Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Template nominated for deletion

It might interest the project that {{Infobox former Champ Car driver}} has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Category question

Should Category:Champ Car drivers be renamed to Category:CART Champ Car drivers to better distinguish it from Category:USAC Champ Car drivers? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did you subdivide the Champ drivers by series? Many drivers were in several series so they really should in all of the appropriate categories. Either fully divide by series or don't subdivide at all by series. The series were AAA, USAC, CART, and IndyCar/IRL. Royal broil 01:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason I did that was because there was already a hatnote on Category:Champ Car drivers saying These are drivers who competed in the CART/Champ Car racing series from 1979-2008. - explicitly excluding AAA and USAC Champ Car drivers. Now, that said, now that you mention it, it would make more sense to have AAA, USAC, and CART drivers all in Category: Champ Car drivers (with IRL/IndyCar Series drivers in Category:IndyCar Series drivers (<- Category:Indy Racing League drivers is being renamed to this)), so I'll go ahead and move the few I put in Category:USAC Champ Car drivers over to the main CC cat and then G7 it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a better term to these groupings? Segregating the current IRL/IndyCar Series drivers from earlier ones in AAA, USAC, and CART seems odd to me so would you please explain why? Royal broil 02:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to separate IRL ICS drivers from Champ Car drivers because of the extended period that the two series coexisted as completely separate series. AAA and USAC Champ Car never coexisted and USAC and CART only coexisted briefly coexisted and the fact that the Indy 500 was part of both series complicates the issue with those two series. In addition, referring to drivers who only competed in the IRL as "Champ Car drivers" or a driver who only competed as CCWS as an "IndyCar Series driver" would be both misleading and incorrect. -Drdisque (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

^ What he said. But that's my reasoning as well - Champ Car has a more-or-less linear progression with only changes in sanctioning bodies from ~1902ish through 2008. The IRL/IndyCar Series, on the other hand, started in 1996, overlapping CART, and ran in parallel (and direct, extremely acrimonious opposition - if you'd suggested lumping CART and IRL drivers together in, say, 1998, the lynch mob would have started here --> ) through the demise of CART. While CART cars were sometimes colloquially referred to as "IndyCars" prior to the rise of Tony George's vision/folly (pick one), they're wholly different beasts with wholly different sanctions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the proposal is to use a non-standard subdivision of drivers in the genre, and there is disagreement, please start a CFD so that everyone can comment to reach consensus on how to best subdivide the drivers. WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing should definitely be informed. Royal broil 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...I'm not following you? There is no 'proposal' here - Category:Champ Car drivers and Category:Indy Racing League drivers (now at Category:IndyCar Series drivers) have been existing and seperate for quite some time - the latter created in 2006, in fact! ~~There is a CfD on the latter, as part of a group of categories, to change 'Indy Racing League' to 'IndyCar Series' though, here.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I out of line?

An editor has gotten very offended after I reverted their work and I wanted to know if I was being out of line by reverting. Since the level of offence (the editor is offended at me rather than behaving offensively so I'm asking for a peer-review.

The edit concerned is here: [1]

The debate continued on my talk page but the upshot is this is a non-championship driver competing in non-championship races only and I removed the results bar on the basis it was misleading to a) present non-championship races in a championship results bar and b) also misleading in providing links to championship articles and referring to a championship pointscore that this driver never once took part in.

The very similar equivalaent would be to include an FIA GT championship results bar for a driver who had only competed as a co-driver in the Nurburgring 24 hour, or a driver who had competed in Le Mans and adding an American Le Mans series bar, or some who drove in the Brands Hatch Race of Champions and including the Formula One drivers championship bar.

Comments please am I being too officious? --Falcadore (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. Non-championship races shouldn't be in a championship results table. However, I've also noticed that a lot of IRL drivers have the non-championship 2008 Nikon Indy 300 in their results tables. It's even in the table in 2008 IndyCar Series season, albeit to the right of the points column which makes it look ugly. Readro (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I think you are justified, but the one thing I'd think about looking at is the title of that table. It reads "Complete V8 Supercar results", which could be taken as meaning "all races which were run to the 3A/Supercars rules". That would include the Sandown and Bathurst races in question. However, the fact that the table links are all to ASCC seasons and the Championship positions are given does strongly suggest to an uninitiated reader that the two races were championship rounds. Giving Brabham's 1993, 1994 and 1998 championship positions as "NC" is just wrong, as he was never even entered for the Championship in those years, so that is unjustifiable. I'm not against mixing championship and non-championship results in a single table (after all, that does potentially give a much better overview of how a whole season developed) but they do have to be very clearly differentiated and it must be clear to a casual reader what that difference is. Pyrop e 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope, its the Complete V8 Supercar results. Just remove the NC from the results box, or ad a † with a mention that those races were Non Championship below. I know that IRL divers have the Indy 300 from 2008. Also Michael Andretti has the Marlboro Challenge in his results from 1987-92 in the CART days. John Martin had the Superformula Non Championship races in his results also as I imagine do the other drivers in that series. There are plenty of examples. If we use results from 1999 onwards, does that mean that the drivers who drove in the V8 Supercar class from pretty much Bathurst 1992 have no V8 Supercar experience from that period? Im sure a logical conclusion can be met.--Kpaspery (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to possibly set the cat amongst the pigeons here, and ask: should these tables be in the articles at all? They seem to me that they might be against the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - what encyclopedic value does including these serve, vs. prose in the main article section? On some articles (i.e. Eliseo Salazar) they can pile up to unsightly proportions, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New article

Race engineer. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice. So nice in fact I was inspired to add content! --Sabre ball^{t c} 12:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

List of drivers who have won in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR seems like a very short, pretty much pointless article in my opinion. I've combined it, quite easily, with List of drivers who have raced in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR. Are there any objections to it's deletion? Also, can some-one help me delete it if there aren't, because I am still unsure as to how to do that. Thanks, Bigdon128 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I redirected that article to List of drivers who have raced in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR. I'm personally not even sure if that article is really notable enough, I don't see what is so important about drivers who have raced in three arbitrary motorsport series. Any opinions on this?

