Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Portal:Motorsport/Quotes

For this as yet unused section of the portal, should we aim for recent quotes of interest or notable quotes from any era? I think I would prefer the latter, as they tend to be more interesting/amusing. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Notable quotes from history is more interesting and probably fits better with Wikipedia, leave current quotes to WikiNews. Mind you, if we go this way, Murray Walker will probably need a whole sub-page for himself... Pyrope 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The latter, definitely. As Pyrope says, otherwise, it's verging on WikiNews. And there's so much we'd miss out on. 4u1e 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's great. I'll set up a management page like we use for the DYKs, then we can rotate them easily. I was wondering if we should have reference for each quote, since it's quite important to prevent mis-attributed or made up quotes: not necessarily visible on the portal, because I suppose that would need embedded URLs (no good if the source is not online). How should we approach verifying the quotes? Adrian M. H. 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think they should definitely be ref'd somewhere, it's all too easy for the apocryphal versions to creep in otherwise. They don't need to be ref'd on the portal itself though. Can the refs be added as a footnote on the management page? 4u1e 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of. I think we could have them footnoted on the management page and then copy the content without the ref. We can thrash out the details once we have some quotes together. Adrian M. H. 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have created the Portal:Motorsport/Quotes (management) page, so we can start thinking of some good quotes to put on it! Adrian M. H. 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh heavens yes, we need to keep on top of the source citations. Maybe a line at the top of the page, or a notice, to the effect that any unsourced quotes added will be struck out without discussion? Otherwise we really are going to open a nasty can of worms. Pyrope 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have just a single quote on the portal and use the "random content" template, it would mean less work for us ;-). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, today, I was wondering whether one quote per day might be good, but I didn't know if there was any automated script that would do it. Either way, I would be happy to take on the task of updating the quotes if we do it manually. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's happening already! As it stands, the brainyquote.com site is not an adequate citation. Their "source" function is not yet up and running, and I have a strong suspicion that the site currently just hoovers up quotes from wherever they happen to be strewn, with absolutely no quality control. Can we please make it a stipulation (in accordance with WP:SOURCE) that quotes are properly sourced to printed materials (preferrably biography or reputable journals) or websites with a good journalistic reputation. Sorry to be a killjoy, but the amount of improperly sourced anecdotage on this site is high enough already, without starting a whole new page of it. By starting from scratch we have the opportunity to make something good, let's not kill it with cancerous unverifiable material this early! Pyrope 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. With feeling. :D 4u1e 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be a perfectly respectable website, no better or worse than any other source that we use. The three quotes that I added were chosen because they are well known and already familiar to me; looking for a source for each quote brought up that website each time. If you two want to restrict us to printed material, then you'll have to count me out; not everyone has printed material. To compare someone's genuine efforts at research to "improperly sourced anecdotage" is unreasonable (particularly using edit summaries that describe the material as unsourced). Adrian M. H. 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Not printed material only, but reliable sources, which can be online. I too am uneasy with Brainyquote, because I have no idea what it is. For all I know it rips all its material from Wikiquote, same as Answers.com and countless others do from Wikipedia. 4u1e 06:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the Damon Hill quote, using Grandprix.com as a reference. Joe Saward seems to have done the original interview, probably for one of the papers, rather than the site, as it was in 1993, but it's reproduced there in full. 4u1e 07:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Further to that, I have reinstated the Dale Earnhardt quote. A few more minutes manipulating Google turned up a fansite with a direct attribution to a specific book, which I am much happier with. Pyrope 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Adrian, no personal slur intended at all, sorry if it felt that way. Rather, it was a go at brainyquote. The site as it stands is just another poorly put together dumping ground, and certainly isn't of the same quality as the excellent GrandPrix.com, BBC.co.uk, F1.com, ITV-F1.com, Autosport.com, 8W and many others. My assessment that it was unsourced was reasonable under the interpretaion of the term from WP:SOURCE. Just because a "fact" appears on any old website somewhere does not make it true, and the huge number of apocraphal quotes floating around mean that just because you have heard it before it isn't neccessarily real. Pyrope 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ernesto Viso

