Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Glynn Geddie

Just a heads up to say that Porsche Carrera Cup Great Britain driver Glynn Geddie has been nominated for deletion here. Feel free to air your views at the discussion. - mspete93 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The point was brought up during the above discussion that WP:MOTOR does not define for itself what constitutes a notable driver, although WP:ATHLETE has a definition which can be applied quite generously towrads motor racing. The above topic Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Obscure series results tables in driver articles highlights part of the problem, but does not attempt to find a solution. Is it worth endorsing or expanding the defintion offered by WP:ATHLETE, or is it worthwhile establishing a new definition? --Falcadore (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really - the absolute test of notability is "Can we write an article of a reasonable standard about this guy, and reference everything with reliable third-party sources?" A driver in the higher national championships (e.g. BTCC & DTM) or 'senior' feeder championships (GP2, sometimes in F3, rarely at lower series) should have enough written about them to allow an article to be written with info about them, rather than just their results. There are exceptions, Tom Cave competed at a level which would not normally see a driver have an article, yet the media attention was such that enough copy was written to allow one. I don't think we need some arbitrary rule deciding who can and can't have an article based on their level of competition, a case-by-case decision is the best way. AlexJ (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with case-by-case decisions is that we won't have any written guidelines to quote. - mspete93 11:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - WP:N. Keywords are independent, i.e. not an official driver site or the official series site, and significant, i.e. not just a bunch of race results. Onus is on the creator of the article to provide proof of this coverage, by providing in-line citations in the article. AlexJ (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It was proved at the deletion discussion that seemingly independant sources can be found for many racing drivers who do proabably not deserve articles. It was also pointed out that WP:N says "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article". I would say that we should adapt the definition offered by WP:ATHLETE for our own purposes, because defining a professional racing driver is a difficult job. I support case-by-case judgements, so long as we can actually get articles deleted that way, without having any written guidelines supporting it. They could be made to be fairly vague in order to allow for case-by-case decisions. At the moment, many racing drivers can be supported by the general notability guidelines concerning media coverage, and WP:ATHLETE is quite difficult to use in a motor racing context. - mspete93 11:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources brought up at the deletion discussion were one of two things: a bunch of Geddie's race results hacked together into an article or an article about the series/race that mentioned Geddie. None of them could be considered as giving him the significant coverage required. AlexJ (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
For my part, I think that all the guidelines we require already exist, the trouble is that they aren't in the same place and that they require a bit of specialist knowledge to be able to apply them to motor racing drivers. I think it would be useful if we could put something together that brings all these aspects together. As the above discussion point out there are two major conditions that a driver needs to fulfill:
1) That they participate at a fully-professional level, or the highest amateur level.
2) That they have received significant coverage in independent sources.
As things stand these could be invoked in an either/or way, which leaves some gaping loopholes through which non-notable drivers drop, and which then mean there is quite a bit of arguing that needs to be made each and every time an AfD discussion arises. I think we need to make a set of explicit guidelines that state that both conditions need to be met. In addition, I think defining "fully-professional", "highest amateur level", "significant coverage" and "independent sources" with specific motorsport examples and caveats would be very useful. This could seriously speed things up in cases like the recurring Jordan Anderson pages. Pyrope 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
After a little more digging, this turned up at WP:NSPORT. I think it is pretty fair as it is laid out presently and we can certainly use it for now. I still think we should aim for something bespoke, clear, and (importantly) easy to find, sometime in the near future. Pyrope 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ian Court

"Just a heads up to say that driver Ian Court has been nominated for deletion here. Feel free to air your views at the discussion." (c) motorsportpete93 Cybervoron (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems like insignificant outdated advertisement article. Cybervoron (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're doing this to annoy me as it was my first article, but the truth is I was considering deleting it myself anyway. Bit of inexperience there. - mspete93 20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So fix it or nominate it for deletion? What is the purpose of bringing this up here? The359 (Talk) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think everything is clear, this article we can only nominate for deletion. Cybervoron (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The only reason he's brought it up is an attack on me, because I've removed his results tables from driver articles as concluded above. The only link to that article is on my user page, so that's how he's found it. I was considering deleting it anyway seeing as I'm talking about clamping down on un-notable drivers (see above). It was a mistake creating it, when I had only just joined Wikipedia. I was extra cautious with this year's new red-link BTCC drivers, not creating them until after the entry list was confirmed. I'll tag it for deletion when I get the chance. - mspete93 23:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You spit on my work, I'm on your - all is fair. Cybervoron (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes the nominated driver appears to fail notability, however the pettiness of the debate is disappointing. It is not about spitting on anyone's work, it is about readability of the end product. Even in the harshest of debates edittors concerned at WP:Motor has always had the best interests of the articles at heart. I would hope Cybervoron that this attitude will discontinue. Revenge for its own sake is pointless as the end goal is almost always selfish in nature. --Falcadore (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If motorsportpete93 and you cared about the quality of articles, you all must first be processed table in the text, and then removed it. As a result, loss of information in tabular form and in text. Cybervoron (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of not caring about articles will get you nowhere. I suggest you drop the attitude immediately if you wish to continue to contribute to this project. The359 (Talk) 04:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A chart does not constitute quality. You do understand the difference between quality and quantity? --Falcadore (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I ever understood difference between them. Do you understood that in some cases quality of article depends on quantity? In the current state article looks like the next candidate for deletion. WP:DEL#Reason: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Cybervoron (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Then raise it at the relevant talk page. --Falcadore (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quick reaction. More complaints about the article I have none. Cybervoron (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And just to back what Falcadore is saying, no one here owns any articles. What was deleted was not "your work". When you submit information to Wikipedia, you allow other users to edit it, even if you may not agree with their edits. If you have a problem with the article that MotorsportPete happened to create, then I suggest you actually do something constructive with it rather than bringing your revenge bullshit here.
If you want to continue to take revenge on another editor, you may be given a time out from your editing of Wikipedia. The359 (Talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to take revenge on him, breaking the rules. I really think that nobody need this article. Also Ian Court hasn't links from other articles. Cybervoron (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Then, rather than bringing your petty pissing contest to WP:MOTOR, nominate it for deletion with a valid reasoning. You are complaining about an article without actually doing anything to or for the article. And I'm pretty certain you just admitted to "taking your revenge on him", by claiming you were bringing this up only because it was MotorsportPete's article. Hence you've already "broken the rules". The359 (Talk) 04:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the suitability criteria for motorsport in this defintion to be significantly flawed and seemingly geared exclusively towards a North American audience. I would recommend rejecting this as a definition until its significantly re-written. --Falcadore (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the North American examples used, what are the major flaws and how would you fix them? Criticism is great, so long as it is constructive. Pyrope 01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at the relevant Sports notability page. I was partway through writing a suggestion, but since prompted, I'll post the incomplete version and add to it when time permits.
As per a suggestion by Drdisque at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Motorsport which went ...Perhaps we should have three levels like Hockey does - "top-level" series, where all drivers are notable, "mid-level" series (most of the series I just listed) where only race winners or champions are notable, and "low level" series which bestow no notability to their drivers... I propose to compile the list of the first two tiers of the three tier structure.
The first tier should only be series in which there are series of fully professional drivers and teams for major internationally reknown championships with widespread television and media coverage. Most ladder open wheel and pro-am sports car/touring car series would not included.
The four FIA World Championships are natural inclusions, as are the top tier FIM World Championships
Other obvious inclusions
What other series are there in which being able to compete full-time warrants its drivers notability? Major Touring Car series:
But does anything else? Beyond this we start to get into the realm sitting between professional and amateur. So, suggest we subdivide by major class. --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Open wheel

