Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

The notability of results

I was updating results on a page which were reverted as the series they were for was deemed not notable. Are we able to change this? I mean if we have a page for the series, surely the results are therefore notable for the driver. What's the point in having some allowed tables and others not allowed tables? CDRL102 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ask yourself, which series have every result reported and commented upon in general motorsport publications? Do all of them? Some – like F1, IndyCar, WSC, WRC – have each round mentioned in multiple countries' media. I haven't checked, but I'd guess that the Ginetta Junior championship does not. That help? Pyrope 22:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you be more specific as to the page in question and what you wish to include? The notability threshold for results tables on driver articles has been set at European Formula Three for some time now; for other categories swap F3 for the equivalent level. If we included a detailed results table for every series a driver has been in, many articles would be overflowing with tables concerning low-level championships that are little more than trivia, and are not notable in the context of the driver's career. Most driver biographies contain an overview of a driver's racing career anyway, with links to the season articles, if available, where a reader can gain more information.
I would also add that there are some series with articles on Wikipedia that are simply not notable at all, and there isn't a guideline in place to point out where the notability cut-off is for motorsport championships. The fact that something has an article doesn't make it notable. QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I had placed a table of Ginetta and Formula 4 results on Sophia Flörsch but it was removed. I originally didn't know of this policy as I thought they would have counted as notable enough since the series had pages. I think they would improve the article in my opinion. CDRL102 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think what we have at the moment is decent enough - it gives a good overview of how the driver competed in a select competition year and if they did well then it can be expanded upon in the prose. Tables listing individual results can be quite big file size and really should be reserved for major international level competitions. Phill talk Edits 12:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The information presente on an article doesn't have to meet the notability criteria. The object of the article must be notable, not the information. For example, saying driver X born in Spain, or Paris is not notable. There are plenty drivers from there, but it could and should be in the article. About how far and deep the article should go the question to be asked is not if it can or cannot but if should, and more important what that information adds? The articles is improved or the opposite. Good sense should prevail.
For this example (Sophia Flörsch) the table could be added (the article is about a driver, these are results of the driver). But for me the article gets worse instead of being improved. The information presented is enough (as stated by Phill). If anyone wants to create a fully detailed carreer table, I think it should be created a separated article Driver X race results, if it meets the notability criteria ( I see this a solution for very notable drivers with extended carreers).Rpo.castro (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a collapsible table instead? Can't avoid page sizes, but it makes the page readable and not half of it covered in tables at least? Phill talk Edits 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For now, until other series have results, would it be acceptable to re-place those results on that page, then in the future they can be removed or collapsed. CDRL102 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I question whether she is notable enough to have an article in the first place. I'm mean how significant is a fifteen year old girl who has won two races in the Ginette Junior championship? Tvx1 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
One who has set multiple records in that category? Has a fair bit of coverage, for example Top Gear had an article about her up and coming campaign into Formula One. Motorsport.com and many other racing sites have coverage on her. CDRL102 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
She's not notable on her motorsport career alone, but she meets WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage she's received. QueenCake (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I question the significance/remarkableness of Ginette Junior records. I have seen many junior sportspeople people being touted as the next World Championship in their sport (including by BBC) only to never making any impact upon becoming professional. Tvx1 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
My opinion would be that, if someone is notable enough to have an article due to their motorsport career, then their career results should be given. This should include all championships entered, though perhaps less-prominent championships could be collapsed. Alternatively, maybe we should go for say the top three rungs on that driver's career - eg for an F1 driver that would be F1, GP2, F3 (or equivalents); someone who only ever reached F3 would have results for F3, Formula Renault and Formula Ford listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The career summary is ok, but listing the detailed result of every race competed in in these minor championships is really overkill. Tvx1 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Results tables

The new GP3 regulations state that teams are free to enter four cars, but only their best three results will count. This has manifested in the results table of the 2016 season only containing selected results. I believe that this is fundamentally misleading, because it implies that one car scored all of the results. This is patently untrue, as Charles Leclerc won race one, and Alexander Albon race two.

Results tables should contain ALL results achieved by the team with a prose note pointing out that the top three results count. Unfortunately, there is a user sitting on the page reverting edits he disagrees with on sight and characterising them as vandalism because of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't implies, since the numbers were omitted, it's just your fantasy. Once again I characterised your edit as vandalism, because you deleted update of the teams' championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And as I explained to you, I do big edits in stages, given the limitations of the platform I work on, and to limit losses if I make a mistake.
Nor is it "fantasy". GP2 and GP3 have been brought into the FIA Global Pathway in much the same way as Moto2 and Moto3 are in line with MotoGP. Consequently, the articles should be consistent in their format, and that should take priority over year-on-year regulation changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this a new rule for this season?

Looking at other examples, in the 2015 British Touring Car Championship only two nominated cars score points for the manufactuer/constructor and teams championships. In the independent teams championship, the top finishing car in a team scores points. The results tables in BTCC doesn't show the other cars. Boothy m (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