There is a little thing about this article I wish to clear up. In the paragraph on his crash at last weekend's GP2 race in Magny-Cours, the article says he made contact with both Michael Ammermuller and Kazuki Nakajima. Now perhaps this is just me but there are several things wrong here:

  • Looking at the videos of Viso crash it would appear that the Venezuelan only made contact with Ammermuller.
  • In this article it says that Viso made contact with "a slowing car" - no plural so how can it be both as the Wikipedia article currently states.
  • Noting Ammermuller's car span following contact with Viso - If Viso had made contact with Nakajima, now come his car didn't spin like Ammuermuller's car did?
  • Interestingly, the GP2 press office had an interview with Viso a the following day when he was released from hospital - Note the last sentence of the second answer, "I just touched the car in front and was flying" - Once again no plural.

But then there is some inconsistency with Autosport's material, in this week's edition they have an article about the accident it reads, "...and ploughs into their rear wheels" - suggesting that Viso made contact with both Nakajima and Ammermuller. So now, with this material to consider, we now have to ask: What really happened at Magny-Cours and who did Viso crash into prior to taking off? Ammermuller or Nakajima or perhaps both.

Anyway, as DH always says, thoughts? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've seen that crash video so many times, I say he only touched Ammermuller and then flew over Nakajima -- i.e. the crash started by running into Ammermuller. Guroadrunner 06:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gurney flap

The article on Gurney flap has recently been greatly expanded by some people over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. The history element from Dan Gurney has been placed on the article, but I figure more from the standpoint of racing useage can also be added. If anyone has anything to offer, feel free to add it. I've already added a decent picture of a Gurney flap, and figure someone knows of more that might be available.

The article is also up for DYK nomination, so this'll likely be on the Main Page. The359 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Boost (automotive engineering)

fyi, Boost (automotive engineering) has been WP:PRODed by someone. 132.205.44.5 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Circuit Infoboxes

