fully allowed to override guidelines (MOS:FLAG is a guideline (=suggestion) way down on a big page) and often do, on minor matters of formatting. And of course this is all to the good. We're not ExxonMobile or any other top-down rule-bound organization here.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE explicitly say that MOS takes precedence over a few editors at a certain place at a certain time, and that this isn't a headcount. No one has given a reason yet why the assumption behind the text at MOS:FLAG (that using a flag puts undue emphasis on something which isn't really that fundamental, especially in cases like this) is wrong. Ergo, there's no convincing argument why ignoring that guideline would make the affected pages better, except for putting some more flagcruft on them. And aesthetics are subjective, so that's not a good reason. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there is a case of local consensus (save for the creation of this part of MOS itself) so that’s neither here nor there. Moreover, the text at MOS:FLAG does not state that flags do but that they can create undue emphasis. That’s an important difference. If used appropriately, they don’t. One flag in a large infobox does not create undue emphasis. And this isn’t an issue. Flags are included for informative and technical reasons.T v x1 19:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've spent the last four days heaping scorn on me because I said drivers aren't official representatives. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sorely disappointed if the closer says "Well, you guys must follow MOS:FLAG". It's not a matter of policy-based points, MOS:FLAG is a guideline. I would hope that that close would be more like "Well, putting aside MOS:FLAG for a moment - it is a data point, but not more than that - the X argument that the flags help/hinder the reader's comprehension, and/or and or mislead/inform/distract the reader, and/or make the page appearance nicer/uglier (minor point, but not nothing) seems stronger, and here's why...". Hopefully the closer will come in neutral and read and cogitate on the arguments. And also headcount of project contributors (or all voters, depends on closer's inclination) should matter. If the project members [or:all voters] are 9-2 in favor of X, that's a strong argument for X because it's kind of a matter of aesthetics which can't be proven "right" or "wrong" by logic. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (motorsport flags)