2015 FIA World Endurance Championship also has a similar rule for manufacturers in LMP1 and LMGTE, with only the two highest finishing cars receiving manufacturer points. It is quite clearly explained in prose and I do not see how this is deceiving anyone. I do not believe that this new style of table is failing to be consistent. This is a table for the teams championship, not the individual cars. Removal of the individual car numbers has helped improve the chart.
However, none of these edits are vandalism and should not be viewed as such. This is an edit war, it needs to be discussed and agreement made.The359 (Talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And FIA WTCC and a lot more competitions. As stated by User:The359, we should keep like it is.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me to only list the results that count towards the constrtuctors' championship in the constructors' table. That's a pratice you should be well aquinted with from your time editing WRC articles. None of your claims regarding misleading readers or withholding information hold water. That the results of some drivers are being omitted from the article doesn't hold water, as all the drivers' result are listed in the drivers' table. That you have device limit issues is no excuse for blanket-reverting another user. If you have problems, discuss and ask help and someone will undoubtedly help out. You have been told before that it is not mandatory to do everything yourself. Tvx1 22:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1—
"Makes perfect sense to me to only list the results that count towards the constrtuctors' championship in the constructors' table. That's a pratice you should be well aquinted with from your time editing WRC articles."
The WRC is completely different. First, drivers have to be nominated to score points for a team in advance of an event. And secondly, manufacturer points are calculated independently of driver points. Say for the sake of argument that you and I are nominated points scorers, and that The359 is not. In the rally, you win, The359 is second, and I come third; you get 25 points in the drivers' championship, The359 gets 18 and I get 15—but in the constructors' championship, you get 25 points, I get 18, and The359 doesn't get any because he wasn't nominated to score.
As I understand it, the GP3 system simply carries the results over from the drivers. So, again for the sake of argument, you, The359, Rpo.castro, Boothy m (and the four of you are in the sane team) and I are all drivers. You win and get 25 points, The359 is second and gets 18, Rpo.castro is third and gets 15, Boothy m comes fourth and gets 12 and I finish fifth and get 10. Since only the top three results of your team count, you don't get the 12 points Boothy m scored—but my team isn't considered to have finished fourth in the teams' championship. As far as the teams' championship is concerned, nobody finidhed fourth. That's an extremely unusual system to say the least (though admittedly, I can't stand the BTCC or endurance racing).
Ideally, the results matrix should show all of the results achieved by the team. We can simply use the blue background to show results that dud not count for points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No that would make it unnecessarily confusing. The results that don't count toward the championship have no bearing on the teams' championship. Those results are listed where they are relevant: in the drivers' table. I've we're going to list Giuliano Alesi's 22th and 16th with the "non-points finish" background, we would make it look like they are at par with the other non-points finishes which simply isn't true. Remember that even non-points finishes can have an importance in case of a tie. Tvx1 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Surely that's an argument for including all results, then, because the championship can be decided based on the results of the fourth car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No it can't. The fourth result doesn't count. Tvx1 09:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Comes down to what is the intention of the table. Is it a results table or a points table? Currently it is trying to do both and glossing over where it gets muddled up. Results are being displayed in the matrix, but only the results that score points. Or could score points. So a decision needs to be made.
a) Results table: Display all the results achieved by the teams.
b) Points table: Only display the points the team earnt regardless of how many cars scored points for the team in each race.
So which is it? Points or results? --Falcadore (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The intention of those tables is to give a detailed breakdown of who finished where in which championship and why. Even non-points results count towards the championships. Take for instance 2012 Formula One season. During that season neither Caterham, nor Marussia nor HRT scored points. Yet we list all their results in the constructors' championship because they determined their position in the championship (and as a result their share of the prize money). Their best finishes determined their championship position and those finishes were an 11th for Caterham, a 12th for Marussia and a 15th for HRT. The same principle applies for the GP3 series. We list all the results that count for the championship. From this year the teams can enter up to four cars for a race with their fourth results in the races not counting for the teams' championship. That's why we shouldn't list them in the teams' championship table. They don't count and listing them in an identical way as the results which count is confusing and even wrong. These results are currently listed in the drivers' table which is the only place they actually count. Tvx1 19:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No its not. The detailed breakdown is already given. In drivers' championship every result is listed. In manufactures' championship, the classification is given by the 2 best results. Adding results that dont count for nothing its just rubbish. In Formula One bla bla. In Formula One theose results were listed because they count. 2 drivers, 2 results.
You got engaged in a edit war due to this. And after the subject being brought to the comunity, there is no one agreeing with you but you just don't listen.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? If you had you would have noticed that I have the same opinion as you and that I actually did point out that Formula One is different from GP3. Did you even bother to look who wrote the comment and compare that with the identities of the actual users who were edit-warring? If you had you would have noticed that I am neither of those users. The edit war was between Corvus tristis and Prisonermonkeys. Lastly, the GP3 series' teams' championship counts the best 3 results not 2. Tvx1 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1 provided a very good point about non-points results count, and I'm absolutely agree with him. Corvus tristis (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Still the question needs to be answered. Is the teams table a results table or a point table? The table is ranked by point isn't it? It's called Teams Championship. This suggests strongly that it is a points table and not a results table. Detailing where each car finished is not what a point table is for. --Falcadore (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Even teams that don't score points have a position in the championship. And it is determined by all results which count, so all counting results should be listed. Results that don't count shouldn't. I have already explained how the exact position of three teams without points can affect them. Concerning the current GP3 season, Campos Racing has a championship position despite not scoring points. Why should we be excluding them then? Regardless, you have a fair point that we shouldn't list detailed results per car. Just listing results that count should be sufficient. Tvx1 12:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we got on the tangent of not listing teams with no points, that makes no sense.
The point Falcadore seems to be trying to make is that we could, theoretically, have a championship table that looks like this:
Pos. Team Points
1 France ART Grand Prix 71
2 France DAMS 35
3 Italy Trident 22
4 Switzerland Jenzer Motorsport 18
5 United Kingdom Arden International 14
6 Finland Koiranen GP 6
7 Spain Campos Racing 0
These are the essentials of the championship standings, and the only elements we really need to display for readers. However, the entire point of the matrix is to show how the teams reached these standings and point totals over the course of the season. Thus we show how, in each race, the teams scored their points based on the race results. This does not however imply that all results are necessary to be shown, specifically ones that do not affect a team's points total. To me it seems simple enough that if a fourth car does not add to the team's points total in any way, the information isn't necessary to include.
Now, to Prisonermonkeys' point of a fourth car affecting the championship in that their finishing position can hinder an opposing team, I do not believe that the matrix should be used to explain how one team's results affected another team's result. In his example, he finishes fifth and gets points for fifth, as the fourth place car is "skipped" in the points payout. However his team's result is fifth, treating it as "not fourth" is great and all, but I don't believe that is the point of the matrix. Again, we are explaining how team's earned their points total, and "not fourth" is not it. The team finished in fifth, how they specifically got there is something better represented in the race report. We are trying to be helpful to casual readers, but we don't need to include every possible piece of information. Representing the fourth place car among a team's results is simply playing a game of "what if" that shouldn't exist. If a team's best result is fifth then it's fifth, adding another team's car that finished in fourth doesn't provide any more information about the first team's championship points total.
As an aside, the championship standings that Tvx1 linked to list ART at 73 points, our article has them at 71, so someone might want to check up on that. The359 (Talk) 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I get that but I think Falcadore's point is flawed. I we apply the same principle to the current drivers table we get the following.
Pos. Driver Points
1 Monaco Charles Leclerc 27
2 Thailand Alexander Albon 23
3 United Kingdom Jake Hughes 23
4 Italy Antonio Fuoco 22
5 Colombia Óscar Tunjo 18
6 Japan Nirei Fukuzumi 15
7 United Kingdom Jake Dennis 14
8 Switzerland Kevin Jörg 12
9 Netherlands Nyck de Vries 8
10 Russia Matevos Isaakyan 4
11 Switzerland Ralph Boschung 1
12 United States Santino Ferrucci 0
13 Poland Artur Janosz 0
14 United Kingdom Matt Parry 0
15 Slovakia Richard Gonda 0
16 Colombia Tatiana Calderón 0
17 Spain Álex Palou 0
18 Thailand Sandy Stuvik 0
19 France Giuliano Alesi 0
20 Russia Konstantin Tereshchenko 0
21 United Kingdom Jack Aitken 0
22 Malaysia Akash Nandy 0
23 Netherlands Steijn Schothorst 0
24 India Mahaveer Raghunathan 0
Pos. Driver Points
Now how are we going to explain that Alexander Albon and Jake Hughes are ranked second and third despite both of them being tied on points and the order of every one below 11th place, none of whom have scored point so far, in this table? That's why we have the individual race result in the tables. To show why and how ties are broken. The same principle applies to the team's championship when one or more teams are tied on points. That's why we should list all the results that count (best 3 from each race for each team) towards the teams' championship and that's why I think Falcadore's point is an unnecessary overreaction to a minor problem. Tvx1 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you may not understand what Falcadore is saying. I do not believe Falcadore is arguing to remove the matrix, he is simply discussing the purpose of the matrix. It is to display how the team earned their points, not to display all race results for the team. My table example was simply to illustrate the order of relevance of information in the chart. The drivers standings play no part in this, every driver is eligible for points in every race and there is no discussion about changing the drivers championship tables. The discussion is over what is relevant information in the teams championship.
As for tie breakers, the possibility of a fourth driver for a team being used as a tie breaker in such a way is so remote that it shouldn't even be considered. The odds of two teams of three drivers each having the exact same results is astronomical. The359 (Talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey The359, I have been looking into this discrepancy you have mentioned. It seems that ART's fourth result (worth two points) has been counted towards the the team's championship after all. This makes me wonder wether this claim that only the three best results count is true in the first place. Tvx1 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be worth a wait and see. I have had problems with FIA championship PDFs and tables having errors in the past. This season thus far a non-championship WEC team was listed in the teams championship after the first round, then correctly removed from the standings after the second round. The359 (Talk) 16:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait and see is often the best approach indeed. I will point out however that the GP3 site isn't maintained by the FIA. There is nothing on GP3 (or GP2) on FIA's own site. Tvx1 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware, I'm just using it as an example as most people hold the FIA's documents in high regard. I also find that there can be discrepancies between those that maintain series websites and the sanctioning bodies and timekeepers, so it might be best to check on any timekeeper files to see if they match the website's points total. The359 (Talk) 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Spring Vintage Weekend at Road America, group 9