A good case could be made for GP2 (and by extension International Formula 3000 and European Formula 2 that preceeded it), but I'd be interested whether it is believed a driver who spends a season, maybe not even a whole season in GP2 and never finishes inside the top 15 race positions - is that driver really sufficiently notable for a profile? What other categories falls into this position? Formula Renault 3.5 World Series. Formula 3 Euroseries, Superleague Formula, A1 Grand Prix.

Beyond this, open wheel series drivers I believe would need to at least be race winners, if not series champions to justify articles. --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As all (or most) drivers in these series already have articles, I would suggest allowing them in. What about the current Formula Two? Although the quality of the grid has slipped, it recieved a fair amount of coverage last year. Some may also suggest GP3. - mspete93 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Current wikipedia editting trends should not be used as a guide as there seems to be a group of non-notable drivers having articles created. This is to establish a criteria, rather than to... potentially perpetuate existing errors. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Formula Master is far too low level. The champion might be worthy of an article, at a push, but certainly not all of the drivers. Readro (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What did you mean by "too low level"? Lap time almost the same like in Formula 3 Euroseries. Cybervoron (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
...which is also too low level. Readro (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We should not use lap times or performance as proof of how good a series is. And to Falcadore on the point about current editing trends, I certainly agree. For example, one user last year decided that all Euroseries 3000 drivers and teams needed articles, which was essentially an Italian series using the Mk1 A1 GP cars. - mspete93 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My main proof is Eurosport coverage, Euroseries 3000 does not have proportional. Cybervoron (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Star Mazda and Formula BMW USA gets coverage in the United States. That doesn't mean they deserve articles for every driver. Being on television is not a deciding factor. The359 (Talk) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not proportional, Eurosport available in three continents. Yes, this is not a deciding factor, but it makes a series more notable than Formula BMW USA and Star Mazda. Cybervoron (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The coverage size of Eurosport does not matter here. The point is that being on television does not make something notable. Hell, if you search hard enough you can find destructiuon derby on television... The359 (Talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very glad that you are interested in destruction derby, but i talk about another. As described below, it is indicator of general media interest. And Eurosport is a reliable source. Cybervoron (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm with The359 et al on this. Plenty of times specialist sports channels like Eurosport have space fillers that they broadcast to fill in time and cost little or no money. Heck, in Canada, right now, as I type these words, one of our national sports channels is broadcasting high school lacrosse. Seriously. Should we therefore have articles on each and every member of the teams? Merely setting up a couple of cameras ad pumping the feed to the world doesn't constitute significant coverage. How many hours of summary, analysis and "colour" coverage do they show in addition to the actual races? Pyrope 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling that you are completely unfamiliar with the topic of dispute. IFM got on Eurosport, not because of money, but as part of a package of support races WTCC. The same can be said about the support races of Formula 1. Channels decide for themselves what they put on the air. They may also transfer the rights to broadcast another channel like a GP2 and Porsche Supercup. Cybervoron (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
And there you have said it yourself. A package of support races. The entire basis of notability according to your own words is that they support WTCC. The notability therefore belongs to the WTCC and that without WTCC they would not be notable! That is pretty much what precisely is meant by inherently notable. --Falcadore (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, mostly it is a merit WTCC, but we can not guess as to make it if the series had no support. Series has some self notability. For example this series is more known than SEAT León Eurocup that also covered by Eurosport and is part of WTCC weekend. It is also very similar to the Formula 3 Euroseries and ADAC Volkswagen Polo Cup. Cybervoron (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This discussion, it should be remembered, is about establishing an alternative definition to WP:ATHLETE. This is not about series notability directly but the notability of a series drivers. This is about establishing the notability of drivers. Drivers who race in a series whose main claim to notability is that the race as a support category of the WTCC becomes an extroadinarily tennuous link. There is two to three degrees of separation from the source of notability. And just being on television for even the most tennuous of reasons does not make all, or even some of its drivers sufficiently notable. If you can't break into the top ten race positions then the chances that you are going to be mentioned on the TV telecast apart from holding up traffic while being lapped or crashing is very low. In those instances the television is not making you notable, it can't be used as a basis for a notability claim. I've appeared on television in several countries and my voice has been heard in several countries on television, but I'm not notable enough for an article. For television to used as justification you would have to be appearing a lot on that television coverage. A race winner, or someone fighting for a race win, beyond that, seriously, no. --Falcadore (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The best deciding factors here should be quality of drivers and general media interest. - mspete93 17:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have the money to buy a slot on Eurosport you can get you series on TV. The ability to buy spaces on TV does not make you notable. --Falcadore (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Bring at least one such example, only without the absurd examples like the destruction derby and high school lacrosse, we talk about open wheel racing. And only those that have coverage of more than one continent. Cybervoron (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the main issue here is whether F2, GP3 and F3 Euro Series (which are all on a similar level in terms of driver quality and media interest) are notable enough to be top-line series, behind Superleague, GP2 and FR3.5, but ahead of IFM, Auto GP and any other F3 series. Personally, I would say yes they are. - mspete93 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem I have with GP3, it is a support series for GP2, which in turn is a support series of Formula 1. GP3 is a support series of a support series. Going on the article at GP3 Series the article itself does an extremely poor job of convincing me the series is notable at all. Additionally as a brand new series it has no reputation. Maybe it will be at some later point a top line series, it certainly isn't now. Formula 3 Euroseries has a well established reputation, but it is also a support series. If a driver races in F3 Euroseries but spends the entire series finishing in 12th, 15th, 17th race positions and similar are they really automatically notable? Isn't the function of series like GP3, F3 Euroseries and F2 to promote young talent in order that they may gain notability by going on and being successful somewhere else? Isn't notability then based on being successful in these series rather than merely occupying a space on the grid? I really do not think drivers racing in F2, GP3 and Euro F3 are notable simply because they are in it. I'd find if those drivers have been a series champion at a lower level it would be more notable than being one of the gang at this level. --Falcadore (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair points, particularly on GP3. However, in that case we need to consider Formula Renault 3.5 Series. It may not be a support series, but I'm not sure whether participation in it makes a driver any more notable than drivers in those other series. Problem is, you could then call into question the relative warrants of Superleague and GP2. Superleague is relatively OK, as it is not really a young driver series like F2 or GP3. GP2 meanwhile is far more notable than any other feeder series, thanks to the fact it has directly contributed to half of the F1 grid, and this has been well documented in the media. - mspete93 11:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Falcadore, see what happens when you try to determine notability on a series by series basis? We need objective criteria first, THEN we decide whether a series makes it. Pyrope 12:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And what would this objective criteria be exactly? We have said World Championships, but then you'd need some criteria to allow GP2 and the like in or out. - mspete93 12:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I predicted this would happen too remember. I didn't recall you offerring any objective criteria so I tried. --Falcadore (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely notability, as it does everywhere else in Wikipedia, depends on being "'noticed' to a significant degree by the world at large.", meaning that drivers will have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And in that case, the answer is mostly no for everyone outside F1, NASCAR, Le Mans and Indycar, and is still no for some people within those series. Some individuals in lower series do get mainstream coverage, usually if they're women† (Step forward Katherine Legge) or from a nation or ethnic background that hasn't had a driver in high level motorsport before (...and Lewis Hamilton), or have done something particularly unusual to fund their drive (...and Justin Wilson).