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here. As far as I know WP:MOTOR already applies that part of MOS.T v x1 18:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the change you are suggesting? Could you give us an example? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, currently the documentation for {{Infobox racing driver}} and {{Infobox motorcycle rider}} says to use {{flagicon}} for nationality. Various editors have insisted on this, regardless of what MOS:SPORTFLAG, saying for motorsports in general, it doesn't matter what race or series, riders get flags. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very least, it should be {{flagathlete}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it shouldn’t.T v x1 23:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we used {{flag}} in infoboxes? Looking at Lance Stroll we have {{flagicon|CAN}} Canada which is effectivly {{flag}} substitiued and without the wikilink.
    SSSB (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty I think we should convert to the newer {{flagg}} template.T v x1 02:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In some series (particularly world championships) competitors are considered representatives of their national sporting authorities and thus the usage of national flags is entirely appropriate. See the recent situation regarding Mazepin not being allowed to race in F1 under the Russian flag. There is a long standing convention here that keeps coming under attack by MOS purists under wholly ideological grounds. I don't like the fact that these nationalistic elements frequently make their way into sport but I don't try to deny their presence. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So a general ban on Russian competitors was issued for doping, relating to the 2014 Olympics. This includes FIM and Formula One. But then the Court of Arbitration for Sport makes a ruling that some Russian drivers can race as long as they don't have any Russian flags around.[1]
  And so the convoluted reasoning leads us to believe that F1 the same as the World Cup and the Olympics? F1 is a competition between official representatives of their respective countries?
  That wouldn't only apply to FIM, right? Every sport that honors the ban on Russia is now a national-team sport? So basically MOS:FLAG doesn't apply to sports at all? Every athlete gets a flag now. Help me out here because I don't follow. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be because you have set up a straw-man argument. International-level sport does not exclusively consist of country vs. country competition. Different sports operate in different ways but they may all recognise the WADA and CAS. If the WADA say that Russian athletes are banned from representing their country in international competition, then all sporting bodies that recognise WADA will have to enforce this. The FIA is one such body. Pyrope 21:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an attempt to argue that all motorsports, from speedboats to motocross trials to drag racing, are all based on nationality. Claiming to respect the MOS guidelines while in fact throwing them out the window. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all. I have specifically identified that I am talking about international motorsport governed by the FIA, and we are specifically discussing this infobox which isn't intended for use for the other sports you have cited. I don't know about the other bodies, but that might be something you want to look into and raise at the appropriate place. Pyrop e 21:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It says "This infobox is used for any drivers with significant current or recent participations outside Formula One, the WRC, or NASCAR". It's not only for FIA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You'll have to look up the North American series (do NASCAR and Indycar have similar regulations and cultural baggage?) but the vast majority of other motorsport worldwide is governed by the FIA. That being the case the normal application of FLAG and particularly SPORTFLAG is expected. See the different treatment of Jason Plato (who has competed at international level) and Ashley Sutton (who has not). Both are drivers currently competing in the same national level series governed by an FIA-member body. If what you are arguing is that the SPORTFLAG guide should be more strongly noted then go for it, but use of national flags within the vast majority of motorsport articles already complies. Pyrop e 21:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An editor who wants to stick a flag on an article needs to cite evidence the driver is an official representative of that country. All your handwaving amounts to nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        So in one sport, a non-governmental international body organises a major competition to which competitors are entered through accreditation by their respective international member organisation, and in another sport a non-governmental international body organises a major competition to which competitors are entered through accreditation by their respective international member organisation. In one you can see the valid reasoning that a competitor represents a nation, but in the other you deny that fact. Which is which? Pyrop e 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with HumanBodyPiloter5. Motorsport athletes do represent their national authorities, and even if they didn't nationality plays a pretty big role in motorsport anyway. I'm obviously talking from an F1 fan's perspective, but we hear no end of "this driver has achieved the 430th X from Y country)" and a driver's national flag is always highly visible. If the current practice is inconsistent with MOS – and I don't think it is – then it's the MOS that should be changed, no established practice.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. If any and all motorsport is the same as the Olympics and the World Cup, then MOS:FLAG can't be applied to any sports. We need to decide if we're going to apply the guideline or get rid of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - International motorsport is organised very much like the IOC or FIFA. So why would it not comply with SPORTFLAG? Pyrop e 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Motorsports aren't the same as the olympics or the world cup as drivers aren't (generally) selected for a national team. But that doesn't mean they aren't national representives. As a specific example, previous consensus says that flags are acceptable in Formula One articles for this reason.
    SSSB (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot. It's not super clear to me when a person is formally representing their country. If the Pan-American Games added car racing, yeah you'd be part of the team same as the gymnasts etc. Otherwise... Well, the Pan-American games has a slot for Guyana (I assume), so if only one athlete comes from there, he's the "team" for that country and gets a flag. So... by the same logic if the All-European Race Championship has a assigned slot(s) for Germany and a slot(s) for Italy etc, I guess they're their country's entry and so they get a flag.

If the All-European Race Championship is like "Every winner of a Grand Prix gets in" or "the ten racers that have the fastest speeds in time trial get in", or just "the ten racers we subjectively think are the best get invites" no, you're not representing a country. You're a random dude who got into the race.

Mnmh, I see "[[A1 Grand Prix[[ (A1GP) was a 'single make' open wheel auto racing series that ran from 2005 until 2009. It was unique in its field in that competitors solely represented their nation as opposed to themselves or a team, the usual format in most formula racing series." In that case they racers were representing a country. But it was 2005-2009 and it was "unique". So teams...

Hmmm, Formula One uses the term "team" a lot but it is not clear that they are referring to national teams? "This period featured teams managed by road-car manufacturers Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, and Maserati; all of which had competed before the war... Drivers from McLaren, Williams, Renault (formerly Benetton), and Ferrari, dubbed the "'Big Four', won every World Championship from 1984 to 2008. The teams won every Constructors' Championship from 1979 to 2008... Mercedes drivers won the championship for two years, before the team withdrew from all motorsport in the wake of the 1955 Le Mans disaster..." and so on. Does not sound like these "teams" are representing nations exactly? Sure the "Mercedes" team might be 100% Germans, racing cars made 100% in Germany, but so? No flags here should be used. Right?

If there's some occasional oddity about using a Russian flag or not, that can be explained in the article. I guess there was a deal with "We're not having any Russians, they cheat, but if you agree to not display your flag it's OK" (seems odd, but whatever), no that doesn't mean anyone in the race is formally representing their country. It just means they don't like people from Russia but if they obey their weird protocol it's OK. Doesn't mean anything, I guess. Doesn't sound like Mazepin has been sent by Russia or won a competition in Russia and won the right to represent Russia in some competitions.