I attended a vintage car race and I have several unidentified cars that might be useful on Wikipedia. If interested, please let me know which article I should put the image on. I can do the uploading since I photographed them. I put 9 cars from the top class out on my flickr stream for now. Some older Formula 1 cars will come later. Can anyone identify these cars? Please put the information below each bullet. I added the model # for the cars as reported on the sanctioning body's website. RoyalbroilAlt 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some more from a different race:

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Outline of auto racing

See Talk:Auto_racing#Draft_outline. DH85868993 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Formula Renault 2.0 Northern European Cup in 1999

Hi everybody,

I'm a French contributor and I'm working on Zsolt Baumgartner. I saw in different pages that he was champion of German Formula Renault in 1999.

But for Driver Database, it's Kari Mäenpää who was crowned champion this year.

This Finnish driver has not won one race during this season, while Baumgartner won three races. But fot Driver Database, Baumgartner hasn't got any points.. why ?

Thanks for your answers. LoupDragon42 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Zsolt Baumgartner Different person/not stated that Baumgartner was a champion
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Corvus tristis (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Weird: same source and two champions:
http://mediaguide.wsbyrenault.com/team.php?champ=26&id=10 and http://mediaguide.wsbyrenault.com/team.php?champ=26&id=24
In a web forum I read "Zsolt wasn't 2nd in German FRenault in 1999 but he was the CHAMPION despite skipping one of the 8 races!!! That's how good he was! (Just for your information Finnland's Kari Mäenpää finished 2nd with 122 points,Zsolt became champion with 124 points which is quite good if you not even take part in every races)" (http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44739&page=2). Maybe the race he didn't contest its the cause for this confusion.
Rpo.castro (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your answer. So Baumgartner is the real champion, I can continue my work without any problem. LoupDragon42 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably was the real champion, but we cannot for sure state that (not with the available information at the moment). Better state that some sources indicate Baumgartner while others Kari.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it at all possible the series had multiple tiers or classes? Knowing Formula Renault they tend to have several different types of series going on at each event. The359 (Talk) 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix

Monaco Grand Prix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes a race circuit notable?

I have come across Honda Safety & Riding Plaza Kyūshū, which has been proposed for deletion as having no significant coverage. I have found several articles in Japanese concerning race events held at the course. Before I spend time on expanding the article, can anyone give me some hints on what is required to prove the notability of a course? Thanks in advance, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