Oh and for future reference, you list the article at WP:AFD. QueenCake (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's also prodding. But these are hardly "three arbitrary motorsport series". These are the world's premier stock car racing league (NASCAR), the top North American (and second-to-the-top) worldwide open-wheel series that includes what is arguably the world's biggest race (CART/IndyCar), and the (arguably) top racing series in the world (F1). ...that said though, the colors in that table have GOT to go, aieeeeee! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree that it is arbitrary. The world's top Stock Car Series is a somewhat strange statement as Stock Car Racing is virtually unique to the North American continent. So in IndyCar and NASCAR you have two domestic categories from the same country and a genuine World Championship. It very disproportianately favour American drivers for geographical and economic reasons, as well as favouring open-wheeler drivers strongly and shutting out Sports and Touring Car competitors. It is also chronologically discriminatory as it favours a brieft time period (the 1960s) where European drivers flooded into the US market exploiting the lack of technical expertise at open wheeler construction when rear-engined open-wheelers were revolutionising Indycar racing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sports and touring cars, unfortunatly, don't get the same recognition among racing fans as the series mentioned here. I'm sure most European race fans, for instance, would recognise the names Earnhardt, Gordon, Johnson and Castroneves, while most American racing fans know Schumacher and Hamilton, but for a Euro fan to recognise most of the Grand-Am field, or an American fan to know 90% of the 24 Heures du Mans field (or 99.9% of the DTM field), well...not so much. While the series might be "regional" or (gasp, horrors!) American, the sanctioning bodies (NASCAR, Indy Racing League d/b/a IndyCar, and the FIA) are still the largest and best-known worldwide, and each series (Sprint Cup, IndyCar, Formula One), is the highest-ranked series sanctioned by that sanctioning body.

That is your opinion. The Triple Crown, a concept which DOES have recognition, includes a sports car event. However, the fact that Sprint Cup and the F1 WDC represent the highest branches of their disciplines (again I point out that Indycar is a conglomeration of several series and not a pinnacle representation) does not insulate this collection from being considered arbitrary. You could link the NFL, F1 and the World Darts Championship as being the pinnacle but it still does not create any kind of common thread. NASCAR, F1 and for the sake of the arguement the combined Indycar entity may be the tops of their branches of motorsport but where is the connecting thread that states these three alone desrve recognition and the no others do? Early IRL series which are include would barely rank above GP2 in stature. But why do we stop at three. Why is Indycar included at all, shouldn't it be just NASCAR and F1.

Where is it recognised out in the world that these three series and no others carry a collective recognition of importance. That is the most important question to be answered. If there is no answer, then it is arbitrary. All you have said is that these three series carry INDIVIDUAL importance. This article collects three, the notability needs to be of all three together, not individually. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore seems to have hit the nail on the head here. It isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to decide which are significant with respect to people having competed in multiple series, we need to be relying on the normal WP:GNG criteria. Are there any sources that has done this sort of analysis? Pyrop e 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll also have to agree with Falcadore. His Triple Crown example nails it for me. There is no signiture with it, but whoever stated that Schumacher and Hamilton would be well known in the US is probably pretty far off base. I can't speak for how well known NASCAR drivers are in Europe but I have no doubt any European driver who doesn't participate in a form of NASCAR in the US is probably still more or less unknown here. --Sabre ball^{t c} 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore did raise some very good points and I fully agree. I've gone and nominated it for deletion, please add your views (again) on the discussion page. QueenCake (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Formula Renault UK season

The 2012 Formula Renault UK season (which of course never happened) has been put up for deletion. Please add any comments on the discussion page. QueenCake (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Assisting rider"?

Hi, folks! Months ago I created a stub article called Rally support truck. Now I thought of creating another one on motorcycle riders who assist leading riders, the equivalent of a Cycling domestique. We call them "mochileros" in Spanish, but I couldn't find the correct name in French or English. Here's three articles in Spanish who describe them. Can you help me? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Google translates that as "the backpackers" but that's pretty literal. Probably not the best to use. While I assumed something of this nature existed I have never heard mention of them by name. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Sabre ball^{t c} 18:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's obscure terminology. perhaps an addition to the motorsport glossary article rather than an independant article of its own? --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis

This specific problem has come up in regards to Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, most commonly known as Albert von Thurn und Taxis. On the Template:FIA GT1 teams, drivers are listed by their last name only, and I currently have the prince under Thurn und Taxis. He is correctly of the House of Thurn und Taxis, but this is simply because this is the name of the country that they ruled, so it seems a bit wrong to be his last name. But at the same time, Albert is not his last name either. His full name according to our article is Albert Maria Lamoral Miguel Johannes Gabriel, which is no help as I'm fairly certain none of those are last names. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would list him in the template as "von Thurn und Taxis", on the basis that he is most commonly known (in a motorsport context) as "Albert von Thurn und Taxis", and if we consider "Albert" to be his first name, then we can consider the rest of his name ("von Thurn und Taxis") to be his "last name". DH85868993 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"von Thurn und Taxis" would indeed be the correct name - although I note that the Red Baron's article has the format "Richthofen, Manfred von" as well...gah! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review, after digging through several dead ends, I came across the following in WP:MCSTJR (and ain't THAT a bizzare-looking piece of alphabet soup):

Generally, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles. Some examples are: Otto von Bismarck is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Bismarck, Otto von}} and Alberto Di Chiara is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Di Chiara, Alberto}}.

...so it appears the correct format is, in fact, "Thurn und Taxis, Albert von". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to complicate matters further, the DEFAULTSORT for Albert is "Albert 02 Of Thurn And Taxis, Prince". The³5₉ (Talk) 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

...well, THAT needs to be fixed posthaste. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Entrants categories

(moved here from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Car_Racing#Renamed_categories)

I notice that the following categories were recently speedily renamed:

with a rationale of "Matching rest of Category:Auto racing teams by series". I disagree with these changes on the basis that not all the members of the categories are "teams" - in some cases they are individuals, which is why the term "entrants" was selected when the categories were originally named. Also noting that there are other subcategories of Category:Auto racing teams by series which use the term "entrants" (Category:Formula One entrants, Category:Formula Two entrants and Category:FIA Sportscar Championship entrants). Comments? DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly missed those others when nominating those two. But, IMHO, "teams" is the more appropriate terminology here - as, even for individuals, they were team owners in the relevant series. (Note that in the FIASC and F2[ categories, at least, all contents are strictly teams, as well). But if it's consensus for the cats to be changed back, no problem here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Approve Changing Name Back - It would appear that currently everyone in Category:World Sportscar Championship teams is actually a team. I would have to argue though that Category:Can-Am teams is incorrect because, for example, Carl Haas is an article about a person not a team. He didn't personally enter the series, one his teams like Haas-Hall Racing or Carl Haas Racing did. Both of which I would argue need to be their own articles separate from Carl Haas himself. Sadly neither of those teams have an article at the moment. --Sabre ball^{t c} 20:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the question is, does that mean the Can-Am category should be changed back to "entrants", or that the non-team articles should be removed from it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think removing the non-team entries is actually a better course. We could always create a category like Category:Can-Am people similar to Category:Formula One people or Category:Can-Am team owners similar to Category:IndyCar Series team owners if there are enough articles to justify it. --Sabre ball^{t c} 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A related discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_29#Racing_teams. Feel free to express any views you may have on the matter there. DH85868993 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result of that discussion was "no consensus". As a result, I have proposed that Category:Can-Am teams be renamed back to Category:Can-Am entrants. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Link breaking