(FWIW only flags on nations can be used (or sometimes subnations, or supernations such as "Unified Team" after the USSR fell apart, or "Europe" in worldwide contests). So a personal or city neutral flag can't be used, according the rule. In that case if you're using flags you'd have no flag for Mazepan I think. It depends of whether you think he's using the Russian flag or just a flag that happens to look just like the Russian flag, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well be thankful that in the case of international motorsport it isn't up to us to decide whether or not someone is representing their country! These facts are all strictly and carefully codified by the FIA and its members, and these regulations are available for free at their website. This applies both to each individual series (defining series that are exclusively national and those that are international) and the national identity of each driver. Pyrop e 21:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Is that in FIA's International Sporting Code somewhere? Where? Driver licenses are administered by national automobile clubs, but getting a license from a country's club doesn't make a driver an official representative of the country. Drivers have as little to do with others from the same national club as drivers from some other country. They're independent. If the US Hockey Team wins a medal, the whole team gets a medal. If a British driver wins a Grand Prix, that means nothing to the other British drivers.

Even if it was so, that would only apply to FIA, not to all racing drivers which is what this template is for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 7 of the document you just linked to (although that's the 2007 one), and Article 9.4 in the current 2021 code. As far as the sport is concerned drivers represent their nations. As stated above, you do not need to be part of a team to represent a country if that is simply not how things are done in that sport. Pyrop e 22:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here? It does not say drivers represent their nations. It says national clubs can issue licenses to drivers who are nationals of that country (9.3.1). It also says they can issue licenses to drivers from another country represented by FIA (9.3.2) and also nationals of countries not represented by FIA (9.3.5). Which I think means literally anybody? But 9.4.2 says whatever country issued you a license, when they hand out awards your nationality is whatever your passport says. So they really don't care: they just want you to pick a country and stick with it for the season. They don't mind if you pick another one between seasons. Just like (9.12) they don't care what you say your name is; just pick one and stick with it.

It does not say drivers represent their nations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing that despite having detailed rules governing which nationality they recognise, they don't then consider that driver to be representing that nation? Right, interesting. Wrong, but interesting. Other sports have similarly complex nationality rules. If they didn't care about the drivers' representative nationalities why would they have the rules? Pyrop e 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we put flags on all international sports? Is there any international competition that doesn't administer competitors in geographical divisions? You're saying MOS:SPORTFLAG is meaningless. Right? Can you point out any case where you couldn't put a flag icon in an infobox? Hence the point of this RfC: if this guideline doesn't apply to motorsport, it doesn't apply to anything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis has some different rules I think, although I'm not an expert. Perhaps talk to WP:TENNIS for some advice on that particular field of knowledge. There are probably others, go take a look. However, for international motorsport then, yes, competing at international level means that the competitor complies with SPORTFLAG. For those drivers who have not competed at international level (see the Plato vs. Sutton example I gave you up the page) then they wouldn't comply and flags shouldn't be used. It really is pretty straightforward. Far from making SPORTFLAG meaningless, the vast majority of motorsport articles actually already comply. Pyrop e 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More handwaving. You don't actually know, but you want everyone go just go along. Did you even look at any tennis articles? Milos Raonic? Kim Clijsters? You're saying MOS:SPORTFLAG is meaningless. Everybody gets a flag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And why shouldn’t Raonic and Clijsters get a flag? Both of them have actually represented their countries at the olympics and competitions such as the Davis Cup and the Fed Cup.T v x1 23:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. What is the point of MOS:SPORTFLAG? Does anyone not get a flag? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of SPORTFLAG is explained in SPORTFLAG. You accuse people who have provided hard evidence and examples of "handwaving", yet you haven't demonstrated where the problem lies. Can you show some examples of this infobox being used not in compliance with SPORTFLAG, then at least we would know what your issue is. Pyrop e 01:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited anything. Not one thing. I'm the one who did that work, and I demonstrated the FIA rules say do not say what you claim. You're claiming if FIA identifies which country a driver is from, that's good enough. That means anybody, in any sport, whose governing body asks what country you're from, gets a flag. Which is tantamount to saying MOS:FLAG doesn't apply to sports. I don't need to do any more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to demonstrate that the problem you are claiming to be solving actually exists. I have made specific reference to specific clauses of specific regulations, that codify and recognise the representative nationalities of drivers in international motorsport. These nationalities are an intrinsic part of the sport's history and how it is operated now, and are certainly a huge part of the wider public presentation of the sport. If the drivers do not represent their countries, why are there strict rules as to how the nationality is recognised? If the drivers do not represent their country why do they hoist flags and play national anthems at the end of every race (in exactly the same manner as for the Olympics and many others)? If the drivers do not represent their countries why do the official printed race results and the on-screen charts shown by the official broadcaster include national flagicons? Setting up a straw man horror situation of rampant flags for every sport is just not logical. Do these other hypothetical sports have codified nationality rules? Do they have explicit official recognition of nationalities by the governing body, both in official documents and in the presentation of that sport to the wider world? How are those sports for which you are content for flagicons to be used fundamentally different from international motorsport? Pyrop e 02:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Firstly, I only have the use of one hand presently (slooooow) and didn't know about this, haven't read it.) Why do they hoist flags? For the same purpose as why do they play March of the Toreadors (or whatever the proper name is), with barbaric connotations? Why do they spray fizzy drink (except in dry countries, perhaps). ANSWER: spectacle. Look at this infobox please. Bloody silly (of course, I've known about it for years). Got to fly, now.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there is consensus that using flags in some motorsports do follow MOS:FLAG. As I also said above which articles do/don't have national representation is a case by case basis as there are definetly some motorsports that don't have national represntation. It is up to the editors at Talk:2010 Isle of Man TT and the WT:WikiProject Motorcycle racing to justify these specific flags, though it does look like a violation to me. I am certainly not aware that you could compete as Northern Irish seperatly to English (both being UK)
SSSB (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see evidence that there is such a thing as a UK national team or Bulgarian national team in FIA or FIM or any motorsports. I'd like to see evidence that says "FIA drivers officially represent their country", the same way a FIFA World Cup team officially represents a country. If nationality is so deeply intrinsic to motorsport, why is it so hard to give a simple, clear citation that says that? Why are we always being asked to infer it instead of reading it in plain English in a reliable source? Normally when a Wikipedia editor can't produce a reliable source that says what they want it to, it's because they're violating WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. You do need to cite that the sky is blue.