For the circuits, I think its aplied the general Notability guidelines. Quoting: <<"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.>> Do you have articles about the circuit? An article about the circuit history, or the winners or major events? Any notable event that occurred in that circuit? (ex. a mediatic accident, a major achievement such as world record?) If there isn't, in my opinion that means that the circuit probably is no notable enough. Btw, the hardly we can call it an article. Looks a dictionary entry.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In my completely subjective opinion, "significant coverage" would be to have held a national championship event or an event of equal national significance such as the Suzuka 8 Hours endurance event. Again, let me reiterate that this is just my subjective opinion.Orsoni (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
What about reading "notability guidelines"?
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses so far. I am familiar with GNG, but was wondering whether there were any specific guidelines formulated by the motorsport wikiproject. Earlier this year the course hosted the national motorcross championship: [23]. There are further references from more reliable sources in Japanese. I think (but am uncertain yet) it may have hosted rounds of the Asia Dream Cup mentioned in biographies of several riders, e.g. Hiroki Ono#Asia Dream Cup. It has certainly hosted qualifying events for that competition. The history, etc. can be summarized from the official site. There is more there, but I don't want to waste my time translating it if it will end up deleted anyway. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Japanese (or any other language) Wikipedia articles about the circuit already? They are not linked to this one yet. I would regard it as a clue of significance if other languages already had substantial articles (however the absence of those articles does not indicate the contrary). For comparison, the article at Hokkaido Speed Park is comparable size and information content to this one. It has a jawiki interlanguage link to an article that looks longer (sorry - I can't tell if there is any more meaningful content). There seem to be a number of very short articles in Category:Motorsport venues in Japan with the same template layout, created by the same user in 2011 and barely altered since. They might be notable despite insignificant media coverage in English, but little new content for 5 years and few inbound links support the suspicion that they might not be. --Scott Davis Talk 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You do need independent sources to determine the track's notability however. The track's official site boasting what great events they organized is not sufficient. Tvx1 13:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The venues used by a notable series might be mentioned in news articles about the series and be worthy of Wikipedia articles. Asia Dream Cup seems to be mentioned without wikilinks in more Wikipedia articles than have red links so far though, so I have no idea if the series itself is sufficiently notable. It appears to have rounds in multiple countries, but it's the 4th of five series run by FIM Asia. --Scott Davis Talk 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of cat:World RX

A user has unilaterally tried to delete Category:World RX, the CfD here could use some specialist knowledge. Le Deluge (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this chap notable?

Cameron Twynham. Ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

With his record to date, I would have to say not. Eagleash (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Prodded. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Season" removed from article titles

With the word "season" removed from article titles where it should be removed, isn't it time now for someone to change the motorsport season template? Otherwise we have to make for each motorsport season two pages, for example, one 2017 GP2 Series page and one 2017 GP2 Series season page redirecting to the 2017 GP2 Series page. Or we have to put nextlink and previouslink in the template every time, but if we do that or make two pages for every motorsport season, it still says "season" in the template. Could anyone change the template, please? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There's still a few articles that need to be moved first. If we edit the template before moving the articles we end up breaking a lot of links, whereas if we move the articles before changing the template the links will still work in the interim. I do partially blame myself for not anticipating how early people would create new 2017 articles; if I had I would have adjusted the template on the 2016 articles to ensure the correct titles, assuming that is how people create the new articles. QueenCake (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
There, it's been changed. If anyone comes across an article with broken links in the template or one that has not been moved, which is likely as things do get missed, then the options should be:
A) If it's an article with season in the title, and should not be moved, add |link={{article title without year}} season to the motorsport season template. If all the season pages are named the same this should seamlessly fix it. If not, use |previouslink |nextlink on the articles before and after the name change. You may also want to add |title={{series name}} season, which will change the visible title on the template.
B) If it's an article with season in the title and should be moved, a "championship season", first move the page to the correct title without season. After, remove season from the opening sentence, and check that the template still makes sense and leads to the correct articles. You may have to adjust the |series, |title, |link, or |previouslink |nextlink parameters, if applicable.
C) If it's an article that has been moved, again check the |series, |title, |link, or |previouslink |nextlink parameters. You may have to adjust one or more. QueenCake (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Formula E navigation

Does anyone know what the issue is with the Formula E infobox on season pages? It doesn't seem to be working, I get redirects and red links when using it. It navigated fine last time I was editing, but since I came back from my holiday it's broken. Thanks CDRL102 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be double redirects, because of the moves made to season pages to remove season, and the template being changed to try and accommodate for this. The359 (Talk) 23:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed them. DH85868993 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! CDRL102 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That one's my fault. I had it down on a list to fix, but for whatever reason forget to do so after changing the template... Thanks for the fix DH85868993!. QueenCake (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Motorsport.com

General question, with the reliable sources page being dead, I'm posting this here. Motorsport.com now owns Autosport. I know Autosport is considered a reliable source, but has a discussion on Motorsport.com ever come up? I've used it rarely, but have seen it used in several articles, and I know they have several well known auto racing writers. Esw01407 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions (although not directly about reliability) at the F1 project here and here. Also, it should not be confused with Motor Sport (magazine), which is on-line as motorsportmagazine.com. Eagleash (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Motorsport's news section should be considered reliable, as they are generally original pieces or simply copies of press releases. Their biographical section, however, should not be as it is simply a copy of Wiki articles, therefore not qualifying for WP:RS. The359 (Talk) 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jason Cherry

Dear motorsport experts: Here's a draft about a racer. He's been in quite a few races, but I don't know enough about motorsport to tell if these are notable races or not. I didn't find any 2016 results. Should there be a mainspace article about this subject?—Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Doesn't have the notability required to merit an article. Tvx1 14:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Tvx1.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability at Alex Quinn

Alex Quinn. Page was created by the man himself and his claim to fame is 7th in MSA Formula. I've cleaned up some of the article but it's best if we delete IMO. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(Update)I have reverted to the original redirect. I guess usurping this article needs a bit more discussion. Existing dicussions here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
PS - I changed the header to a better description. Hope no one minds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rockingham 500 - Good Topic candidate

The Rockingham 500 overview has been nominated as a good topic. You can weigh in the discussion here. MWright96 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Template:Infobox racing driver

An editor has suggested the addition of a new parameter (FIA Driver Category) to {{Infobox racing driver}}. Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 17 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alan Heaphy

Hello again motorsport experts. For sure this article needs better references, but I don't know much about motorsport, so I can't tell if there's a notability problem as well.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say that team managers of V8 Supercars are relevant, as they get coverage by motorsport press. --167.58.93.235 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, 167.58.93.235, I have tagged the page for better references.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Results legend

Following this discussion, the wording of the Formula One results legend templates was recently changed to clarify the distinction between a driver being classified and finishing the race. Specifically:

  • "Points finish" was changed to "Other points position"
  • "Non-points finish" was changed to "Other classified position"
  • "Non-classified finish (NC)" was changed to "Not classified, finished (NC)"
  • "Did not finish (Ret)" was changed to "Not classified, retired (Ret)"