User:Hgb1217 has gone around adding slashes ("/") to the ends of references and external links on lots of pages, breaking the links. I'm fixing what I can find but more eyes on his contributions in case he does it again wouldn't be a bad thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As a newbie to watching other people is there an easy way to see his contributions? --Sabre ball^{t c} 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[2], however I left a note on his talk page regarding the issue and he seems to have gotten the message. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Eyes on Gateway Motorsports Park

A SPA has started significantly changing this article. I can't be sure if the edits are OK or not, so can y'all take a look? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong with the article. The user added pictures and information about its new name, Gateway Motorsports Park, and that it will hold a NHRA event. All seems to correct. I'm not sure about the images though. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Seminole Speedway

I've just created an article on this pioneering track, but references - especially for the period of the track's closing - are scarce. Can anyone help out? Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

This new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifcations, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project, would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed additions to Template:Infobox racing car

An editor has proposed the addition of extra fields to {{Infobox racing car}}, to cater for cars with more than one power-plant location/types/energy-source. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:Infobox racing car#HowTo? Multi-Engined / Hybrid. DH85868993 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Motorsport in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorsport for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The interview has been published. Thanks to everyone! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

‎Japanese Top Formula Championship results

An IP editor has been adding results tables labelled "‎Japanese Top Formula Championship results" to various Japanese drivers' articles (e.g. Noritake Takahara, Aguri Suzuki, Satoru Nakajima, Kazuyoshi Hoshino). I believe the tables are combined Japanese Formula 2000/Formula Two/Formula 3000 results (see this post from the IP editor on my talk page). What's the best title for the tables (or should they be divided into the individual formulae)? DH85868993 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do these series consider themselves "combined" for championship purposes? If no, then they absolutely need to be seperated. (If the tables should be included in the articles at all.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I take part in discussion? I support The Bushranger's opinion. If the section divided like "Complete Japanese Formula 2000 results" "Complete Japanese Formula Two results", "Complete Japanese Formula 3000 results", "Complete Formula Nippon results" people may easy to understand what championship are described. I'm afraid people who don't know Japanese Top Formula category may　confused at first. but I think this is not serious problem. anyway I'd like to　adopt his opinion. thanks for good idea.(221.91.30.126 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)).

That sounds fine to me too. 221.91.30.126, do you have the necessary information to split the tables? DH85868993 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 1973-1977;Formula 2000, 1978-1986;Formula Two, 1987-1995;Formula 3000, 1996-present;Formula Nippon. that's it. you can also confirm on the article Formula Nippon. see the bottom of Template:Japanese Formula 3000/Formula Nippon years.221.91.30.126 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC).

Driver results tables

Do we have a definitive list of which series are sufficiently notable to include results tables in driver bio articles? I've noticed a few instances lately where an editor has added a results table to a driver bio article and then another editor has come along and removed it on the basis that the series is not sufficiently notable. DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need them at all? They would seem to contravene WP:NOTSTATS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No there isn't. Previously established convention was F3 was too small, but no consensus was established for Sports/GT or Touring Cars. I note series as small as V8SuperTourer are getting results boxes and there have been some very curious definitions o what constitutes a V8 Supercar season. --Falcadore (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that GB & Euroseries F3 are ok. Drivers can go straight to F1 from there. I think F1 & Indycars is a given. Series like GP2/GP2 Asia, Super League, Indylights, Auto GP are worthy? I feel the F2000 table on Dan Wheldons page for example is a bit too much (probably an emotional one after his death). Maybe International series for GT/Touring cars like GT1, WTCC, V8 Supercars, the 3 tiers of Nascar? Sportscars maybe LMS/ALMS, Grandam etc? Maybe open up communication between editors before we chop & change pages. My thoughts.--Kpaspery (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Progression to F1 is not a good definition, as some F1 drivers have for exmaple have come from DTM. The notability of the series itself should be the definition of whether it gets race breakdown treatment like this rather than a secondary relationship to another series. Brit/Euro F3 must stand on their own merits, not the merits of others. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think there shouldn't be any progression tables, for any series, based on WP:NOTSTATS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As much as I agree with Bushranger I'm afraid following WP:NOTSTATS too strictly we'll end up articles on drivers with too little information. Wikipedia isn't for stats, granted, but a record of achievements isn't really a stat. Perhaps the better (or just as good of a) question is not which series are notable but how much of the drivers involvement goes on the drivers page versus, say, the page devoted to the seasons they competed in said series. Hopefully that makes sense but as an example. I think regardless of how big or little a series is, listing a championship in it is noteworthy. Listing every race the driver has ever competed in, though, that's WP:NOTSTATS. I've seen examples of both depending on how popular the driver is. But I think we should really try to stick to the first one.--Sabre ball^{t c} 14:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting this topic - perhaps individual race by race coverage is perhaps excessive, but perhaps limit to a table of season results? --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Chevrolet Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix GA Nomination

2012 Chevrolet Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix has been nominated for GA article status. According to the article's talk page it's still rated C class. Can you jump ranks like that? I thought you had to be at least A class before you could be nominated for GA. --Sabre ball^{t c} 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FIA European Formula 3 Championship

Is the FIA European Formula 3 Championship, created in March 2012, a continuation of the European Formula Three Championship that took place from 1975 to 1984? They do, on the one hand, share the same name; on the other hand, FIA's announcement referred to "the creation of a new international series". If one is not the successor of the other, the articles and associated categories (see Category:European Formula Three Championship) need to be split. If it is, then the article should be updated to reflect this fact. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that, similar to the creation of the FIA World Endurance Championship twenty years after the demise of the World Sportscar Championship, that both of these "new creations" are not successions. Although similar I'd say the gap is too far apart and there seems to be nothing to indicate any relation to the previous series. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it can't be covered by the same article. The European Formula 3 Championship is the name of two separate pan-european motor racing series. The first ran from 19mumble-mumble to 19some-other-year. The second was created in 2012. etc. The articles should be based on the likely search option. --Falcadore (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Information from the FIA Formula 3 International Trophy would have to be integrated as well, as the new European F3 Championship is a succession of the former Trophy. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because press release writers don't mention the older championship doesn't mean that they are unrelated. Motorsport people believe that it's a revival, and Wikipedia should reflect that. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as much and found a few sources, such as this one, that seem to confirm it: "After a 27-year break the series is now returning to the motorsport stage." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The same might be said even of FIA European Formula Three Cup, which succeeded the original Championship. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So... should the article be revised to indicate that the competition is active once again—the article text currently reads, "FIA European Formula Three Championship was a ... racing competition" (emphasis added)—or should a new article be created for the current incarnation? I'm happy to do the legwork but would like to leave the decision of what to do in the hands of those who have past experience with motorsport-related articles. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Hillclimbing races