Really then, we should only have a fraction of the number of driver articles that we do have. The logic that suggests that because a series is notable, all drivers within it are notable is arguably faulty.
I suggest that our only criteria needs to be: has the driver in question received significant coverage (i.e. outside race reportage) in the relevant media? We would need to agree a suitable definition of 'significant coverage' and 'relevant media' of course.
(†Don't shoot the messenger, I've never been able to see any reason other than inherent sexism why more women don't compete on an equal basis in motorsport, however as things stand women drivers are unusual and do tend to get more media coverage).4u1e (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, significant coverage is the key - not the series that they compete in. I can easily find significant coverage for champions in many other types of motorsport than the few listed at the top. Some defunct classes were key national series and should be allowed - like USAC Stock Car. Members in notable halls of fame is another group of notable individuals. The commonality is that there is significant coverage. I am concerned that AFD commentors will blindly look at the list of series only. Some national champions in lower series should be allowed to have an article if someone wants to spend the time to do it right and meet the general notability standards. Royalbroil 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
AFD assessments should be made on a case-by-case basis for all drivers. However, the series need to be there to give an idea to potential authors of who is notable enough. For example, there is one red link driver in the 2010 Auto GP season. A user may feel that they want to create the page for Giuseppe de Pasquale, but then find that a driver cannot have an article simply for being an Auto GP driver. It has been discussed elsewhere on this page that establishing what racing drivers meet the general notability guidelines is a potentially tricky job, thus the three-tier system would work well as a guideline, but not a rule. - mspete93 14:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the series can only be a very rough guideline. There are some F1 drivers who, to be honest, we should struggle to really justify notability for (perhaps because they only entered one race, failed to qualify and nothing else has ever been written about them), while there have been drivers who, even while in, say, Formula Renault, have had significant coverage and could justify an article. So, generally speaking (with a Euro-centric hat on) an F1 driver is very likely notable, a GP2 driver may well be notable and an F3 driver is most likely not notable, you really do need to look at each case to see whether an article is justified. IMHO, of course. ;) 4u1e (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Flacadore, I did suggest a way forward. In a couple of different places. My suggestion was that we try and define the standard notability criteria (independant sources, significant coverage, etc.) in motorsport terms, and try to also find other motorsport-specific criteria that we could use as objective measures of notability, not just for drivers but for races, series, teams, you name it. You and I both agree on many points, so if you don't mind I'll bullet point a few that I feel are fairly uncontroversial. I'll be wrong, of course, but these are what I see as starting points:
  • Independent sources are those not connected with the subject in any way. For drivers this obviously includes personal and promotional websites, but I'd also include media controlled by anyone with a financial interest in the race series within which they compete (e.g. series sanctioning body, series promotors, individual race tracks, etc.)
  • Significant coverage is dependent on two factors: the manner of coverage, and the source of that coverage.
  • The sources in turn divide (in increasing degree of notability) into specialist news media, specialist editorial media, and general media. Some may cross boundaries (e.g. Autosport carries both specialist news and longer journalistic articles) but these are the broadest of categories (and I'm trying not to make this too complex). Which sources we put in each category needs to be discussed, and how these categories apply to print media, broadcast media, internet media, and so on.
  • In terms of the manner of the coverage the broad categories would seem to be (again in increasing notability): results, news reportage, and editorial content.
  • To bring these together, I'd suggest that a news report in a specialist source (e.g. Team X announces the signing of driver Y to compete in series Z) is not notable for team, driver or series. However, a simple results table published in a major daily newspaper might be sufficiant to prove notability for the race (and by extension for the series, but not the drivers or teams). To pluck an example from the discussion above, a simple race broadcast on a specialist sports channel (with cameras rolling only from flag to flag) isn't notable, but similar coverage on a general interest, national free-to-air channel might well be notable (see the BBC's rubbish coverage of the BTCC in the late 1990s). For a specialist channel to form notable content you'd need editorial content (e.g. a mid-week summary program, or a lengthy race build up program discussing that race specifically).
  • For other criteria I'd include participation in any World Championship. Merely gaining an entry to these series is a significant achievement, and even for amateurs you can definitely invoke the "participation at the highest level" clause of WP:ATHLETE.
  • For myself I'd also be happy with extending this to include participation in any continental championship that is the top tier of it's kind on that continent, which would include NASCAR, Indycar, ETCC, DTM, the European Championship (pre-1939), Tasman, CanAm, and so on. I'm sure others will disagree, but I'd be happy with that.
  • National-level championships are in themselves notable, but do not confer notability on their participants automatically. I'll not go further than that, save to say that national champions and multiple race winners should qualify under the standard notability criteria.
  • The "exceptions". Yes, there are always going to be those odd races, the one-offs and the ancient and venerable. For example Le Mans, the Indy 500, Targa Florio, Mille Miglia etc. These races are certainly the highest form of amateur competition and so again, mere participation is sufficient to confer notability.
These are just a few of the things the way I see them. I know people will disagree, so fire away. I also know that this possibly wasn't the best place to put this comment, but it seemed to flow from the previous discussions so I left it here. Pyrope 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In general terms I agree with all of the above (we may disagree when we get to some of the specifics, but the principle looks extremely sound). I can see the above (laid out in a table?) becoming the basis of separate sets of notability guidelines for drivers, teams and series. 4u1e (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly even some sort of logic tree, if we want to get flash! lol Pyrope 17:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What you have laid out above seems to make sense to me. Bjmullan (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The bit I had problems with your suggestion previously was it had centred around a definition of prizemoney that was so broad-based and so far from every other time I'd had seen prizemoney used as a term that it was no longer an objective definition of prizemoney.
This is considerably better thought out and I have no real problems at all. --Falcadore (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree in principle with most items on the list and this is a great step in the right direction. I do disagree that the series' official website or a circuit on the tour - I think it should count toward the multiple independent sources. For NASCAR I would add the Sprint Cup Series, Nationwide Series, and Camping World Truck Series which have widely been accepted in past AFDs. Racing in NASCAR's other lower series, even the national touring series such as their Whelen Modified Tour generally are not considered enough (by themself) to confer notability. I think it's time to come up with a list of series, in a new section, where we can determine consensus about particular series. Royalbroil 03:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd bring this to people's attention again before it gets hidden in the archives. Are we ready to implement the above suggestion yet, or were we waiting for whatever happened at the general discussion regarding sports notability? I just didn't want this good suggestion to disappear. - mspete93 18:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm making a point that has already been made somewhere above but bear in mind that there are many more championships now than in the 1960s. A driver could be notable for winning a few F3 races in the 1960s when the only European championships of any note were F1, F2 and F3. That doesn't mean every race winner in every current series meets the same threshold - unless you are saying that there are more notable racing drivers in 2010 than there were in 1965. For series that have stayed near the bottom of the ladder over all those years, how do you compare - for example, a top FF1600 driver in 1970 or 1971 would have a significantly higher profile than a top FF16000 driver in 2010 simply because there are now more drivers operating in categories above FF1600. Allen Brown (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sports car