Does anyone object to me making similar changes to {{Motorsport driver results legend}}? DH85868993 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be cautious in changing that template. It's used for all motorsports and not all of them work the same way as Formula 1.Tvx1 17:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, don't change {{Motorsport driver results legend}} - many forms of motorsports that use that template do not use the term "classified" or "not classified" and it seems the intent of the recent changes to the F1 template was to use the term "classified" more. -Drdisque (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I won't change it then. Thanks for your input. DH85868993 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Officials

As a result of this recent edit to Charlie Whiting and this edit to Roland Bruynseraede, I came across this discussion which proposes recategorising articles currently in "sports officials" categories into "less ambiguous" categories. Personally, I think the edits to Whiting and Bruynseraede's articles were inappropriate - I believe those gentlemen are more accurately described as "officials" rather than "exeuctives" or "administrators" - in fact the lead of Bruynseraede's article even describes him as a "motorsport official". I consider people like Bernie Ecclestone or Tony George to be "executives" or "administrators". What do others think? I also note that the discussion makes no mention of the term "stewards", which is a term commonly used in motor racing (and horse racing). DH85868993 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Under those definitions, I would argue that Charlie Whiting could be described as both an official, as the person who overseas the proper running of a Grand Prix, and an administrator, as someone who has a role in creating the regulations and running the F1 department of the FIA. QueenCake (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll confess ignorance, but my understanding of Whiting's job (usually?) is limited to what I'd call something like "chief steward"; that's not "admin", IMO. If he has broader, rule-writing responsibilities, maybe he is...but does he have influence on F1 policy, like what venues get picked? That clearly is admin-level...& rule-writing might fall under a narrower job description of "chief steward". (Is that muddy enough for you? ;p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Race results vandal

Hello folks. Apologies for bringing this to your attention, but we seem to have another of the strange obsessives who like to surreptitiously alter race results to complete garbage. They started small on Formula One race articles and we played whack-a-mole for a few days, but lately they seem to have upped the pace and have started spreading to other subjects including drivers and motocross events. I've started compiling a list of the IP addresses use in my user space (here) so if you do see any more of this vandalism from a new address could you please add it to the list. Once we have an idea of the range of IPs used we car start to look at options such as rangeblocks or something a bit more sophisticated. Thanks! Pyrope 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:115.133.105.8 was one I ran into several days ago, to add to your list. Not from the same IP string, but they are Malaysian. The359 (Talk) 06:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Same behaviour, same ISP, quack quack. Thanks! Pyrope 07:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if it's related, but 2A02:C7D:5BE5:2400:D132:D696:EE99:F462 is another one who's making silly and strange edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Malaysian, British ISP. The359 (Talk) 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, not the same. Apart from the ISP, their edits are more in the line of juvenile inexperience and misplaced obsession with details. They have added prose and text, not just made up results. Pyrope 17:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Pyrope, it happened twice again tonight at 2016 Austrian Grand Prix by a Malaysian IP.Tvx1 02:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I see that Tvx1, nice work on reverting so swiftly. DH already added that address to the list. I may be kidding myself, but I get the feeling that they are slowing down a bit now that they are only getting silently reverted rather than the hoopla of the usual string of vandal warnings. Fingers crossed. Pyrope 02:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Pyrope, another IP, locating to the Malaysian F1 circuit or at least close to it, has been busy today. At which point will we consider requesting some assistance. There is no sign of this ceasing and with every edit they make, the chances increase that some of this vandalism will go unnoticed. There are a lot of articles in this project, after all.Tvx1 14:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, all these IPs should be banned without further discussion. Of course, a new IP from completely different range can pop up, but it will continue to disrupt until it is shown that those additions are inaccurate and not welcome. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that they don't care about correct and welcome changes.Tvx1 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Pyrope, we really have to consider taking some action. It just keeps happening on a daily basis.Tvx1 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Supercars Challenge

Just looking for some advice as to a necessitated page move that will cause some disambiguation issues. V8 Supercars Challenge, the non-championship Supercars Championship event at the Australian Grand Prix will be called Supercars Challenge as of 2017. There are already pages named Supercar Challenge and Supercar Challenge (video game) so some form of disambiguation will be required. My original proposal was Supercars Challenge (Australian Grand Prix) however that is quite lengthy. I received a suggestion from @Kytabu: that we could name it something like Supercars Challenge (series) and Supercars Challenge (event) for example but was suggested to raise the issue here. The three pages may also need a separate disambiguation page. SchueyFan (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the old V8 Supercars Challenge is a race, so I would call it Supercars Challenge (race). Another option is to use the slightly older name Supercars Albert Park Challenge, which is more descriptive. --167.58.158.73 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for that. I suppose I would prefer 'event' over 'race' though as technically the Challenge is made up by a series of races (currently four) as opposed to one race. SchueyFan (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Le Mans Prototypes

Should cars that are only re-branded versions be listed here (Oreca 07 vs Alpine A470) and how about DPi (they should be listed as a new entry like Mazda DPi)? Adding a collum for "Last year running" would be interesting. Does anyone have information about? Finnally, I am not complete happy about how this table looks. Any improvement suggestions?Rpo.castro (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rally racing co-drivers

Dear motorsport experts: In articles about rally race drivers, is it customary to make mention of co-drivers? I am not familiar with this sport, so I don't know how notable the co-drivers are. For example, in this article: Antoine L'Estage, it seems that for quite a few of his races his co-driver was Nathalie Richards. A draft about her has been deleted, but only G13 because no one was working on it. Would it be appropriate to add some information about her to Antoine's article and create a redirect, or are these sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] strong enough that there should be an article about her, since she co-drove as well for Patrick Richard ([33])?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-drivers have to meet the same criteria as drivers. They are sport competitors, and although drivers have more media coverage, you cannot say that drivers are above co-drivers. There was (still is?) a World Cup for co-drivers (Portugal Rally Championship has one), because co-drivers could team up with several drivers. So, if a co-driver fills the notability guidelines, should have an article.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The World Rally Championship still futures a World Championship for co-drivers.Tvx1 12:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Rpo.castro and T, I have revived the page, reorganized it and moved it to Nathalie Richard (rally racing). Thanks for your input. As I wrote above, I am not sure that the references I used are all suitably independent and reliable, so I hope the editors here will make the appropriate adjustments.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the article fullfills the notability criteria guidelines. I just add some wikilinks.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose Merger of Formula Ford 1600 -> Formula Ford