Hello! I've been notified that Category:Hillclimbing races has been nominated for renaming to Category:Hillclimbs. Please leave comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DTM driver results legend

Template:DTM driver results legend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

F1 results tables keys renamed

FYI, {{F1 driver results legend}}, {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} have recently been renamed to {{Motorsport driver results legend}}, {{Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{Motorsport driver results legend 3}}. You are welcome to join the discussion at WP:F1. DH85868993 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of 2014 International V8 Supercars Championship

2014 International V8 Supercars Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. --Falcadore (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rally templates

I have nominated Category:Rally templates for merging into Category:Rallying templates. You are invited to participate in the merger discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "merge". DH85868993 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Should sponsor names be attached to the category names for ChampCar races?

Should sponsor names be attached to the category names for ChampCar races? See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy for the "Grand Prix of St. Petersburg" -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Should be generically named. Example: Category:Gold Coast Indy 300. --Falcadore (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments are welcome where the renaming discussion is occurring, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn the request -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Vlok

Minor New Zealand based open wheel driver Chris Vlok has created his own Wikipedia article. Considering the problems we had with Ash Bettridge subsequent to him creating his own article, I'm requesting some comment with how to handle this. --Falcadore (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An awful lot of gush for not much achievement. I'm also unsure how to handle it, but first of all I'm removing a possibly defamatory comment. User talk:Moriori (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone related to Vlok is a little upset by this brief discussion.... The³5₉ (Talk) 10:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting the faint scent of WP:SOCK in the air... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty straight forward autobiography to me. Personal pictures of the subject and no edits on any other subject. Who do you think it is? --Falcadore (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant the pretend admin is likely a sock of the SPA that created the article - an SPI's been filed on that basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether this person meets notability guidelines? If not, an AfD should probably be filed. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys; just a quick and friendly reminder that WP:BLP applies across all pages on Wikipedia. I am sure you intended no harm with your comments above, but try to keep discussions such as neutral as you can! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember this is a public page and comments here can be read by anyone. To be clear; there has been a complaint about the comments here, and if they continue then action may have to be taken. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Er, thanks, but nothing BLP-worthy was said above?? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the only thing that might be questionable is Moriori's "lot of gush for not a lot of achievement," although I take it Moriori was making more of a statement of notability and less of how good the driver supposedly is. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Farkenell! So let me elaborate -- "An awful lot of gush (in the article) for not much achievement (by the driver)" . True, eight minor races won in five years doesn't make him notable. If I was the subject of the article I would be embarrassed by it, especially the mind boggling Formula BMW section. User talk:Moriori (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not our place to call someone's career embarassing, that's the issue ErrantX is trying to raise. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Formula E

There's a futzed up move request at Talk:Formula E, that could use someone who can rebuild move requests. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ALMS and Grand-Am merger

Looks like the Big Two are going to merge [3]. Best to go ahead and start thinking now on how to handle the categories post-merger instead of running around cleaning up when it happens. Hopefully the merged series will have an all-new name that'll simply allow for all-new categorisation... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? The rumor states the merged series will not even begin until 2014, and there are no details whatsoever. When we get to some facts, and that may be for some time, things can be discussed. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Circuit map design

Circuit maps tend to be used for the same purposes for each different circuit but there are a wide variety of different styles being used at the moment. I believe it would look better for there to be more consistency in our map design, and I'd like to start working on standardising the map designs used at present in Wikipedia, but wanted to get some consensus before starting this task as to what we actually want the maps to look like (a 'house style' if you like). Considering primarily 'road course' circuit maps and ignoring ovals and the like, as I see it, there are two primary uses of these on Wikipedia:

1) In a race infobox

Generally rendered at a very small size - text and numbering barely visible, hard to make out arrow directions

Usually used as a visual identifier for the circuit - doesn't need to go into detail regarding the circuit

2) In a circuit article

Can be rendered at a larger size than in an infobox

Reader will be more interested in the circuit itself and the image should reflect the extra interest with more detail

Corner numbers and names might be referenced in the text, so it's useful to see where they are on a map

Useful to see path of other layouts, so long as it's obviously distinguished from the layout being focussed on.

Presently, we tend to use the same image for both purposes. I believe we may be better to use two designs, as the requirements for the images are different in either case. The SVG format makes it easy to remove/add the detail, so this wouldn't create much extra work.

Here's a first draft of a possible design. They are intended to show the level of detail and style (and might not be 100% accurate). These are very similar to one that's already being used, which I believe provides the best balance between looking clean and tidy, being easy to read and provides an appropriate level of detail.

Infobox map proposal:

Outline of track layout being used

Large graphics for direction of travel and start/finish line

No other course layouts depicted

Circuit article map proposal:

Outline of track layout being used in black, other layouts 'contained' within the course optionally depicted in light grey

Smaller graphics for direction of travel and start/finish line

Corner names to be included, where official/commonly known (DejaVu Sans Condensed font)

Corner numbers to be included (DejaVu Sans Bold font)

Service roads, access roads etc. not shown

Data about the layout (date first used, length) etc. not included in the map itself

Multiple series will use the circuit so timing sectors, speeds, gears etc. should be avoided as these will be series specific.