There's a quota of Olympic slots and a UK athlete has to compete to get one of them. Any number of UK drivers can enter an FIM event, with no concern for how many other UK drivers there are. Valentino Rossi can ride for Honda then Yamaha then Ducati, yet he always rides for "Team Italy" because he has an Italian passport? MotoGP alternately showed you "official" [sic] results on your TV screen a US flag or a Texas flag for Colin Edwards, just because. It was spectacle, marketing. It's a tool to appeal to a fan demographic, not something that matters. Edwards and Rossi rode for the team of whatever constructor they signed to that season. If Ducati is owned by Audi, are their constructor wins credited to Team Italy or Team Germany? Why?

MOS:FLAG is written to draw a bright line between official representatives, such as elected leaders, military forces, and a narrowly-defined set of sports competitions. Not all sports, where nationality is often publicized but is otherwise irrelevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to realize that official representation is far broader than just competing with an official national team. Many sportspeople represent their nationality individually. Moreover the olympic way is not the only way to determine representation. And even within the Olympics there are myriads of ways to be selected depending on the sport. National trials isn’t the only used to select them you know, even within the same sport. Some countries use that, for others, especially small ones who’ll never get close to filling the nation quota, getting a result anywhere wich fullfills the international standard is sufficient. In the FIA organized championships the driver adhering to a global standard required to earn a licence from their national governing body for the competition in question is enough to be considered a representative of that nation. Your view of what representation means is far to limited and does not match the real world events at all.T v x1 20:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me any citation saying that an FIA license means you are an official representative of a country? Why can I find thousands of quality citations that verify "the sky is blue" or "water is wet" but none that say that?

According to the Olympic Charter,[2] the Olympic committee of a given country makes the decision on which of their athletes will fill the quota the IOC has given them. The decision does not, technically, rest with your government.[3] The general process is the country's Olympic committee chooses who is the best at their sport. They identify athletes that win.

FIFA World Cup qualification relies on continental and national clubs to select teams by competing in brackets to narrow them down -- by winning games --- to which countries will get to be in the world cup, represented by that country's one and only team. The FIA does not work like that.