I'm proposing merging the Formula Ford 1600 page into the larger Formula Ford article. I think the larger article could use some serious rewrite help but it's not so long that we need a sub-article to cover a subset of UK based FF cars. The merger may be problematic as the article is old and has almost no references. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It should be merged but also needs to be rewritten to include FF/F1600 racing in North America. -Drdisque (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Drdisque:, I've added a bit of US based FF/F1600 material to the FF article. Unless you count F2000/FC as part of the FF article I would say there is no reason in the US to identify the class as F1600. I understand one of the pro series uses F1600 and F2000 but SCCA just calls it FF. I guess we would have to decide what to do with the Honda Fit based cars. Any interest on working together on the main Formula Ford page? Springee (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Springee: Thanks, I'll take a look at it and try to add something when I get a chance. SCCA officially calls the class "Formula F" with the F officially not standing for anything. So maybe just redirects to Formula Ford from "Formula F" and "SCCA FF" would work. There are also a number of semi-pro series in Canada that use FF/F1600 rules and both use the name "F1600": Formula 1600 (Ontario), Formula Tour 1600 (Quebec). -Drdisque (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly non-notable autobiography

What appears to be an autobiography has been created at Calan Williams. I am not familiar with notability criteria for drivers, but I doubt this person satisfies them. I invite you to have a look and see whether it should be put up for AFD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lacks notability. Seemingly competing, to date, in a 'regional' championship in a junior formula. Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Same goes for Ole Kristian Temte. Has created his own article in the past, has been deleted and he's re-created it again. Now it meets some criteria but his notability is questionable. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an AFD for Mr. Williams. Mr. Temte [barely] meets WP:NSPORT/MOTOR as the FIA World Rallycross Championship, which he has competed in, is a fully professional series. He has driven in the series a grand total of twice, but he meets the guideline. -Drdisque (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
And yet Andy Scott's article was deleted despite having competed in nearly a whole season of the World Championship and at least two of the European? Where's the consistency? Holdenman05 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I never saw Andy Scott's article. I would have argued against it if I was aware of the AFD or contested the Prod if it was prodded. -Drdisque (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

FIA European Formula 3 Championship

User:QueenCake without any discussion had omitted FIA from the FIA European Formula 3 Championship. But FIA in the case with F3 is necessary for disambiguation purposes. The history of F3, F2 and any other open-wheel racing championships proves, that most of the championships are tend to cease. Some of them were created again under the same name after some period. So it is a very bad idea to remove something from the name, because F3 is not that stable championship as Formula One. Also QueenCake blind to the sources which states that in 1975 was known as FIA European Formula 3 Cup [34], while in the other years it was officially and more commonly known as FIA European Formula 3 Championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but that was some years ago, when I was shortening some over-lengthy article names, before reversing during the discussion last year. I doubt someone will confuse the European Formula 3 championship with the Formula 3 Euro Series (very different names), but I'm completely indifferent to its omission.
The big issue was you splitting the F3 championship between two articles, FIA European Formula 3 Championship (established in 1975) for the original run, and European Formula 3 Championship for the current history. I see zero justification for the move. It's the same championship, run to Formula Three rules, competed in Europe, and organised by the FIA. It's treated the same by many sources, as are many other championships that take a break during their history.
What it was called in 1975 didn't matter that much compared to the main point, so I didn't really talk about. QueenCake (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
European Formula 3 Championship may mean any other European championship with F3 regulations. You have doubts but motorsportmagazine.com confuses, and the reader who is not a motorsport fan may easily confuse.
I'm not a native speaker, but I always thought that a phrase "take a break" mean interrupt one's activity briefly with an intention to continue in the certain moment, not almost thirty years later. When FIA European Formula 3 Championship was disestablished in 1984, it certainly wasn't just paused.
The questions that I left to you on my talk page are still open. All your sources hadn't clear criteria to merge championships (Forix merged European F2/FIA Formula Two, Italian F2/F3000, World Sportscar Championship/FIA WEC, FIA GT Championship/FIA GT Series statistics, despite that they are clearly different championships, while Super Formula statistics is divided; motorsportmagazine.com merged the former European F3 Championship, European F3 Cup, F3 Euro Series and the current European F3 Championship; Autosport says two opposite things in the same article that you have provided). DriverDB for example treats to the current championship as new. You didn't prove that it's the same series. Even the FIA says in their press release, that it's "new championship". Also it's not correct that it's organised solely by the FIA, mostly the series organised by the people who organised DTM and F3 Euro Series with some help of FIA.
The championship which started in 1975 and the current championship are different because they have absolutely different sporting and technical regulations, different race weekend structure, different promoters, different circuits, etc. If we will follow your logic, than we should also incorporate FIA European Formula Three Cup, which also competed in Europe, used F3 cars, organised by the FIA and which motorspotmagazine treated as the championship, despite it consists just from one race. And also you should merge Palmer's F2 and the current one as they also had used Formula 2 cars, competed mostly in Europe, having almost the same name with a nominal FIA role in the organisation of the series. But I believe in common sense and that we will have different articles in cases with F3 and F2 championships.Corvus tristis (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jvm21

User:Jvm21 creates articles about karting drivers (Fin Kenneally, Sami Taoufik, Noah Watt, etc). I had big doubts if they are notable now. I think some other articles are also deserves WP:MOTOR attention. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I say AFD all.Tvx1 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Formula Two