Even the Le Mans 24 Hour is difficult here because of the large number of strictly amateur teams that do still appear. Beyond World GT1 it's difficult for me to see any Sports car series automatically suggests profiles for all drivers. Certainly a lot of drivers in ALMS, Grand Am, FIA GT would qualify but by the time you get to Euro GT3, probably not many. --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of World Championships, I would say that drivers who participate in the former World Sportscar Championship are not inherently notable, since it too mixed many professional and amateur drivers. I would however say that many of these drivers are notable, but there is certainly no inherent notability because someone participated in one or a few WSC races. The359 (Talk) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Falcadore that a driver can have an article just for competing in World GT1, but not for any other sports car series. I would suggest we do not talk too much about defunct series until we have agreed guidelines for current series. - mspete93 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maserati in motorsport

I'd like to alert the project to the recent creation of Maserati in motorsport. It currently contains only information about Maserati's Formula One activities (the article was originally created as Maserati in Formula One and then moved to Maserati in motorsport following a discussion at WP:F1) - feel free to add details of Maserati's other motorsport activities. DH85868993 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-born deleted article

An twice deleted article (by an Admin as unencyclodpedic content) falling under our purview has been re-created, with a perhaps intentional mis-spelling to avoid connection with the previous versions. For those interested may wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Motorsport Calendary‎. --Falcadore (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:1976 Grand Prix

I notice the recent creation of Category:1976 Grand Prix, for national Grands Prix held in 1976. Are we in favour of the creation of such categories? If so, I would recommend renaming to "Category:1976 Grands Prix" or "Category: 1976 national Grands Prix" (or maybe even put in something about "auto racing", since other sports also have "Grand Prix" events). DH85868993 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What does this provide that Category:1976 Formula One race reports doesn't? Unless I'm missing something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It also includes non-F1 national Grands Prix, such as 1976 Indonesian Grand Prix, 1976 New Zealand Grand Prix, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport competitions by year of establishment

I notice the recent creation of Category:Motorsport competitions by year of establishment. Project members may care to populate the various year subcategories (creating new ones as required). DH85868993 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A touch of overcategorisation isn't it? The end result of all the sub-categories will likely only have one or two entries for each year. Personally adding these events/series to Category:Recurring sporting events by year of establishment would be preferable. --Falcadore (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. I have proposed the cats be merged. Please add any comments you may have to the merge discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Low quality IP edits

This IP 92.26.107.107 (talk) has been adding edits that I consider to be of dubious value to motor sports articles this morning. I feel that I would appear to be stalking him if I edit any more of his articles and seek opinions from this project on the merit of the edits concerned. Britmax (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up a handful of fancruft edits is hardly stalking. A lot of what they have added is of dubious merit, but even that material they have added that may be useful seems to often be in the wrong place (we do not need an exegesis on Bruno Senna's helmet in his page's lead, for example). New editors often need a little guidance, so don't be afraid to intervene, just as long as you also leave a message on their talk page explaining things to them. Pyrope 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Le Mans images on Commons

Hi, on Commons there are many images of sports cars, which are sorted in categories of Le Mans races, although these images were not taken at these Le Mans races and the cars did not compete there, especially in categories of Le Mans races before 2005 (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:24_Hours_of_Le_Mans?uselang=de). In my opinion there should only be sorted images that were taken at these Le Mans races in the category that belongs to the race. Otherwise you would also have to categorize images of sports cars at ALMS or something else in categories of more recent Le Mans races. What do you think about this? --79.246.164.72 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, those categories are incorrect. The359 (Talk) 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NHRA

I am just wondering if the NHRA falls in the interest of this project. If it does it needs some serious work. I have been working on some related article off and on for about a month now. Some of the articles related to the tracks are about one paragraph. A few even consist of just two or three sentences. Just as it is with the tracks, several key drivers in the series are missing. I just created a page for Brandon Bernstein yesterday. I figured the son of "The King of Speed" Kenny Bernstein would at least have something. If any one is interested in working on that just go over to the NHRA page and start working. These is tons of stuff to do. --Pdesil (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've done most of the articles that are in good shape including Eddie Hill's Good Article. Frankly, there isn't much interest. I have a bunch of pictures on my To Do list of the Top 50 drivers of all time. My flickr friend who photographed them is willing to work with me to potentially use other images. Royalbroil 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It really a shame that the sport is only popular in the US. Which is why I guess there is a lack of interest. Anyways despite the lack of interest, I am still going to put my time into it. By the way Royalbroil thanks for getting the article I created about Tim Steele up to standards and nominated for DYK. --Pdesil (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares but I have made a some recent changes to the NHRA Page. I created a separate article for the NHRA Full Throttle Drag Racing Series. If you have spent hours working on that page don't be alarmed. I used the copy-paste theory to create the new page so all original work remains. More work still needs to be done for the new page particularly obtaining a logo for the Full Throttle Series. Some more formatting. But I have better organized the NHRA for now. If you are interested in helping out please feel free to. As I have mentioned before the NHRA is a very disorganized series of articles compared to most series. This is plenty of work to be done... Thanks--Pdesil (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GP3 Series round reports