Your suggestions please. AlexJ (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Those maps look very good. :) I'd like to see a north arrow, and a scale. I recommend 200metres / 1/4 mile. I'd put major alternative courses in the infobox, for example the National course in Silverstone, but not the Stoke course. SVG all the way of course. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Having done a couple of these myself I'm all in favour of most of your suggestions, and those of NaBUru38. I raised a few points that you've mentioned with Will Pittenger when he was putting a lot of his maps together and his reasoning for a lot of the choices he made was that he was developing the images for use outside Wikipedia and just uploaded them here as a service to the community. It doesn't explain his bananas choices of scale bars or the use of serif fonts and badly kerned text, but it does at least show why many of the more cluttering features are there. This has a direct bearing on possibly your most important observation: that many of these images are rendered small in infoboxes. Here, we could combine your "Infobox map" with the full circuit diagram by using the "Link" parameter in the image syntax options. By simply adding "|link=page" option to the image name in the infobox you could make a small infobox image link through to the full circuit diagram, thus:

That would allow us to be very flexible with just how basic (at one end of the scale) or detailed (at the other) we wanted to get. How's that sound? Pyrop e 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the best of both worlds for the infoboxes - uncluttered when shown at thumbnail size but with the detail easily available. I think the scale and north arrow could neatly fit into the corners of the detailed version, without it looking too crowded. AlexJ (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Example scale bars and north arrow added. AlexJ (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the msot important thing is that the maps are consistent across Wikipedia. The Formula 1 pages are notoriously inconsistent - some of them (namely the old Singapore one) even looked half-finished. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but we do need to decide on what that consistent design should be. AlexJ (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that those of us wanting to debate this further and work up a proposal for a set of uniform formatting guidelines ought to take this off to a Taskforce subpage (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Circuit Diagrams ?) rather than clog up this talk page with endless back and forth and detailed discussion. We can then bring it back here once the basics have been thrashed out. How does that sound? Pyrop e 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Visoiu

Can this links be relaible sources for spelling Robert Vișoiu?

Cybervoron (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 FIA Prize Giving Gala

Hello, folks! Will anyone attend the 2012 FIA Prize Giving Gala? It could be a great opportunity to take pictures and videos of auto racing people. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Update about Circuit Maps

Hi everyone, I've added a topic here about the creation of standard type of circuit maps. Restu²⁰ 18:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Related requested move

The usage of Arrows is under discussion, see Talk:Arrows, where the page is suggested to be renamed to Arrows (F1) so that it can be redirected to Arrow as the plural form. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: article was moved to Arrows Grand Prix International. --Falcadore (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown of Motorsport nominated for deletion

Triple Crown of Motorsport has been nominated for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the AfD page. DH85868993 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Result was a unanimous Keep. Motion defeated. --Falcadore (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1995 French Supertouring champion?

Excuse me, I don't know if it was Yvan Muller or Stéphane Ortelli the 1995 French Supertouring champion. Sources are conflicting. Can you find the actual winner and fix all the respective pages in all languages? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ortelli had one fourth place and no top threes all season, so it wasn't him. --Falcadore (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely Muller (see http://www.fiawtcc.com/drivers/detail/id/1). I've made the corrections to Muller and Ortelli's articles. Nice pickup. DH85868993 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear! I've found this: it says "8th, French Supertouring (BMW Oreca). Winner, SuperTouring Criterium, 5 wins". So there was a French SuperTouring Championship and a SuperTouring Criterium. The French guys don't seem to know it either. Help! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added Ortelli's win in the Supertouring Criterium back into his article, based on the link you provided. It's also confirmed by this page. DH85868993 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox issues when nested

(As posted on their page as the motosport infobox has priority (not nested within the other, mrv there first)

Hi

It seems that 'Template:Infobox NRHP' is having issues when nested with 'Template:Infobox motorsport venue'

In this article, Lime Rock Park, it seems to be producing an orphan parenthesis between the infobox and start of the first paragraph.

Any ideas?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A nested infobox will show up in the last field of the primary box. Because the last fields of the motorsport infobox are broken up with a parenthesis hard-coded after them, it was kicking the parenthesis out the infobox altogether. I nested the NRHP infobox in the "layout2" field instead; this gives a phantom header line before the NRHP box, but is better than an orphan parenthesis or another blank field. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

1979 Venezuelan motorcycle Grand Prix

Bringing this to the attention of the WikiProject. A user completely reformatted the page, including removing the infobox and removing all classifications past tenth place. In their place, we got a couple of images and a badly written lead. I reinstated the missing information only to find this morning that it had gone again. Can people keep an eye on this? If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me that I'm being an arse but it seems to me that the "revised" format is no improvement and makes the article less accurate. I also feel that consensus should have been gained first before the article was dramatically changed. Readro (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I'd be willing to collaborate with you to improve the article. The lead is not badly written, and of course it needs improvements which I am doing. I believe that only listing past tenth place without providing the complete set of information is useless. My perspective is that the big infobox is just repeating the same stuff that is on the individual tables. It may be useful for longer grand prix articles, but for this one where not much information exists, it is just a waste of space (in my opinion). Again as I said above, I won't have issues if we conduct a diligent discussion on my talk to reach an agreement with regards to the article (which in my opinion and due to the low level of available information, can be categorized as a list). At the end, I guess that what we both want is improvement of the article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I saw, it looked like lots of content had been removed. Removing the infobox removed the pole position and fastest lap information, although the podium is repeated but that's standard practice due to a long existing consensus that spans other motorsport disciplines too. Where the complete set of finishers isn't available, there is nothing wrong with listing what is verifiable. In some articles, such as the Isle of Man TT races, I've listed ten because it wouldn't be practical to list the entire set of results (can be upwards of 50 finishers per class, with 5 or 6 classes). This isn't such a case. Readro (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think we can have the fastest lap and pole position on the article body too? I just think that this infobox (with all that stuff that should also be on the article body) is of no benefit for this short list. And also, as I was planning to take it to featured list status, I was pretty sure (per my long experience at FLCs) that the infobox would have been challenged. I have no issues to list beyond tenth position, my issue is that ony listing position and name is not comprehensive: if the rest of the columns can be filled, I would be amazingly happy :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not try to fix the infobox about which you object? It's in use across a couple hundred articles. If there is a problem with it it is in wikipedias interests to fix it for all articles, not just the ones you like. --Falcadore (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the article is fleshed out and more text is added to describe the actual event, as well as the addition of full race results, then the size of the infobox will no longer become a problem. Having the infobox is a preference for Wikipedia, even if the information is repeated elsewhere. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure not having an infobox would cause problems at the featured circuses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that removing an infobox that is already being used in a large number of Grand Prix articles is counterproductive, as we should strive to maintain continuity between articles. There is no Wikipedia rule saying that information in an article cannot be repeated in an infobox. Regarding only showing the top ten finishers, I feel that as an online encyclopedia, we should strive to list as much verifiable information as possible.Orsoni (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@All. Wow, slow down. I am not requesting the removal of the infobox. As you can see, I left the infobox on the list. What I'm stating is that only a small amout of info should be held on that infobox from that article. I am not going to go and make a mess trying to change all infoboxes in all articles/lists of this type; it will be disruptive. I am interested in working on this specific list because it falls under a WikiProject I'm in (Venezuela) and thus is of my interest. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but how can this article be construed as a list? What is it a list of? And I find the idea of not listing all the finishers to be a bit bizarre – if only the name and position are verifiable, then put those in – information does not need to be fully comprehensive to be valid for inclusion. The lead is not particularly well written – the latest comprise / compose edit summary being a case in point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I can agree to what to add and what to not add. About the writing of the lead, I am aware that most people cannot understand when to use compose and when to use comprise, and they always put the wrong one by mistake. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a side issue, but the use of 'comprise' in this case was grammatical, as a synonym of 'constitute' or 'make up' – suggest you look it up. 'Compose', while being technically more or less acceptable, is just not a word that a native speaker would use in that sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have looked it up a lot recently, and the grammatical rule I learned years ago was this one: The whole comprises its parts, and the parts compose the whole. It's a grammatical lesson I forgot until my second FAC, where I was reminded of its use. A correct use of comprise will be: "The 1979 Grand Prix season comprised thirteen races" :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rules" of English grammar are usually lousy with exceptions. 'Comprise' has more than one meaning [4]; whether it sounds strange to the ear is a matter of personal taste, and possibly experience. 'Compose' is a poor word to use in this case, and if you don't like 'comprise', then 'constitute' is the only realistic alternative. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not my personal preference. I am just following the professional standard of english :) I know which are the meanings of 'comprise' and when to use it and when to not. Also, 'compose' is not a poor word to use by any means, and sometimes 'constituted' cannot be used. I don't understand under which standards you consider 'compose' to be a poor word... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really planning to argue with you about this, but there's nothing professional about the English used in the lead paragraph of that article. Your understanding of this particular grammar rule appears to be underdeveloped, but that's your issue. The standards by which I consider "thirteen races composed the season" to be a poor word choice are that in my decades of speaking the language as a native speaker and my ten years as a proofreader, I've never heard anyone say it. It's clumsy, and I would suggest it's something a non-native speaker might say. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me it's perfectly normal usage. It isn't. Most people would say 'made up', but in supposedly formal prose, 'constituted' is the best option. If Americans don't like 'comprise' (and they don't), it makes no difference to its validity. In other news, why do you think this article is a list? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets just agree to disagree then, seems like me (and the folks at FAC) have different perspectives than yours. But it doesn't matter :) About the list thing: I believe that, apart of the shortness of the writeable information, this article lists the racers of the event, and the position they got. Much like any yearly Latin Grammy Award article, which are also considered lists. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be wise to use the "featured X" brigade as arbiters of anything, except maybe dumbing good articles down to remedial levels. Anyway. So this is a list of what? Riders who took part in the 1979 Venezuelan Motocycle GP? An article with a paucity of information is just a short article; it doesn't make it a list. The best plan would be to write a proper precis of the races, and include the necessary references. If that's not possible, then it should just remain as a start or B class article. Calling it a list just because you can't find much information available on the subject is a cop-out, apparently solely aimed at securing some kind of featured status, not that you'll agree with that. It seems to me to be an odd way to write an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not calling it a list because I "can't find much information available on the subject", but because I see how it is structured, and I see a list. A list containing the final classifications of the racers who took part of the Grand Prix race. I don't see a careful study in text of the race because it doesn't exist. I only see tables, and articles based mostly on tables and a lead (maybe because there is not much info, or maybe because of its nature) cannot be classified as articles but lists. That's how I see it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