Seeing as GP2 is now F2, and the articles for the current F2 and Jonathan Palmer's F2 are clumsily titled, would anyone be against moving Palmer's series to a name such as "MotorSport Vision Formula Two" or something similar? A similar argument could also be made for merging both the current and original F2 series but keeping a GP2 article separate. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We can't move to MotorSport Vision Formula Two or use something containing MSV link as the series was never known under this name. What if someday Jonathan Palmer will decide to upgrade his MSV Formula 3 Cup to MSV Formula 2, like it's happened with BRDC Formula 4 and BRDC British Formula 3? "FIA Formula Two Championship (established in 2009)" is fine, as it's clearly references to an actual name of the championship. Merging Jonathan Palmer's F2 and current F2 it's not an option, as they are absolutely different championships. But for sure we should mention all the F2 Championships in Formula Two articles. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I liked the idea of naming the current F2 series article "FIA Formula 2 Championship" and the past MSV F2 series "FIA Formula Two Championship", they are both written differently so its makes both articles distinguishable. Speedy Question Mark 16:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Than why you renamed it to "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)"? Corvus tristis (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw that somebody changed the MSV F2 article title to "FIA Formula Two Championship (2009-2012)" that was the reason but I've changed my view. Speedy Question Mark 16:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what, if any, convention exists in this Wikiproject, but for the football (soccer) project, since the 2 names are basically the same, the year would be added to the title of the article on the historical series but not the current series. Also, since this is a continuation of the GP2 series, I'd expect that page to be renamed and updated rather than a new page to be created. Either way I think there should also be disambig links between the 2 F2 pages, although a full-on disambig page might be overkill.--John, AF4JM (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the most of you said. As first I think that it will be better idea to just rename GP2 Series article, basing on the logic, that it almost the same series just with another name. But GP2 Series was a direct successor of the International Formula 3000 (and also hadn't much difference from F3000), while F3000 was a direct successor of the European F2. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A new article for what is considered a new championship. New Formula Two is not the GP2 Series - it's now the FIA's, not Bernie's - it's not related to Palmer's Formula Palmer Audi 2, which stands completely separate, and it's certainly unrelated to the old European F2 championship.

As for names, the new F2 championship will be considered the primary target, so should receive the name sans disambiguator. FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) was perfectly acceptable for Palmer's one. Using "established in 2009" adds unnecessary length, and also implies that the series is still going.

However, Corvus tristis and Speedy Question Mark, please stop moving the article. You've collectively made a pig's ear over this, and now the page history for GP2 is stuck on the supposedly new F2 article. We can't make a decision on the titles or make any edits until this situation is cleared up. QueenCake (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012)" wasn't perfect, as it's led to "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)" name, that made SQM. I understand that it makes slightly longer, but the years of existence, were never used in the disambiguation practice in Wikipedia. For example: Miodrag Jovanović (footballer, born 1922). You can't imply that he is still alive. And we can use "established in xxxx" in future cases when the current championship will have less or equal significance as previous with the same name. Corvus tristis (talk)

GP2 and F2 should have separate articles just like F3000 and GP2 do. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take the lead from professional wrestling of all places and use the name of the Promoter - see Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) and Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts). -Drdisque (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know about wrestling, but in case of the F2 championships promoters are not well known. If you are long-time motorsport fan you probably know Jonathan Palmer and Bruno Michel, but the "FIA Formula Two Championship (established in 2009)" and "FIA Formula 2 Championship" for the current one is much easier for the simple reader. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably it's time to fix the consensus? I assume now we all agree, that we should have different articles for GP2 and F2? And we should move back "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)" to GP2 Series and make a new article for FIA Formula 2 Championship? Corvus tristis (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least, that's how I see it.Tvx1 08:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Formula One Pre-Qualifying

I would like to propose a change to the tables we use for pre-qualifying in Formula One Grand Prix articles.

This is what is currently used:

Pos No Driver Constructor Time Gap
1 29 France Éric Bernard Lola-Lamborghini 1:27.134 —
2 30 Japan Aguri Suzuki Lola-Lamborghini 1:27.548 +0.414
3 14 France Olivier Grouillard Osella-Ford 1:27.938 +0.804
4 33 Brazil Roberto Moreno EuroBrun-Judd 1:28.295 +1.161
5 17 Italy Gabriele Tarquini AGS-Ford 1:28.677 +1.543
6 18 France Yannick Dalmas AGS-Ford 1:30.511 +3.377
7 34 Italy Claudio Langes EuroBrun-Judd 1:33.195 +6.061
8 31 Belgium Bertrand Gachot Coloni-Subaru 1:39.295 +12.161
9 39 Italy Bruno Giacomelli Life 1:41.187 +14.053

And this is what I propose we do:

Pos No Driver Constructor Time Gap
1 29 France Éric Bernard Lola-Lamborghini 1:27.134 —
2 30 Japan Aguri Suzuki Lola-Lamborghini 1:27.548 +0.414
3 14 France Olivier Grouillard Osella-Ford 1:27.938 +0.804
4 33 Brazil Roberto Moreno EuroBrun-Judd 1:28.295 +1.161
5 17 Italy Gabriele Tarquini AGS-Ford 1:28.677 +1.543
6 18 France Yannick Dalmas AGS-Ford 1:30.511 +3.377
7 34 Italy Claudio Langes EuroBrun-Judd 1:33.195 +6.061
8 31 Belgium Bertrand Gachot Coloni-Subaru 1:39.295 +12.161
9 39 Italy Bruno Giacomelli Life 1:41.187 +14.053

*A red background denotes drivers who did not pre-qualify.

This would minimise confusion as to who did and did not PQ as there is no indication as to who did make the cut aside from matching the drivers in the results table with those in the PQ table (results are taken from the 1990 Monaco Grand Prix). Holdenman05 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably the discussion will be more appropriate for WP:F1, but I am supporting the proposal. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:COLOR using color as sole means to convey information is to be avoided. It's much easier and clearer to put a thick line in between those who prequalified and those who didn't.Tvx1 22:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I like it but Tvx1 is right about the colour issue/guideline. Either use a thick line as he says, or use bold type for the qualifiers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If I'm not wrong, what WP:COLOR says is that color shouldn't be the only mean of separation and its advised to use the color in combination with a thick line. So, for me, the best solution is combinate the proposal of Holdenman05 with a thick line.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The color is not needed. It's distracting. If you add a thick line it's obvious enough. We don't use coloring to mark drivers who failed to make it within the 107% mark either.Tvx1 19:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

ITNR discussion

A discussion which may be of relevance to this WikiProject is being held ITNR, to discuss the status of Indianapolis 500 and Monaco Grand Prix on the ITN Recurring items list. Input welcome. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed Jones (racing driver)

Before I go on indefinite leave (for external issues), I'd like to draw attention to the proverbial shitfight going on over Jones' nationality. There is an official source by IndyCar themselves stating he is Emirati, however a certain IP (who has allegedly evaded blocks and used sock puppetry) is reverting all productive edits. Could we sort this out please? Holdenman05 (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