To race in F1, first you need a license from a national auto club. That's a minimum requirement, certifying only that you have shown minimum ability to drive in an F1 event. It does not certify that you've won races. There's a huge contrast: for FIFA or the Olympics, what you do to get in is prove you're good; not only that, you have to prove you're the best. You don't have to be any good at all to get a license from your national auto club. You're really only proving that you can drive the car without killing somebody. It's not evidence that you are an elite driver, only evidence that you are a competent driver, but mostly that you have proven your age, name, given them a photo and attended a driving school.[4]

To actually compete at the highest level, you need to amass enough points, which means winning or at least placing or finishing in races. To do that, you need a team. And here is the real critical part: you need a constructor or privateer team to decide you are worth spending millions of dollars on. They do not give a fuck which country you're from. They care if you're any good. Then you have to get out there and burn their money. You're not competing against other drivers from your country to be an elite driver from your country. Regardless of what your passport says, if you get enough points to race in F1, you race in F1. You have not been chosen as one of the best from your particular country, unlike sports where you do officially represent a country.

After you've done that, and you're entered in an international race, the marketing guys will put flags all over things to hype up the fans. But your nationality had nothing to do with how you got there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to this RfC? The RfC asks "Should mororsport articles only use flags where subject officially represents that country or nationality?" (Not direct quote). "do racing drivers (officially) represent a country or nationality" is a completely separate question.
SSSB (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right. The problem is that defenders of flags on racing articles shift at their convenience between "racing is different; don't hold it to the same standard as other sports" and "racing isn't different and all motorsports competitors are official representatives of their country". Valentino Rossi is an official representative of Italy. Mercedes-Benz is an official representative of Germany. Chrysler is an official representative of... uh...? the Netherlands, mostly? Benelli is an official representative of China. Mini represents Germany. That's official.

Marketers use nationalism as a tool to appeal to consumers, or de-emphasize it when it's not helpful. Do these corporations and products have a nationality?

Anyway, you can't deal with the second question until you get past the first. So the first step is this RfC. A bunch of people are making off-topic arguments, which I don't mind. But you're' right: they're mostly off-topic.

It's important to notice that they make arguments that apply to all motorsports, F1, FIA, MotoGP, Supersport and Superbike motorcycles, and then as evidence point only one category of that, like F1 or FIA. If MOS:FLAG does apply to all motorsports, proving that F1 drivers are the same as World Cup teams is relevant only to F1, not all motorsports.

Can I ask again: Why am I the only one citing any sources? I keep being told "you need to understand", "this is how it is", "you need to realize" but nobody cites anything as a reason why I should do that. If you must have a certain level of expertise to comprehend the sources, then it's a primary source. We need a secondary source, not a Wikipedia editor's opinions, to tell us what it means. Cite that secondary source.