An article, like those Grammy Award articles, which basically has no story to be written – that's a list. There are just lists of winners, nominees or whatever, that's fine. This article does have a story, it's just not there. Therefore it's an underdeveloped article, not a list. The idea of Wikipedia is to develop articles and make them better, not to look at the bare bones and decide that's there nothing more to be done. I don't know all that much about bike racing, but where was Kenny Roberts? Injured, no mention. Two minutes on Google found a video of Wil Hartog crashing out of the lead – no mention of him at all, in the whole article! I found a piece about Tom Herron's race that day; there is info out there. This isn't a list, it's a stub – that's how I see it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you totally on that one, and re the lead which is very poorly done, much like some of the pop music fanzine stuff which Wiki is full of. I'll do a preliminary cleanup of the lead. And the dreadful captions. Moriori (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That is miles better, good work :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should post all the classified finishers in the results. As I stated previously, we are editing an online encyclopedia and should be striving to disseminate as much verifiable information as possible. I don't understand the idea of witholding information.Orsoni (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy has never been to include or provide every verifiable piece of information it can. However the finishers of the event in question are important enough to warrent inclusion, no question. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see a single good reason to leave out any finishers, or even those riders who failed to finish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the older Motocourse books (such as this one), the list of finishers is usually complete but is sometimes only partially complete. It also gives a truncated list of practice times so you can see the start positions. Problems come when people listed in the practice results don't appear in the race results. Did they retire or did they even start? It's difficult to know so in the past I've left these riders in the table whilst specifying grid position only. Occasionally you can skim through the text and pick up other finishers/retirement that aren't listed in the table. Readro (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated racing driver infoboxes

User:Frietjes has proposed making changes to the various series-specific racing driver infoboxes ({{Infobox F1 driver}}, {{Infobox Le Mans driver}}, {{Infobox WRC driver}}, etc) to allow them to be embedded inside {{Infobox racing driver}}, such that a driver's article may contain a single infobox covering all the different series in which they have particpated, rather than multiple infoboxes - see Andy Priaulx as an example. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Template_talk:Infobox_racing_driver#addition_of_modules. DH85868993 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All-Japan Formula Three Championship

Motoya Higuchi, Vladimir Tchekanine and Akitsugu Matsunaga are proposed for deletion for not being notable according to WP:NMOTORSPORT. These three drivers all raced in All-Japan Formula Three Championship. Can it be judged as a fully professional series? If it is one of the four major Formula Three championships that guarantee the winner an FIA Super Licence, I would call it a fully professional series. --217.227.120.184 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that F3 is described as a "junior formula", I'd question it. It straddles the line, but honestly I'd say no. (The example given in MOTORSPORT, Trans-Am, really should be changed btw, given the status of Trans-Am these days...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that they are professional. However, I agree that the example given in the criteria should be changed (and I wrote it!). SCCA Trans-Am is now a semi-pro series. However, I feel that pretty much every F3 series is professional. -Drdisque (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, old Trans Am was pro, but the current incarnation...ah, how the mighty have fallen.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the most of F3 drivers are professional, but Vladimir Tchekanine and Akitsugu Matsunaga are obvious amateurs and they didn't have any encyclopedical notability, they contested just only in 2001 All-Japan Formula Three season. Cybervoron (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If a driver makes one start in a professional series, they meet WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. The driver being an "amateur" isn't the deciding factor - it's the series. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Winning a Super Licence as a prize does not prove a series is professional. It suggests there is a professional prize, but that's it. --Falcadore (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is pretty much my position on the series, yes. It's a step above FF2000, but the step above F3 itself is where the "fully professional" line is in international open-wheel competition, I think. (Related question, where do the Toyota Atlantics rate?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In Higuchi's case his Formula Nippon start is more important towards notability than two seasons in Japan Formula 3. Tchekanine and Matsunaga only have Japan F3 starts and the only reference is to a statistics website, so the standard of reference fails WP:GNG. --Falcadore (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

F3 is a promotional formula. Drivers who run there aren't notable to me. Not Jack Harvey, Robin Frijns, etc. I understand that GP2 drivers get articles, but below that we shouldn't allow them. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

2012 season articles needing work

Time for my annual post about incomplete season articles. The following series articles are little more than tables. Most of them don't even explain what they are, whether they are open wheel series, where they are held, who won the series! Apparently a series as important as DTM considers the point score system more important than the series champion.