XXXX in motorsports

I can't understand current purpose of the lists. 2014 in motorsports list is a messy duplication of the List of 2014 motorsport champions and Category:2014 in motorsport. 2015 and other lists duplicate season articles with lists of events and winners. I assume that we need lists under this name, but we need to change their structure and content. I propose next structure (it is only a proposal, not my final decision): calendar of notable non-championship events (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Le Mans, Macau Grand Prix, etc), calendar of race festivals; births and deaths of racing drivers/people who related to motorsport; circuits that were opened during a year; championships and non-championship events the were established in a year. These structure will be more like the other year-related lists. We need a consensus on what is really matter to include in the list. P.S. Not sure but probably will be more correct to move the name to XXXX in motorsport. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I support your proposed structure for these articles. It should link to the respective List of Champions article. "Motorsports" vs. "Motorsport" is an American vs. British English issue, so I don't think it's necessary to change. As bad as you think "motorsports" sounds to you, "motorsport" sounds just as bad to Americans. Having the list of champions use "motorsport" and the year use "motorsports" is perhaps a god compromise. One thing that will also have to be determined is when a series is discontinued. Will that be discussed in the year of the series' final season or will it be discussed in the following year, the first year without that championship? -Drdisque (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation. But I think that there is a problem if we will use American English for the lists as it means that we should use American date format. While FIA and the most motorsport championship organisers uses the DMY one. It will be more correct to comply MOS:DATETIES. Also it is certain that we should have the same name as Category:2014 in motorsport. It looks a bit strange that a category uses "motorsport", while a list uses "motorsports". It will be just simpler to rename four lists than all "year in motorsport" categories. With all your other proposals I am absolutely agree.
The question of when the championship was discontinued is definitely controversial. But I assume that the final season of the championship will be more correct. GP2 Series formally was re-branded into FIA Formula 2 Championship in 2017, but the last season was in 2016. In 2017 GP2 Series hasn't any rounds that counted towards the championship. It's just my first thoughts. Probably I should study this issue more. What your thoughts on that one?Corvus tristis (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I was also leaning towards using the year of the final season to discuss a discontinued championship. In the case of a substantially re-named championship, probably mention it both years. -Drdisque (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
May be we should mention the final season of a discontinued championship in the same year list and mention that the championship was renamed from one name to another in the next year list in the section of established championships? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit academic. They articles redirect list of champions articles. If the **** in motorsport articles contained more than a list of champions this would not be the case. The absense of any text, any contextual description made the redirect easy. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the redirect is the best decision for now. What do you think about my and Drdisque proposal to make an overview lists like the other year-related lists? It is much simpler to establish unified structure for all lists before creating them. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
As always, any list requires text to contextualise it. Any list without it should be deleted on sight. --Falcadore (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
What are you proposing on text? I did a little research on year-related lists, and usually all text (excluding list) they have is one line of summary and some notes (Example 1, Example 2). I assume that we need a text to make a clear explanation for calendar of the notable events. It maybe either non-championship event (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Nürburgring, etc) or event that has own significance (24 Hours of Le Mans, 24 Hours of Daytona, Indianapolis 500, etc). We need criteria for inclusion of the events, as we don't need the duplication of the season calendars. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(I'm not going to be able to post regularly ATM as I'm been busy lately so I won't be able to answer immediately but I'll give my opinion anyway) How is 2014 in motorsports a messy duplication of the List of 2014 motorsport champions when it was intended to be an extension of the overcrowded 2014 in sports list and I never saw it an such. The purpose of xxxx in motorsports is to allow flagship events (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Le Mans, Suzuka 8 Hours, etc) to be included that normally would never be included into List of xxxx motorsport champions. If its a mess, it's upto the editors to do something about it. Donnie Park (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Because this extension hasn't provided any information different from List of 2014 motorsport champions, excluding Dakar Rally winners (didn't see any other notable single events) and if we compare them the last one has much more content and sources and has a more clean look with the help of table. While in the case of latter XXXX in motorsport lists editor just copied season calendars. We don't need to mix flagship events and championships in one list as it will be a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Corvus tristis (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I think that articles like 2014 in motorsports should be more than just a list of champions. They can include births and deaths, summaries of each championship, news (ALMS and Grand-Am merged into the 2014 United SportsCar Championship), etc. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Formula 4

Quick question, I have the time and resources to be able to be able to give every current and former F4 driver with a personal page a complete racing record from their time in F4. When I tried to do that for Billy Monger it got deleted due to consensus. Should that consensus change due to the growth in importance and growth in F4? Nerdfighter Reed (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

How exactly has F4 grown? It's still a low low tier of motorsport. The359 (Talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Formula 4 drivers fall below the level of notability because of how far down the rungs of motorsport ladder it sits. Formula 4 largely replaces categories like Formula Ford, Formula Renault 1600 and these categories have never been notable for wikipedia why would the change to Formula 4 affect that?
Any new racing driver needs to pass the principles of the general notability guideline first. If they cannot achieve this level of notability then the status of Formula 4 is irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Although, should we add F4 information to people who have been in F4 but now are notable enough. For example Lance Stroll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdfighter Reed (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, any driver is not notable just for being F4 driver, but his F4 carreer can be part of his article.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, F4 part of his career should be mentioned in prose and in the "Career summary" table, but it doesn't mean the table with race-by-race results. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I think that any random F4 driver is far from notable. I'd argue that random GP3 and Pro Mazda drivers aren't notable either. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Draggin' us in?

I should have done this before... I've suggested Front engine dragster be merged to Dragster, since that's the logical parent. I've also suggested merging Gasser and Top Gas (tho, tbh, a Gas (drag racing class) page makes more sense to me...). Comment at the respective pages is invited. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 17/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Motorsport, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move

It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. Interested editors are invited to participate in the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: The discussion was closed as "no consensus". DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Superleague Formula

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject Superleague Formula be merged into WP:MS; for the discussion, see WT:WikiProject Superleague Formula -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WT:WikiProject Superleague Formula

A1 Grand Prix

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix be merged into WP:MS; for the discussion, see WT:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WT:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_17&oldid=1140106308"