Somebody. Please cite a source. If you can't, admit you're just arguing your personal opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the problems we have here is confusion as to when "unofficial representation" becomes "official". I am personally of the belief that racing drivers racing under a flag (whether it is just hype or because the national anthem is played when they win or whatever reason) they are representing their nation. But I concede, grudingly as I don't agree with the policy, that they are not official representives.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth do you concede that? The whole Mazipin (and other’s alike) sage is pure evidence that they are official representatives. And because they are official representatives he is not allowed to represent Russia because of the sanctions imposed. This person simply has an overly strict view of what representation mean and how the “right” is earned that just does not match reality. In motorsports the right is earned by earning a licence for the competition in question from the national governing body. And what policy are you even talking about? The only thing we’re discussing here is a guideline.T v x1 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking in general. Natrually, there are series which are exceptions. There is a difference between racing under a flag, and doing so in an official capacity.
SSSB (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my stance that competitors in official international FIA championships do in an official capacity, not just "under a flag". The whole Russians-in-FIA championships saga proves that beyond any doubt. Moreover, Dennis Bratland's multiple lectures are littered with mistakes. Firstly, they are the one advocating a change here so the WP:BURDEN of proving their right lies with them, not us. And so far they brought no evidence whatsoever that racing drivers are not official representatives in any way in any situation. The only thing they have posted here is a personal synthesis based on an inherently flawed comparison with other sports and competitions who simply use their own independent means of determining representation. Just because Olympics do it one way that doesn't make it the one and only universal way. Secondly, they keep clinging to the false thought that the right of representation can only, and only, be earned by qualifying for a "national team" through either a general position in a national ranking or a direct position in a qualifying event. This characterization of the selection process is just false. It's something you see people from the USA frequently do. They think that just because they have national trials in America, that's how the whole world does it too. Well, wrong. America is not the world. America is a gigantic country where they generally have much more competitors wanting to compete at the Olympics than there are places available for that country. There's a myriad of small or less financially strong countries where they do not have that many sportspeople competing at a high level. I myself live in a small country called Belgium and I frequently see it happen that a competitor from my country competes at the Olympics, especially in the case of the Winter Olympics, through simply having met the international minimum competence standard and being the only Belgian active in that particular discipline. National trials just don't exist here. Thirdly, their claim on how the selection in team competitions work only tells part of the story. Sure, in some the national teams take part in a tournament that doubles as Olympic qualifying. The selection of the players who may compete for those national teams is a purely subjective one. There are no official criteria there. The players do not have to get a specific result in a club competition or something. Often the selection of the players is heavily influenced by commercial reasons. Fourthly, their claim that only the very best compete at the Olympics is also wrong. I have even seen a swimmer compete at the Olympics without ever having set foot in an Olympic swimming pool before. The only reason he was there was for commercial reasons as they wanted to promote the sport in countries like his. And there are also cases like Michael "Eddie the Eagle" Edwards who was only allowed to compete because he met the minimum competence standard and was the only British competitor in his discipline. You see, Dennis Bratland's claims are just littered with falsehoods.T v x1 16:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller countries have smaller pools of qualified athletes. Irrelevant. If you're the only curler in Belgium, you're also the best curler in Belgium. If there are two curlers and the IOC gave Belgium only one slot, the Belgians have to pick one of them. To represent Belgium. Who picks drivers to represent Belgium in motorsports? I've cited the FIA rules and it's clear the local auto clubs do not make any such decisions. A Belgian driver could be licensed by a US auto club. If they have a Belgian passport, they "represent" [sic] Belgium in F1. It makes no difference how many drivers in a race are Belgian. They could all hold Belgian passports, with licenses from countries around the globe, racing for teams from any country. I cited the FIA rules. Read them. Nationality is of no consequence in any motorsports. FIA puts flags on your TV screen to tell you who to cheer for.

If I've claimed any falsehoods, why don't you simply provide evidence of that? You have the nerve to cite WP:BURDEN? Read it. You want to add flag icons to articles, and that means you must provide a citation that directly supports the criterion that the subject is an official representative. You want to violate WP:AGF and accuse me of falsehoods? OK. Cite that. Show us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided detailed descriptions of the falsehoods. I’m not going to repeat myself. There is another one in your last post. You keep insisting that is only the best who are selected for olympics. That’s just not true. Commercial reasons play a big part too. Wildcards are also used in some sports. But most importantly for a considerable part of Olympic history the very best professional sportspeople were not even allowed to compete. It used to be amateurs only. In some sports, they still do not use the top class player. Football, for instance, is an U23 competition and as a result many of the world’s best footballers simply cannot compete at an Olympic event at that given time they are among best. You just have a very clouded view of the subject. More to the subject, representation is a much broader concept than you think. This isn’t limited at all to being picked “for a national team”. There does not need to be a formal selection procedure for representation to exist. In some sports this just works individually and the governing body just de facto consideres– all competitors in their universally recognized –international championships as official representatives. The whole saga concerning the Russians in the FIA’s world championships is more than enough evidence. The resultant FIA’s RAF designation is not in any way different to IAAF’s ANA or the IOC’s OAR. For the rest, the WP:BURDEN lies quite patently with you because you are advocating a change. I don’t want to add anything anywhere. I don’t even understand why you claimed I do. The flags are already there and have always been. It rather seems like you want to get rid of them. And that despite Motorsports not being treated as an exception in any way. In fact, it would actually become an exception to all other sports if motorsports’ flags would be removed. Lastly, I have not violated WP:AGF. I have not accused you of lying in an attempt to mislead. I have merely pointed that you made false, meaning incorrect, claims and clearly so you have a limited knowledge of the subject.T v x1 00:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What you say makes no impression on me because you cite no evidence. You pretend to have greater knowlege but everyone knows bluster and bluffing when they see it. How many thousands of self-styled "experts" have been laughed off of Wikipedia when they try the same old pushy bragging and bluffing?

If you were a real expert you could easily educate us and banish our "limited knowledge", using the store of evidence a real expert would have at their fingertips. What you are is a guy clinging to an opinion that you're unwilling to change. An opinion you're incapable of defending with verifiable facts.