The situation is also encouraging new editors to be likewise poor in seasonal coverage.

So while the majority of series are in hibernation perhaps we could spend a few days improving these articles.

Surely it would be more important and productive than arguing over whether Mercedes or Mercedes AMG is the correct terminiology for a constructor? Less minuatae!

2012 LATAM Challenge Series season

2012 FIM Motocross World Championship season
2012 NACAM Rally Championship
2012 NHRA Full Throttle Drag Racing Series season
2011–12 New Zealand V8 season
2012 Panam GP Series season
2012 Pirelli World Challenge season
2012 Porsche Carrera Cup Great Britain
2012 Porsche Supercup season
2012 Renault Clio Cup United Kingdom season
2012 Rolex Sports Car Series season
2012 Scandinavian Touring Car Championship season
2012 Superbike World Championship season
2012 Super GT season
2012 Supersport World Championship season
2012 FIM Superstock 1000 Championship season
2011–12 Suzuki Swift Sport Cup season
2012 Toyota Racing Series
2012 Trans-Am season
2012 V8SuperTourer season
2012 V8 Utes season

Series winner mentioned but no season review:

Indicates race summaries, but a lack of season review

2012 AMA Pro Daytona Sportbike Championship season
2012 ARCA Racing Series season
2012 Australian Carrera Cup Championship
2012 Australian Formula Ford Championship
2012 Brasileiro de Marcas season
2012 Copa Chevrolet Montana season
2012 Copa Fiat Brasil season
2012 European Rally Championship season
2012 F1 Powerboat World Championship season
2012 Formula 3 Sudamericana season
2012 Formula Renault 3.5 Series season
2012 Fórmula Truck season

2012 Scottish Rally Championship season
2012 Speedway Elite League
2012 Stock Car Brasil season
2012 Superbike World Championship season
2012 Superstars Series season
2012 TTA – Racing Elite League season
2012 World Rally Championship season
2012 World Touring Car Championship season

Incomplete results: 2012 Australian GT Championship season
2012 Australian Manufacturers' Championship
2012 Australian Sports Sedan season
2012 Continental Tire Sports Car Challenge season
2012 Formula Pilota China season
2012 Kumho Tyres V8 Touring Car Series
2012 V8 Utes season

Thank you for your time. --Falcadore (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Formula 4

There's a discussion in progress regarding whether Formula 4 should be renamed to Formula Four. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Formula 4#Title. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Table statistics creep, causing data to be deleted

In recent time's I've noticed a number of motor racing season articles have shifted the focus of the season schedule so that pole position and race winner of each individual race is shown. This is data that is already shown in the results matrix, but more importantly what is happenning is this sereies which have a multiple race format where two, three or four races contribute to a round winner, this round winning detail, which is quite important, is now bwing lost so those obsessed with pole position stats can focus their attention on race stats compilation. I've found one editor in particularly is now insisting that almost every edit I make has to be run past them first so I appeal to the wider audience. Can we please stop deleting round winner data in favour of showing pole position twice. Round winner is more important the pole position anyway and certainly more important than showing it twice. --Falcadore (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd further this and say that the insistancy on adding fastest lap for each race to the calendar/race winner table is not necessary either, unless the series specifically gives points for such a thing. As for pole position, I can think that it might be notable if it too was a points awarding achievement, but if not then it is not beneficial to include it there. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean. [5] --Falcadore (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that, ideally, the pole winner and the winners of each round would be listed, but if it comes down to one or the other, wins trump all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is is an attempt to show both. [6] Ugly, complicated and ultimately duplication. --Falcadore (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Well, maybe it's a matter of taste, but that looks just fine to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope this awful broken table wasn't your final vision of perfect table, Falcadore. Cybervoron (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How was it broken? One left behind cell didn't break the table did it? It's still perfectly readable isn't it? Please, don't make stuff up for false dramatics.

A question - if pole posistion and fastest lap is difficult to read, isn't that just reflective of its importance of these statistics? Do you have any evidence that the drivers who record pole positions and fastest laps have ANY significance? Can you show me where on the Toyota Racing Series state in the importance of poles & f-laps? Any links at all?

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain why pole position and fastest lap is more important than second and third? --Falcadore (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Listing fastest laps is absolutely ridiculous. I'd remove polesitters too, it's not relevant enough to such a table. Having race winners is fine. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Driver changes

I have a question. When you list driver changes in season websites, why do we list drivers who have left the series? When a driver signs a contract with a team in the majority of circumstances it is just for the seasons involved and not for anything beyond them. We are basically listing people who have nothing to do with the season. What is the rationale behind that?

Is it because we are assuming readers expect the drivers from a previous season are always going to continue into the next season? We are not supposed to assume the readers know anything about a subject. Each season is supposed to stand on its own merits. If a driver competed in a 2012 season but does not compete in the 2013 season, then it should not be mentioned any more than drivers who leave their series in 2011, or 2010 or 1976.

Comments? --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to assume that the readers don't know much if anything about the subject, therefore, we should assume they would wonder why a driver mentioned in a previous season as competing in a series didn't return to the series. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would we assume the readers know anything about a driver from a previous series? If their contract runs out at the end of a season and is not renewed there is no reason to mention it in 2013. It would be entirely contained within the seasons it is relative too. If a driver has a contract for the following season and is sacked, there might be a case. If a contract or even an option is not renewed there is no reason to carry that information forward as the end date of the drivers involvement is known well in advance so there is no connection whatsoever to the following season. --Falcadore (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we do assume clue, and if somebody is clicking through the seasons, year by year, they might well wonder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most readers don't click through seasons. Articles are supposed to be self-contained. And if readers want to know that particualr tidbit - isn't that what the driver articles are for?