Why feeder series for a feeder series couldn't had reports? Cybervoron (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think you've made the point yourself, it is just a feeder series for a feeder series. It just isn't notable enough. I really don't want to upset you again (you do some really good work on single-seater articles), which is why I told you before you created them. - mspete93 09:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The other option would be including them on the GP2 race report pages in the same sort of way as Supersport results are included on World Superbike report pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be a better solution. - mspete93 10:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Cybervoron (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Note a complete lack of report description. Will these articles be all stats and no content? --Falcadore (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ideally written content is preferred as well as the tabulated data but it's just a question of getting the job done. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why we need GP3 results. They're basically an equivilant of World Series by Renault. Their relation to GP2 does not make it notable enough to deserve results. Too low down the ladder. The359 (Talk) 11:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Performance wise, its worse that World Series by Renault. More like F3 Euro Series I think. - mspete93 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Performance wise, yes, but this is a completely new series, third bill in the programme, with drivers who couldn't find a drive in any of the various F3 championships, WS by Renault and Formula 2. We're not going to find out how important GP3 is after one race, or even after one year. It has to become an actual alternative to F3 Euroseries, British F3, FIA Formula 2 and World Series by Renault, and we don't have race reports for these other ones either. --Pc13 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would argue it has a better quality driver lineup than F2 or any of the F3 series, but that's not the point. It is still not notable enough to deserve reports. - mspete93 16:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer win grouping?

Category:Chevrolet NASCAR race wins was recently created. I'm wondering if there is precedent for grouping race wins by manufacturer in other forms of motorsport like Formula One. There are problems that I see with this structure: 1) Some manufacturers have won so much that the category is completely unmanageable. There are 30 something NASCAR Cup races in a season and there were up to 70 in the 1960s/early 1970s. Multiply by three series now and the total is around 100 events per year. 2) it seems like vanity / promotion that isn't a useful way to group articles. 3) Why would we want to group an event using a category based on winner? Thoughts? Royalbroil 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also Category:Chrysler NASCAR race wins and Category:Toyota NASCAR race wins. Unprecedented AFAIK and unnecessary IMO. DH85868993 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a topic which should most probably be raised on the NASCAR sub-project page rather than here. Some NASCAR edittors probably would not frequent this page.
For what it's worth, I'd support a delete. --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it should stay. --Nascar1996 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Overcategorization. Next we'll have Category:Dale Earnhardt race wins. The359 (Talk) 04:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Some people may want to know exactly how many wins Chevrolet has won between 1949 and the present day. Some goes for Toyota, Ford, Dodge, Pontiac, and all the other brands. By categorizing the exact wins each manufacturer has got, you instill some pride into the brand name. GVnayR (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about instilling pride. And if people want to know how mant races have been won by a brand, that can easily be added to an article, not a category. The number of pages in the category would also not match the number of wins, unless you think we have articles on every NASCAR race since 1949 (we don't). The359 (Talk) 08:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
CfD has begun. --Falcadore (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Decades in motorsport

I've just become aware of the following articles: 1950s in motorsport, 1960s in motorsport, 1970s in motorsport, 1980s in motorsport. They could probably use some expansion. DH85868993 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. Are they even necessary? If they shouldn't be deleted then they should certainly be massively improved. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
While a popular method of dividing years there is no basis within the sport of sub-division in this manner. It arbitrary and unneccessary to my mind. --Falcadore (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion is fine with me. DH85868993 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD has begun. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 45 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

2004 World Series by Nissan season

Why the article needs additional point table? [1] Cybervoron (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no additional point table. A point table is where I can count the points won in each race? What you can see in the "Driver standings" are no points or standings, but the placements? With the the wrong(?) total points. I also wonder why the additional race info was deleted from the calendar? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, i fix total points. There is particular style of the season articles, tables that show the points won in each race and additional race info are not used in the most of the articles, excluding some articles created long ago. Cybervoron (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a talk page for the article. --Falcadore (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not only for this page. Isn't the most important table for ALL season articles a point table? I think almost every good book about motorsport shows a point table? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A results table is far more useful than a points table, I feel. Having both is unnecessary. - mspete93 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a question what is more useful? A result table and a point table are two different things... But I have learnt that nobody is interested and that it is very easy to destroy and delete... :-) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Destruction and deletion have nothing to do with the opinions voiced here. The table is redundant, nothing more. The359 (Talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If this series is important enough for this level of statistics, then it needs more than four sentences of description. --Falcadore (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Grand Prix before Formula One

I have proposed that Category:Grand Prix before Formula One be renamed as Category:Pre-Formula One Grands Prix. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was that the category was renamed as Category:Pre-World Championship Grands Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Expatriate categories

An editor has been adding categories "Xian expatriates in Y" to a lot of motorsport driver articles, to reflect the fact that those drivers have, at one time or another, lived in foreign countries. This means in some cases that a driver will have three or more new categories which, I believe, are not particularly relevant. There is a short disucssion here at the editor's talk page, please weigh in with your opinions (either there or here) and maybe we can establish a consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally useless categories IMO.  Dr. Loosmark  20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Likewise. DH85868993 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant trivia in my opinion. Royalbroil 03:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OVERCAT. Delete. And while at it, I've noticed a large number of "Fooians of Booian descent", which largely appear to be based on the surname a person has rather than their famialial history. Anyone else seen this? --Falcadore (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A favour please

Could someone please have a look at this edit? The IP user has made accusations of my behavior and rather than trigger an edit war, I though I'd ask for a third opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Regional motorsport categories

There is currently some inconsistency in the categorisation of "regional" motorsport categories. Specifically:

I'm wondering if we need something like Category:Motorsport by region? Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Using Autosport as an external reference.

I'm sure we have all used Autosport as a external reference but are people aware that access to archive news over 30 days old is only available to AUTOSPORT.com PLUS subscribers. That would mean that Autosport fails the WP:ELREG test and should be avoided. What do other thing? Bjmullan (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELREG applies only 'Outside of citations' - when used as a citation, it's no different to using a book or a magazine. AlexJ (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ford as British

Another one of these again. User is consistantly changing the flag icon of Ford from the United States to United Kingdom on List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners, because his belief that the Ford GT40, Ford's only winning car, was built in Britain, is therefore a British car, and therefore the manufacturer is British. I know this has been covered before with Ford-Cosworth in F1 but I could not find the relevant discussion, so I'm bringing this here again so that this edit warring can end. The359 (Talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone will agree that the entry was from FMC of Detroit and therefore a USA entry. If we took this logic into F1 all the teams bar Ferrari would be labelled British! Bjmullan (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I know this is bleeding obvious, but User talk:Andyj288 continues to revert the article to say British and is unwaivered in his belief that he is correct. Some more convincing would be helpful as this is growing tiresome. The359 (Talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've obviously American (U.S.) - Detroit. Royalbroil 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy reeks of troll. Step away from the burning wreckage of his "logic" and move on. Pyrope 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I looked over the situation and just gave a final warning. Let me know if this happens again and I'll block. I'm sure we all have better things to do than waste time on an edit war troll. Royalbroil 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prix race reports