I notice we have two different infoboxes for the top of racing circuit articles, Template:F1 circuit as used for example on Circuito Permanente de Jerez and Template:National Circuit as used for example on Pembrey Circuit. The F1 one contains Location, Circuit Map Image, Time Zone, Major events, Circuit length, Turns, Lap Record while the national contains exactly the same except for Time Zone. I'm not sure why we have two seperate ones when one would serve the same purpose (providing Time Zone was an optional field). The F1 circuit template looks better due to the image being scaled etc. so I think we should use this to create a general circuit template and then phase out usage of the older two. Any thoughts? AlexJ 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Make the time zone optional and remove the national circuit from our list. I'll change over any articles as and when I spot them. Adrian M. H. 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing to note is that Template:National Circuit makes allowance for 4 different circuit configurations, and a lap record for each, whereas Template:F1 circuit only allows for a single configuration/record. I believe that's why Template:National Circuit was created in the first place. DH85868993 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new template, Template:Racing circuit to merge these two. I've kept the ability to have up to 4 seperate layouts, while using the style of the F1 circuit infobox. It's code compatible with F1_circuit (that is all current F1_circuit can be changed to Racing_circuit with no modification of the parameter names) but National_circuit requires some adapting to convert successfully. Example available at Silverstone Circuit (Note that this example doesn't provide a lap record for each layout although the design does allow for it). As ever, feedback appreciated.AlexJ 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought this up because I was about to complain about the same thing. I noticed that on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway article, there's a NASCAR infobox at the top of the page and an F1 infobox when it starts talking about the USGP. I've also been having some issues with the Watkins Glen International article because the F1 infobox has troubble showing the long course and the short course. The NASCAR infobox isn't set up well for road courses, I don't know of any other infoboxes that can manage ovals, and then there's that whole roval question. I think we need to find a way to make an infobox for all forms of racing.Mustang6172 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The new racing circuits template doesn't really support all the oval features at the moment, but could be adapted I suppose. Have a look at Rockingham Motor Speedway which uses the racing circuits template. I guess we'd need to have the AOWR and NASCAR Wikiprojects to decide on what additional features they want included. The Watkins Glen International problem should be sorted however using Template:Racing circuit - have a look at Silverstone Circuit to see how to include multiple layouts in it. AlexJ 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is "circuit" the standard predominent term that Wikipedia uses for what most American's call race tracks? If so, then the name is okay. The infobox needs to be very flexible. There are tracks for road courses, street circuits, ovals, circles, tri-ovals, and straight drag racing tracks. Las Vegas Motor Speedway has 4 tracks at the facility, including a dirt track and a 1.5 mile D-shaped oval. Heartland Park Topeka include a road-race course with 4 possible configurations (ranging from 1.8 to 2.5 miles in length), a 3/8 mile clay oval, off-road course and a 1/4-mile drag strip. There are many notable dirt ovals. The template needs to include the "surface material" (if that's a suitable term thoughout the world) for each track, since I can point out articles on tracks/circuits with dirt, asphalt, concrete, boards (wood), and cinders surfaces. It looks like most of my concerns have already been addressed, but I wanted to bring them all up. I will mention this discussion at the WikiProjects that I participate in: NASCAR, American Open Wheel, and IROC. Would other contributors please bring it up on the remaining WikiProjects? Royalbroil 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sportscar racing should have it apply as well. On the subject of track surface material, the one for The Speedway will be rather complicated, if historical reference is given to older races. From 1938-1961, the mainstretch was brick but the rest was asphalt. Likewise, dividing rovals up into separate infoboxes would make more sense to me than merging information in the same one, as the two courses are almost always massively different. Turn one for the Indy oval is turn thirteen for the RC. Ovals, tri-ovals and "circles" should be in the same Oval category, a catch all phrase for courses where there is only one direction of turning; likewise, I think there are more notable dirt tracks than you give credit for...Eldora is a famous one, as is the Indianapolis Fairgrounds dirt course. The notability of them is in fact only determined by who you're talking to...international fans, or sprint car fans? POV threatens, with such an estimation. --Chr.K. 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I assume that you're not talking to me, as I stated there are "many notable dirt ovals". I have attended races at 7 dirt tracks so far this year. Royalbroil 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't see any bias towards dirt racing from true motorsport afficionados. Although most Europeans have little or no specific interest in dirt racing, they are still likely to be aware of its most famous circuits and drivers, or at least aware of its importance, if they have some knowledge of the U.S. scene and the many well known drivers who learned their craft in the dirt. Adrian M. H. 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a few more features to the Template:Racing circuit. I've added two versions of the infobox to my sandbox, one to show a bare minimum usage and another to show every feature possible. I'm for having Rovals all in one infobox - 2 RC layouts are going to have different corner numbering. Anyway, take a look at the sandbox and say what else we need to include. AlexJ 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like this new infobox, but it leaves a lot to be desired. The current NASCAR infobox lists when the track was built, the cost of construction, and any former names it had. And the oval section should include how much banking the track has. Keep in mind, some tracks bank the corner's differently, some tracks bank the straightaways, and some tracks have banking that gradually increases. Also, you don't need to list how long a drag strip is. They're all ¼ mile long (while they're may be some ⅛ mile tracks, those are primarily for hobbyists).Mustang6172 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Now added: Construction cost, Open date, Close date, Former Names, Banking. Note that banking,length and turns can be specified for each layout but they're optional so can be omitted (for example turns and length can be left out of a drag strip). Also worth pointing out there is no oval section, drag section etc. - each of the 4 layouts can/should cope with any type of track. Again the sandbox has been updated to reflect the new additions. AlexJ 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I can only think of one more possible field, although you have included plenty already: maximum speed, if these figures are commonly published. Good work, Alex. Adrian M. H. 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Strike that suggestion; it would take too much info for clarification (formula, year, driver, etc.) so is best left for the text. Adrian M. H. 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, can people ask at the various child Wikiprojects if they're happy with it and if so then we can start converting (there are 82 pages using the F1 infobox, 56 using Nascar and 10 using National circuit). One last thing, the name of the template is presently Template:Racing_circuit, I'm suggesting it's changed to something like Template:Racetrack as not all tracks will be circuits (dragstrips, hillclimbs etc.) This would be pretty easy to do now before it's widely used, so what do people think? AlexJ 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Either that or Auto racing venue or Motorsport venue, I think. Adrian M. H. 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should use "motorsport venue" because drag racers don't call it a "racetrack" but a dragstrip, and there are motorsports venues for non-automobiles like off-road trucks/4wheelers/motorcycles (like Crandon International Off-Road Raceway). The generic term allows use for any track/circuit that uses motorized vehicles. Royalbroil 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the infobox has become more universal than I originally intended, which is good. Template:Motorsport_venue seems to cover all it's designed for so we'll go with that. AlexJ 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you please create something simular to Wikipedia:WikiProject_NASCAR/Templates#Infobox_Nascar_Racetrack on the template in the "noinclude" section so contributors can copy and paste the infobox. We should do this with all templates because it makes it sooooo much easier to insert. Royalbroil 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset)Okay a basic documentation is done complete with a copy&paste blank infobox. I've replaced all uses of National_circuit in the main article space with the new infobox and ironed out a few small problems. I think the template is now suitable to use across all circuits so providing people are happy, I'll go ahead and start rolling it out across other articles. One more thing, what to do with the old templates when they're no longer used. Should they be kept or nominated for deletion? AlexJ 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the description and usability. I think that the replaced templated should get deleted so no one is tempted to use them. Royalbroil 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Or we could just redirect those templates to the new one. It'll save us time in comparison to the deletion process. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 09:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirecting with templates could get a bit messy though, plus people might be tempted to use the original templates rather than the new one, possibly OK at the moment but could create more problems in future. National_circuit is now unused and F1_circuit can be made unused by a bot, so I think a deletion would be the best option to avoid people stumbling across and using them. AlexJ 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated National_circuit for deletion, with it's creators support, so if you'd like to, make your views known there. Also I've requested a bot to convert all the articles using F1_circuit to Motorsport_venue. AlexJ 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a request. The old NASCAR track template had a field for the unofficial nicknames for the track. I think that it is important. Please add it as an optional field that would display in a normal size font right below the track name. See Darlington Raceway, which is using a homemade infobox. Thanks! Royalbroil 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've included the option of Nicknames but it doesn't appear quite the same as in the old NASCAR infobox. Have a look at the sandbox and let me know if it's OK or if any changes need doing. Would it work better as a standard field (as with Location etc. having the word 'Nickname' on the left and the nickname on the right) as people unfamiliar with the subject might not necessarily recognise it as a nickname without reading the text. AlexJ 22:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Perfecto! I love it. I would add the heading "Nickname(s)" to the left though to make it clear to the non-expert reader. Thanks! Royalbroil 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The nicknames field has worked very well. I found another template to obsolete: {{NASCAR track}}. Royalbroil 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
{{NASCAR track}} is now not used on any articles, so both it and {{F1 circuit}} have been put up for deletion. I've also added the Address field that was included in the NASCAR template as it seems some articles are using both Location and Address. AlexJ 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm jumping in late here as I had no clue any of these discussions going on. But I'd like nicknames to stay as they were in the NASCAR template. It think due to their placement and being set aside in italics that it's pretty obvious that they're nicknames. And in many cases the nickname is the more prominent name anyway, for instance The Brickyard or Loudon are actually more common and recognizable names to many people than Indy and New Hampshire International Speedway. Fontana and Sears Point in California also spring to mind. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nicknames seem to be a primarily US thing for racetracks (which nearly all used a NASCAR box before) so I don't mind either way. AlexJ 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) New feature. Add the line Miles_first = True | to the infobox somewhere and it'll make the lengths show as xx Miles (xx Kilometers). Useful for US circuits to keep the infobox style consistent with the rest of the article. AlexJ 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, for allowing the American distance preference to work. The nicknames sometimes as well-known or even MORE well-known than the track name, especially at Loudon (New Hampshire), etc. Royalbroil 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll echo the thanks. Being able to switch American courses to miles is a nice touch. Also the source of many nicknames taking precedence is NASCAR themselves. They refer to New Hampshire International Speedway as Loudon, California Speedway as Fontana, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnnyBGood (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2007.
{{Infobox_Nascar_Racetrack}} is now not used in any articles so is up for deletion here. AlexJ 00:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mario Andretti is now a Good Article