Flags on World Cup or Olympics articles don't bother me because they're supported by verifiable evidence that meets the standard at MOS:FLAG. It says official representative. Show me verifiable evidence and I will happily accept motorsports along with those other topics. My opinion can easily be changed. Cite evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have on many occasions, and each time you twist your position to demand yet more, different, and specific proofs. As already stated, Article 9.4 of the FIA International Sporting Code very clearly describes the official recognition of a competitor's representative nationality. The fact that it doesn't use the precise phraseology that you demand is neither here nor there. Not only that, but the traditions and procedures of the sport clearly demonstrate that the drivers represent specific nationalities, as does the FIA's adherence to the rules of WADA and CAS, all of which have been cited previously. You can choose to maintain your ostrich pose for whatever reasin you choose, but continual denial of straightforward evidence (without ever providing an hard evidence that the drivers don't represent their particular nationality, which is interesting) starts to look like you have an axe to grind rather than a genuine intention to improve this encyclopedia. Pyrop e 01:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am here I will repeat my question from further up (that you have conspicuously ignored): in one sport, a non-governmental international body organises a major competition to which competitors are entered through accreditation by their respective international member organisation, and in another sport a non-governmental international body organises a major competition to which competitors are entered through accreditation by their respective international member organisation. In one you can see the valid reasoning that a competitor represents a nation, but in the other you deny that fact. Which is which? Pyrop e 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean I cite no evidence? I and others have cited plentiful of evidence. You just keep ignoring it. This is really getting out of hand now. You really need to change your attitude. You act like you have some authority which you patently do not have. You don’t own wikipedia so it’s no up to you to accept or not accept flags. We do not have justify anything to you. Wikipedia is a community project and works on community consensus. And the community already decide a long time ago that the usage of flags in motorsports articles is appropriate.T v x1 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC

Maybe I'm just thick, OK? Would you please give me the citation that directly supports the MOS:FLAG criterion that "the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams"? I'm sorry I missed it. Is there a URL? Title, date, author, chapter? I want to re-read the words I apparently failed to notice that say they officially represent their nationality. Show me the citation, and identify for me where that text that says it is in the citation, and my opinion will change. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That citation has been provided. The MoS guide phrasing indicates 'including but not exclusively', it does not state that only military and national sports teams are covered. This is a very good example of the disingenuous behaviour I have noted above. Pyrop e 02:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, As far as I can see, you have provided three sources, two of which are irrelevant and the third which supports the opposing view, but you have attempt to make a convoluted arguement that doesn't hold under any level of scrutiny. Your arguement, therefore, has zero basis in fact.
SSSB (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has become entirely moot now because the "official" status was never actually a requirement for this guideline to begin with. The wording was changed without any discussion a short while ago.T v x1 14:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? No rule should ever be changed (significantly) without discussion. Roll back per WP:BRD on principle. I have done this on principle even when I agree with the change on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now these guys are rewritng the rules rather than admit they can't support their opinions with verifiable facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring the wording that had actually been agreed upon, rather than the wording one editor imposed, undiscused. You say we haven't support are argument, ~~which is just hypocrisy, because~~ you haven't either.
SSSB (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely dishonest. I quoted the MOS in the RfC question, and these editors repeatedly doubled down, insisting that official representative was the standard and motorsports meets that standard. You're pretending it was different wording all along. The truth is motorsports can't meet the "official" criterion and motorsports editors want a looser standard. That was my point! Instead of admitting I was right about that you call me a hypocrite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dishonest at all. Look at the page history, in November someone changed the wording without discussion or consensus. I believe that I can show that the use of flags in Formula One article does satisfy the guidelines, and will argue my case in full when that discussion opens. But you keep arguing for something that is outside of the scope of this RfC.
SSSB (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are in reality just as much a victim as the rest here. The wording based on which you started this RFC was not the long-standing wording all the sports Wikiprojects, including WP:MOTOR, based themselves on when all applying MOS:FLAGS years ago. As such WP:MOTOR was never behaving differently at all. The strict official nature of representation was never required by this guideline. It was one rogue editor who added that a while ago without any form of discussion. Given that many consensuses had already been formed based on that warning, that change to a site-wide guideline was utterly unacceptable. SSSB only reverted that unacceptable change. It's sad that you were misled like this, but it's the simple reality. It would really serve you well now to withdraw this sorry mess that this RFC has become instead of trying to get everyone disagreeing with you topic-banned.T v x1 20:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SSSB, I'm arguing the literal question asked in the RfC: Should the guidelines at MOS:FLAG be applied to motorsport topics and infoboxes, consistent with any other topic, generally only using flag icons "where the subject officially represents that country or nationality"?