In the past week, several Grand Prix race reports have been created which need upgrading to our standard format: 1947 French Grand Prix, 1948 Monaco Grand Prix, 1948 Swiss Grand Prix, 1948 French Grand Prix, 1949 French Grand Prix. I'll get to them eventually, but I thought I'd mention them here in case anyone else felt like helping out. DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh crapola, they just copied and pasted the GEL Motorsport pages... Better get cracking I guess. Pyrope 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All done now. Thanks to those who helped out. DH85868993 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I have nominated Category:Expatriate racecar drivers in the United States for deletion - please have your say. I believe the individual racing series categories cover this more than adequately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle Grand Prix seasons

An editor is making major changes to the Motorcycle Grand Prix seasons articles. While they are a step in the right direction, he is deleting valuable information such as in 1999 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. Whereas before, the tables included categories for the teams as well as the bikes used, such as Red Bull-Yamaha WCM YZR500, now it lists only one category for Bike with a link leading to neither the team or the bike but, rather the main article about the manufacturer. I believe this reduction of information is contrary to Wikipedia's intent. I tried writing a message to the editor's talk page, but he didn't respond. Would there be a consensus to reintegrate this information into the seasons articles? I think it's important information given the changes in motorcycles used in the last ten years.Orsoni (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycle_racing#Motorcycle_Grand_Prix_seasons. DH85868993 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If it's possible, I think that information shoule be moved in a separate "participants" table, like we do in the latest season articles. Asendoh (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't two tables make an article more ungainly? It would seem that having all the information in one table would make an article more reader friendly. If the final standings table includes all the participants, it would make a participants table redundant. I think the current Formula 1 season articles have become so large as to be a bit ungainly, making a reader hunt and search for information.Orsoni (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but when I look at a standings table, I look just for the results. I think that a table it's good when it's minimal. I don't think that crowding it with everything about a rider it's a good idea. Take a look at the table on this article: it contains not only the team, but also the full bike denomination (not just the constructor) and the racing number: I don't think we need something similar. Asendoh (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Asendoh. I find the format used in the latest season article better, with just name, manufacturer, and results in the standings table and manufacturer, motorcycle, rider number etc... in a separate participants table. --Chris Ssk talk 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Asendoh that, the 2001 season article gives the proper information regarding the TEAM and the BIKE, whereas the 1999 article only provides a link to the manufacturer article, which provides manufacturing information, but very little racing information.Orsoni (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a glaring omission in the new edits to the 1998 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season and 2000 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. There is no links to the race bikes used such as Honda NSR500 and Yamaha YZR500. I will add them if no one else does.Orsoni (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula One season

An editor has added to this already long article what seems to be a chart of what the drivers standings would have been under the old points system. As I feel this is of little value I reverted the change with the simple edit summary, Why?.

I would like the project's view of my actions and the value of this information to the article. Britmax (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be deleted. It's a fantasy pointscore - original research, absolutely no basis for inclusion. --Falcadore (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is this brought up here instead of at WikiProject Formula One? I see a bunch of questions more appropriately addressed in child WikiProjects. This question is specific to that WikiProject just like a NASCAR topic should be brought up at WikiProject NASCAR (for example). Royalbroil 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A few season link templates have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 15. Comments welcome. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Satellite team

Please contribute to this article. I don't know much about the issue. We also need links where appropriate. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

...then why did you create it? The359 (Talk) 05:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Think this would be better served as a redirect to an entry on the List of motorsport terminology article. --Falcadore (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport Importance ratings

Anyone else noticed an IP user User:190.135.73.50 is redefining the importance levels of many motorsport articles without consultation? Is this right? --Falcadore (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity descent category

User:Roslagen is adding ethnicity descent categories to many athletes including a very large collection of racing drivers, purely by the origin of the driver's family name (for example anyone called O'Brien is given an assumed Irish descendancy) with no actual evidence provided. Should we be reverting such assumed guesswork? --Falcadore (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If they are guesses, then the answer should be obbvious. Yes, revert unsourced guesswork. The359 (Talk) 05:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion may assist with evaluation of mindset. --Falcadore (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport Venues

While working on the Auto Club Speedway I noticed many track pages are inconsistent in content and structure. I have some ideas about some standards for track pages. I'm not sure if this would fall under WP Motorsport or WP Event Venues, I'd say here as there would be more support. Perhaps the creation of a Motorsports Venue task force would help with carrying out the project. I'd certainly be willing to get things rolling. Any Thoughts?Lvi56 (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Some example of what you are thinking about would be good. Forced standardisation can be destructive if it isn't handled sensitively. Pyrope 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've outlined my ideas as a basic structure in my Sandbox Lvi56 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The records table is very NASCAR-centric. While lap records belong to a circuit (eg Indianapolis Motor Speedway), a race record is probably better placed in the article on the race in question (eg Indianapolis 500), bearing in mind that most races change lengths for various reasons many times over the life of a race (eg Italian Grand Prix). Outright lap record is also included in the circuit's infobox, but multi-disciplined lap record tables ain't such a bad thing (eg Eastern Creek Raceway).
Might not get a lot of support for a Venue Task force, organised co-operative editting in Wikipedia appears to be falling out of fashion. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree on race records falling under the race articles. multi-disciplined lap records table seems a little better, especially for tracks that run many racing series. Would also have to consider that many tracks have multiple layouts. Lvi56 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Spa-Francorchamps shows how a multitude layout can work in the template. Usually only one layout will be the main and/or current layout. Concentrate on that one rather than the minuatae of each individual lap record. --Falcadore (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Good idea for multi-layouts and reconfigurations. At first I was looking mainly into articles of NASCAR tracks, and perhaps superspeedway pages would require a bit different treatment than road course/circuits, I have seen they differ in many ways. Lvi56 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Motorsport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Bull Ring vs. Österreichring

As the circuit formerly known as the Österreichring has just being confirmed to host a DTM race next year I thought it would be a good time to bring this subject up. The circuit is listed on the DTM calender as the Red Bull Ring so I was wondering whether it would be better to move the Österreichring page to the Red Bull Ring page as this is what it is now called. I have created a redirect from the Red Bull Ring page, as you will have noticed, just for now until we come to a decision.