WikiProject Motorsport can now claim its first Good Article, as the article was promoted today! This article was developed as a direct result of this WikiProject. The article was discussed on this talk page, and User:4u1e was willing to mentor me and help expand/cite the article. The article was strong in his Formula One career, but weak in all other aspects of his career. Royalbroil 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to both of you. That has increased WP:MOTOR's GAs by 50% by my reckoning, so the more the merrier. Adrian M. H. 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! So what was the first GA then? Royalbroil 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
One of mine; F3 Euroseries. I have a couple of articles in mind for a complete rewrite and GA development, time willing, so we might have some more soon. Adrian M. H. 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice article. I do remember you mentioning the article now that you point it out. I propose that we keep track of all the Good and Featured articles that WikiProject Motorsport inspires. GA & FA from child WikiProjects would not be included, except if they were inspired or collaborated by this WikiProject (like Andretti was). Royalbroil 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like that suggestion. Nothing wrong with patting ourselves on the back now and again. A small section on the main project page could serve as an encouragement for such efforts. Adrian M. H. 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Really? I thought Mark Webber was the first GA of the Motorsport Project? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That would belong to the F1 project. I think of WP:MOTOR as being (primarily) about the large quantity of content that does not have another project. Adrian M. H. 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adrian's comment, but I would add: ...or made significant contributions to multiple child WikiProjects. Royalbroil 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. Hence the focus Mario's article. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Transponder