I don't see any hope of dealing with you in good faith. Pyrope and Tvx1 threw themselves passionately into the opinion that drivers are official representatives until you came along and moved the goal post. None of you are going to admit it. Look at Tvx1 pretending they meant something else entirely all along. I don't know how to deal with someone who is that delusional.

Regardless of who is at fault (spoiler: you are at fault), the RfC is skunked. You edited the MOS after several editors replied to the survey and there was considerable discussion based on the original wording. There's no way anybody will be able to identify consensus when we don't know if the editors are supporting the wording from the beginning of the RfC or the new wording you came along and threw in from left field. It's a waste of everyone's time to continue.

Per WP:RFCCLOSE I'm removing the {{rfc}}. If there are unresolved questions they'll have to be dealt with elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{{prev series years}}} and {{{prev series}}} cannot line up

At Jamie Chadwick the series "Formula Regional European" is too long to display on a single line, so it breaks after the second word. This means the word "European" lines up with the dates for the next series, "F3 Asian Championship", while the latter lines up with the dates for "MRF Challenge Formula 2000" which is likewise too long. This approach with a pair of lists, where each entry can be of any length, can never line up properly. The template should instead accept {{{prev series N years}}} and {{{prev series N}}} parameters and insert them as additional infobox rows. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst noting that how the contents of the infobox display depends upon the platform/browser being used (for example, the rows in Jamie Chadwick's infobox align correctly on my desktop computer), I agree that we need a better solution that works on all platforms/browsers. As I did nearly 10 years ago. :-) The same also applies to the {{{titles}}} and {{{title years}}} parameters. I suspect the trickiest bit will be migrating the existing articles to use the new parameters. But that doesn't have to be done immediately, and we could possibly/probably get a bot to assist. DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied below with a solution that I think will work, though it renders a bit weird on the mobile wikipedia. You can check the /testcases page to view the changes I made/proposed. Kaictl (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quickest solution would be to use {{nowrap}} template with the longest name, so it wouldn't break. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Hi there! Just wondering if someone could add a label for a driver's "Current car"? I thought it was a bit odd there were labels for both car number and the engine (which is only part of the car), but not the car itself. I'm brand new to wikipedia editing so I have no idea how to do it myself (or if I'm even allowed.) I tried playing around with the sandbox page earlier and realized I was only editing the documentation part of the page instead of the actual parameters themselves, so I think it's best if I leave it to someone else. Thanks for your help! RibenaDrinker (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Update/secondary {{{prev series}}}, {{{titles}}}, {{{awards}}}

Right now we're just using an un-bulleted list for each of the key/value pairs, but they're not actually lined up as a table or anything, just two lists side-by-side. This doesn't look good when the rendering makes one column too small for the series name or list of years, as it will go over multiple lines instead of just one, breaking the link between year and series. I propose utilizing the Medal template, as is already set up in the medaltemplates section of the current template.

As a quick example, I was looking at the Doriane Pin page, and she has one series, the Formula 4 South East Asia Championship, that was taking up 2 lines instead of one, causing problems for the years being shifted up/down.

The solution I saw noted was to add an   element to the list or an extra <br>, but that would break if the user only has it show on one line, and other things could be split if the window is small enough.

We already have a pretty easy solution to this, and that's to make the year/years be a part of each element, instead of a pair of lists. See User:Kaictl/sandbox for an example of this with both modes. The first "Previous series" section is the normal prev series and prev series years rendering, while the one below is a test using the medaltemplates section.

By adopting something like prev series table as an argument similar to medaltemplates we would be able to consistently and properly render the years/series on any device or setting. This would also not break any current pages, as it would be separate from the prev series. See a the conversation two topics above for other users running into this problem.

This would also add more options for these previous series, such as showing their finishing positions in those series.

Kaictl (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put an idea in the /testcase for this page. Kaictl (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an issue that needs looking into. However, this solution ends up generating a large amount of white space, where the event name ends up with, frankly, excessive padding. Is there a way around this? SSSB (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an issue with the mobile sites rendering of the medals template, the spacing is about the same in the desktop site. I can look at creating a custom template for this. Kaictl (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]