On the Red Bull Ring page we can just list the history of the circuit under its time as the Österreichring and the A1-ring. Anyway I'll leave it up to you. Personally I support the move to Red Bull Ring with a redirect for Österreichring. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest moving it. The359 (Talk) 16:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You can move it, it should be uncontroversial. Please make sure that you move it with the move button, not copy the text and paste it. Copy and paste moves make work for administrators and believe me they're not much fun to clean up to get the article's history right. Royalbroil 04:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD notification

Greetings Motorsport Wikiproject, please note that Alice Powell, who would appear to fall under this project's purview, is currently up for deletion. Specifically, as nominator, my issue is that the subject appears to fail WP:ATHLETE#Motorsports, considering she races in an amateur series (failing criteria #1) and comes nowhere close to any of the remaining criteria. Please feel free to leave your opinions either way on the article. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Super GT

Is someone able to undo some of the vandal page movings relating to Super GT and its templates etc caused by User:Cloudfinalfantasy? --Falcadore (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Couple of move discussions relating to this vandalism for the Project's interest.
See also: Talk:Super GT World Championship#Requested move
See also: Template talk:Super GT World Championship courses#Requested move --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Please report the accounts or IPs of this editor straight to WP:AIV (and revert all edits). Watchlisting the target articles is highly recommended. Prolog (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching these a few days now since finding this vandalism, he seems persistant. The359 (Talk) 22:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Our Super GT World Champion friend is back... Refer Belle Isle Park Raceway and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 November 3#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FBelle Isle Park Raceway --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

FYI, Lotus Mark IX has been proposed for deletion (not by me). DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The PROD has been removed, but there's been a further development. The content of Lotus Mark X has been merged into both Lotus Mark VIII and Lotus Mark IX. At Talk:Lotus Mark X, an editor has asked whether this was appropriate, or whether the content should have only been merged into one of the two articles (and if so, which one). I wonder if perhaps all three articles should be merged (which would solve the above issue), if they are essentially successive developments of the same design. Any thoughts? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As has a bunch of articles for strange reasons recently, Lotus 41, Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit for example being amongst others. I think also, the entire series of Bowin race cars, Bowin P3, Bowin P4, Bowin P6, Bowin P8 and Oval Raceway and the categories Category:Chevrolet video games and Category:Honda video games. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 seasons

Some edittors are getting ahead of themselves with 2011 season pages. I note in particular 2011 GP3 Series season has a very long unsourced list of teams without drivers. Twenty-something teams and a grand total of four drivers listed.

Some of these 2011 season articles are quite premature and should be deleted/redirected to main articles for the moment. I have no problem with any series with an announced calendar, but beyond that, it seems Crystall Ball is being stretched. --Falcadore (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Formula Four

FYI, Formula Four (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. Note, this is a different article from Formula 4. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So it should be, looking it it's companion article 2011 Formula Four season, which has also been prodded, it appears to very much be a complete fabrication. Both articles should be Speedied. --Falcadore (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitting the traps

While I'm by no means expert, can somebody confirm if either the Road Runners or SCTA were actually drag racing, & not land speed racing, organizations? As I recall, Wally was a land speed racer first... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Migs Paneda Asian F3 driver

The article on Filipino driver Migs Paneda has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2008, which is the current focus month for the BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support the text in this article and I wonder whether someone here might be kind enough to take a look. The article seems to have been created originally by someone connected to the subject. I can't help thinking that a driver who came to "...dominate the Asian Formula 3 Circuit." should be easier to find sources for than is, in fact, the case. It'll go to AfD if it continues to be unsourced.--Plad2 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that it's either a hoax, or a very small-time local club racer. I can find nothing on this guy, and he's certainly never dominated any series worth its salt, let alone Asian F3. Amusing though, that his racing activity in 2004 seems to be limited to a "drag racing" road accident in a Citroen C5. I'd say prod it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Prodded. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Although the Asian F3 is extinct, the website is still active. The final season was 2007/2008, and there's no Migs Paneda on the final championship standings. Can't find him in driverdb.com either. --Pc13 (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability standards for racing schools?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotics Racing School has opened up the question of notability standards for racing schools. We have ten of these articles, none of them especially good and all of them needing improvement to their referencing. Just which of these are worth keeping?

A brief article at Motor-racing school would be useful too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ones that are national level in the U.S. and talked about all the time in the major national-level telecasts like NASCAR: Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving, Buck Baker Racing School, Skip Barber Racing School (whose building I photographed at Road America), and the Richard Petty Driving Experience. Royalbroil 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the Jim Russell Racing Driver Schools are also pretty notable (over 16000 ghits and contributed to the careers of the likes of Emerson Fittipaldi, Danny Sullivan and Tiff Needell). If we are to have an article (as suggested by Andy Dingley), we should consider the most appropriate name, e.g. should it be Motor-racing school (as suggested by Andy) or Motor racing school (no dash) or Racing driver school or Racing school (to match the Category:Racing schools) or something else? DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest the category name is wrong is it does not distinguish between foot racing, horse racing, air racing, snail racing, tetris racing or any other form of racing. Notability guidelines for subjects are fairly well defined (WP:Notability), I do not feel such a small subject as Racing schools needs its own notability criteria. --Falcadore (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on the unclear name "racing schools". I'd leave that where it is, in case of future snail-related expansions, but move these all down into a sub-cat with a better name.
The name of the new subcat will depend on the scope of the category: if it's only going to include institutions which teach people how to drive racing cars, then we could call it Category:Racing driver schools or Category:Auto racing schools. If we want it to include institutions which teach other forms or motor racing (e.g. motorcycle racing), then we could call it Category:Motor racing schools. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like notability here has to reflect two issues: notability of the school (by general mentions) and also having trained any notable alumni. Certainly such alumni ought to be listed clearly. I would note though that pretty much all of the current artciles are so poorly referenced that they'd be in trouble at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Heath (racing driver)

Comments are welcome. —J04n(talk page) 15:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Jeepspeed

I've started an AfD discussion for Jeepspeed, a minor off-road racing club. Discussion here. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Racing suit dab page

I changed Racing suit from a redirect to a disambiguation page. I would have included F1 clothing but as far as I can tell there is no page on Wikipedia that mentions the topic. --Dbratland (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be a useful inclusion at List of motorsport terminology. --Falcadore (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

TfD - Template:Motorsport in 2011

...has been nominated for deletion. 2010 version has been mired in edit warring (of which I've contributed) and no criteria has ever been formally established. Proposed to delete the 2011 version until such time as a criteria is established. Please feel free to comment at the #deletion discussion, and at the discussion for establishing criteria. --Falcadore (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion linked above, I've nominated Template:Motorsport in 2009 and Template:Motorsport in 2010 for speedy deletion. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Audi R18 TDI - Correct name?