And we also do this in only one direction. We don't write about where drivers move to in the following season. Why the double standard? We should do both or neither. In fact future is MORE relevant if anything as some drivers sign during the season, which then has an adverse relationship between drivers and their teams. -Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Listing which drivers left the championship is very relevant in major championships (F1, WRC, WEC, WTCC, DTM, Indy, Nascar), but not in junior championships.

Speaking of driver and team changes, I think that it should be encourage to write proper text, rather than the usual one-sentence bullet lists. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

NaBUru38, that wasn't my point. My point was where it is specifically known in advance that a driver is not continuing into the following season (for example in an experied contract) it is not relevant. In fact it is WP:Speculation to suggest a driver is continuing beyond their contract. --Falcadore (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Timezone?

Haven't seen anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=timezone&prefix=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject+Formula+One%2FArchive&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search or related searches, and not sure if this is one for this project or perhaps an ancestor. Basically, what's with the timezone field in circuit infoboxes? Should this be changed everytime a circuit moves into or out of daylight savings? For instance, the UK and Silverstone will be on BST (GMT+1) come the Grand Prix in a few months, but the box says GMT. Especially as not everyone changes on the same dates, I think this could only lead to confusion.. Anyway, opening the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.15.183 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be either standard local time, or Zulu/Greenwich time (UTC); as noted, DST varies from place to place (and some don't use it at all). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim Clark Lotus.jpg

file:Jim Clark Lotus.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lotus Racing nominated for deletion

Lotus Racing has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was speedily kept. DH85868993 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Typical laptimes" tables

I've noticed the recent addition of "Typical laptimes" tables to various racing circuit articles, e.g. Autodromo_Enzo_e_Dino_Ferrari#Typical_laptimes, Autódromo do Estoril#Typical_laptimes. Are these desirable? DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are. They are informative, interesting and provide a comprehensive comparison not available on any other article in Wikipedia. Moriori (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

They are trivial in my mind. Except for an absolute record for the circuit which is conclusive and citable, the various lap times of different classes of cars suffer from so many variables that they are not "typical" at all. Weather, seasons, traffic, drafting, regulations, all variables in lap times.

Simply having information does not warrant its inclusion in an article. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Except for an absolute record for the circuit which is conclusive and citable....." I AGF that that is exactly what we have got. It never ceases to amaze me to see people arguing for the dumping of information which will be useful for some readers. Wikipedia is "...the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet" so why should we omit information that someone might want to reference? The laptimes are a positive for Wikipedia, not a negative, even though they might be for an individual who for some reason doesn't like them. Moriori (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why not go down the slippery slope of adding information on all the other classes that are not included in these charts? Surely information from other international series and lower formulae is available. How big of a chart is too big before stats creep becomes trivial? I see nothing positive about the lap times, they are fluff. Nor is listing the fastest lap time achieved by that car befitting of the word "typical". If it was typical, it wouldn't be the fastest lap time.

Insinuating that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKE seems to go against AGF, personally. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is not desirable. Lap times vary within one race based on fuel load, driver skill, tire wear, the class of car, the year recorded, etc. In my opinion, it is excessive statistics and should not be used per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Royal broil 03:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Moriori, why not a table of lap records instead? That would be more appropriate than a very poorly defined "typical lap times". --Falcadore (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Even better. Moriori (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Major Race Results" tables

I've noticed the recent addition of "Major Race Results" tables to various racing circuit articles, e.g. Circuit_Mont-Tremblant#Former Series & Major Race Winners, Brands_Hatch#Major_Race_Results. Are these desirable? Here is a previous discussion on the topic. DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Stats overload. We do not need the results for every event held at a circuit. If the annual or semi-annual racing event is notable enough to have its own article, such as a Grand Prix or 1000k, then the results can be there. Repeating the information on the circuit article is redundant. Other minor series don't really need these results posted, they can remain in various season articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done those in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, especially in North American circuits. I have plans to do the same for European tracks. But if they grow to much, I'd agree to move them to a separate page, like Indianapolis Motor Speedway race results. Bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "Major Race Results" like those shown in Circuit_Mont-Tremblant#Former Series & Major Race Winners should remain in the circuit articles. I have been adding them to articles. The caveat that I use is that series needs to be at a national level (usually reserved for televised events). As a reader, I would expect to see the winners in the major racing series that have raced at the circuit. I consider all of the racing series at the Circuit_Mont-Tremblant section to major. Royal broil 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Back in 2007, there was a consensus at WP:F1 against listing the winners of F1 races in circuit articles. I have advertised this discussion at WP:F1, in case anyone watching that project but not this one would like to contribute to this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that they be included only in the event that these events are established with references to be important to the history of the circuit with appropriate prose explanation. Otherwise, boom. If the results are of significant importance there will be individual articles on each of these events. Link can then be provided in the appropriate circuit article. No sense in tabulating these things twice. --Falcadore (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Brands Hatch article only includes relevant races in my opinion. But It's far too long. I'd move it to a separate page, like I said above. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If its far too long then it isn't races events that are established with references to be important to the history of the circuit with appropriate prose explanation is it? It feels as though you didn't actually read the suggestion. By way of example, while the British Grand Prix might be important in the circuits history not all the British GPs are. Not even most. Any event which occurs annually and has its own article probably should not be included. --Falcadore (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just moved the Brands Hatch race results into their own page. Matt294069 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

2001 International Formula 3000 season

Some comment on recent chaanges to this article would be welcome. --Falcadore (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, no idea what the hell is going on with having three tables for the same thing. I'll restore your edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would state that the "Complete Overview" table is also superfluous, and that the main table should include the driver's team(s). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Good edits. There's no need for three tables, and as Luke points out, no need for two, either. This same editor also wrote many Atlantic Championship and Indy Lights season articles with similar tables. As in this case, the editor reacts to any attempt to clean up the articles by reverting without discussion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 16:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, this is the entire list of such motorsport-related season articles created by the user in question, copied from Toolserver, apologies for the markup. There will be more that have been frequented, especially the F3000 articles. Craig (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been a WikiGnome and cleaned up the formatting for you Craig. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Craig (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What's concerning, at least with the article initially named here, is that there is no consistency between the two points tables; they have different positional arrangements for drivers who didn't score points. Not good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The user in question appears to have retired from Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's too bad. But, if they can't take any criticism and don't want to edit collaboratively... Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

With these articles, I am proposing we do the following:

Remove the duplicate tables - preferably those that don't look like the conventional ones we have here.
Add in an entry list table (which, at the moment, is strangely lacking in several of them)
Reformat the team's championship results to match our conventional ones.

I'll do some of this myself, when I have time. (Anyone looking at my userpage will see my list of "things to do", which this isn't on, is very, very big!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)