I would appreciate other people's input into the name of the Audi R18 TDI article. When I created the article I made the conscious decision not to use the TDI in the name as I couldn't find it in any of the press info. I believe this is because the car is likely to have a hybrid configuration in the future and Audi have chosen not to use it. I have now found an Audi press release the talks of the R8, R10 TDI, R15 TDI and the R18[2]. The article was renamed by The359 to include the TDI. The question is should the article be renamed back? Please leave your comments at the talk page. Thanks in advance. Bjmullan (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments would be welcome concerning the external links at the Ford GT40 article. See the talk page. Thanks in advance. Bjmullan (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

TfD - Template:Motorsport in the UK

For the same reason as TfD - Template:Motorsport in 2011, I have decided to nominate Template:Motorsport in the UK for deletion for that the UK is not the motorsport captial for nothing. Please feel free to comment at the #deletion discussion. Donnie Park (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD: James Horley

Racing driver James Horley has been nominted for deletion here on notability grounds and has been relisted for lack of comment. If you have the time, please contribute so we can get a decision on this one. --Falcadore (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Team player

Discussion here (believe it or not ;p) got me thinking about race teams. There's scant coverage of the structure of the teams & their important people, or of the notable managers. Doesn't it deserve more attention here? (Also raised here; probably better discussed here IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sim racing

Bit concerned about the recent appearance of IDWCRR – iRacing Drivers World Championship Road Racing and the addition of season articles. Pretty sure it fails notability - particularly the 2010 and 2011 season articles. Comments anyone? --Falcadore (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me, especially from a single purpose account. Their only other edit is to IRacing.com which looks spammy too, but it might meet the general notability guideline. Royalbroil 03:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought I would give the authors a week or so to establish notability with references. So far they don't seem to be interested except to say, "It is notable, really!". I'll nominate the season article for AfD and maybe the main article as well if after a week nothing is attempted. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a stock car series on iRacing that's sanctioned by NASCAR and gets a minimal amount of coverage on NASCAR.com, but I haven't seen any secondary coverage for the road racing series. There could be some out there but it's borderline at best IMO. Recury (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article have been sent for deletion here. No attempt has been made with this article and its season article to establish notability, or if it is encyclopedic. The two season sub-articles are particularly poor in this regard. Your comment is invited. --Falcadore (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Toto Wolff

A query at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Toto_Wolff. Where did he begin his career? Our article says Australia, but the only source that refers to that year (1992) says he raced in the German and Austrian Formula Ford Championship. [3]. It is possible he raced in both though, in which case we need a source for Australia, and confirmation that this came first. Can anyone more knowledgeable than me help out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia

Hi. There is a lack of consistency with the trigraph used to describe Malaysia in racing records in driver pages or result tables on season pages. For example in 2008 GP2 Asia Series season the trigraph used is MYS while in Romain Grosjean it is MAL (both in 2008 GP2 Asia and 2009 F1 tables). Is there any convention already defined for that ? If not, in my opinion it should be MYS to avoid confusion with other countries such as Malta, Malawi or whatever...
What do you think ? Maimai009 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Malaysian Grand Prix is identified as "MAL" in Formula One results tables, per WP:F1 convention, as documented here. This convention does not necessarily apply to other racing series. DH85868993 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion we should use the same national code for every series, what ever that means. Royalbroil 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither Malawi, nor Malta hold any motorsport that is nationally identified. While Malawi hosted stages of the Dakar Rally, not sure Malta hosts anything.
While it is useful for Formula One to identify it as MAL because of race title Malaysian Grand Prix, GP2 does not have nationally identified race names and should probably use SEP. --Falcadore (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that codes should be standardized and that we can't use country codes for most series. As you said Falcadore in most series (except F1, Rally and others I may forget about) events are almost never asociated to a country. Moreover, some series often include several events taking place in the same country (eg F2 or SLF). So you're right that we should use circuit codes. But when you think about it, considering the number of circuits existing around the world it would be a hard work to set a unique 3-letter code for each one of them...(over 400 circuits, only counting ones with articles, though lots of them are probably underused). So maybe we should just standardize circuit codes for each series separately, rather than over all of them. Maimai009 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Common sense generally rules here. There an't a lot of cases where three letter codes fail. While there may be a lot of circuits, categories tend to stick to a limited number of them. Apart from Monaco/Monza for some European open wheel categories and Monza/Montreal for Sports Cars I can't think of many. --Falcadore (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GPUpdate.net

It would appear that GPUpdate.net have reorganised their website, which means that many (most?) of the links from English Wikipedia to the website are now broken. There doesn't seem to be any recognisable pattern to the changes (for example http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2000/12/04/bar-signs-anthony-davidson-as-test-driver/ has become http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/22018/bar-signs-anthony-davidson-as-test-driver/), so I think the only way to fix all the links is to go through them one by one. I've created a list of the 147 articles I found containing links to GPUpdate.net (by doing a wiki search for "gpupdate.net"), in case anyone wants to help out. DH85868993 (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They're all fixed now (except for two where I couldn't locate the new location of the page). Thanks to Cs-wolves and Schumi555 for their help. DH85868993 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1906 French Grand Prix

A couple of weeks ago I expanded this article, and I intend to take it to FAC at some point. I'm interested in the thoughts of motorsport enthusiasts in this project. Any comments or suggestions you might have about it would be really appreciated (leave on talk page if particularly extensive). Doesn't really matter if you've never really had any experience with this particular type of motorsport; it was such a different beast back in 1906 (like a kind of WRC meets Isle of Man TT meets F1)! Thanks, Apterygial 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Races confirmed by sources other than the series?

Hey, what are the general guidelines on adding races to a series schedule which are confirmed by multiple external sources, but not the series itself yet? I think we're starting into a bit of an edit war on 2011 IndyCar Series season about the Las Vegas finale which has been confirmed directly by two sources, and indirectly by another six sources; simply because it hasn't yet been announced by IndyCar (which will be on the 22nd). This situation also occured as well back in late November last year after external sources confirmed the re-introduction of the Edmonton Indy, but the series didn't confirm for a while. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 18:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who is doing the confirming. Unless its an official source on the Las Vegas circuit side, is it really actually a confirmation? --Falcadore (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It mostly stemmed from Sam Schmidt Motorsports releasing a press release confirming a driver for this year, and in it they specifically mentioned that they would be running at Las Vegas. Several sites picked up on that story and reported it. There's also an editorial article about IndyCar which say the finale is at Vegas, and now we've just had a source specifically saying that IndyCar will be holding a press conference to confirm it within a few days. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Since teams don't decide the schedule, I'd say that's not a confirmation at all. --Falcadore (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The teams know a lot more than we do though. Why else would they specifically say Las Vegas if they didn't know for certain it was going to happen at Las Vegas? TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make them a chapter and verse source. --Falcadore (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And so what of the source which confirms that there will be a press conference within a couple of days to formally announce it? TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's speculation on the part of the journalist, i.e., "a press conference has been announced so I'm assuming they'll confirm such-and-such rumor." I know it can be confusing with journalists always reporting rumors, but with a minimal amount of critical thinking we can figure out what's confirmed and what's rumor. A good rule of thumb is that if nothing's been said explicitly by the person or organization being talked about, it's probably just a rumor. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's right. If they said specifically before hand what an announcement was going to be, why hold the press conference at all, completely defeats the purpose. When you make an assumption without knowing the outcome, then that is speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_10&oldid=1192870525"