The transponder article does not mention its use in racing. I think it has widespread use: several local track in my area use transponders. Would someone with references please add a racing section to the article? Royalbroil 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Junior series driver template

{{Junior series driver}} appears to be unused. Is there any intention to use it, or can it be deleted? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is earmarked for a number of pages, mostly existing stubs together with some articles that need to be created. It fills a specific rôle for which the other driver infoboxes are not the best fit due to the transient nature of a junior racing career. Adrian M. H. 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation - I suggest that you (or someone else involved in the projcet) add a note to that effect, to the template's talk page. That said, it looks as though all the "...driver" templates at Category:Motor_racing_infoboxes could be merged, with appropriate optional parameters set. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the category-based system, partly because of the absence (quite correctly) of season articles for most of the lower formulae. For example, an article that uses {{DTM driver}} will have a link to the (yet-to-be-created) 2007 DTM season article, whereas a driver who competes in, say, Italian Formula Renault cannot use that field in that way, so it gets modified to link to Formula Renault instead. I think it is better to keep the most important fields unique to each template so that there is no ambiguity about which to use. I don't see any need to delete or merge these templates. Adrian M. H. 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You could have the link as an optional field which is hidden if left empty. Readro 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of templates with "switchable" options such as you describe. By merging templates, future changes only have to be made once, rather than on every one of a range of them. The results on the page need not be changed by the merger. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Having designed and worked on a number of infoboxes, I really would say keep the number down and keep it simple. There are a number of ways that you can "switch" options and make unused fields disappear. I would look at the minimum fields you want and make these compulsory, then look at things you may want to add, depending on the status of the subject. Regards, SeveroTC 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I throw this into the ballpark. I looked at the football infobox as they seemed well organised and I think it meets all the criteria. Readro 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a different situation than football/soccer, since we have several different infoboxes for drivers. Different child WikiProjects have differing needs. In F1, wins, podium finishes, and being in the points are all that really matter. In NASCAR, wins, Top 5s, Top 10s, and even starts all matter. There is a totally different philosophy. We recently had a lengthy discussion at WikiProject American Open Wheel about how to do race results infoboxes for drivers. It's hard to come up with a plan. I was just thinking about proposing a single drivers infobox for all WikiProjects this week, but I couldn't see how we could work it out. The template User:Readro/Sandbox3 is excellent for an overview of most driver's career, especially those that either stayed in one series for a long time or changed careers one season at a time like Juan Pablo Montoya. It would be very bad for someone who raced everything in one season like Mario Andretti did in the early 1970s, or people who made it to the big time for a short while and then went back down like Nathan Haseleu. The next question would be at what would be the starting and ending point? That's an easy question to answer with someone who retires in a top series. What would a journeyman who slowly falls down the ladder? What about someone like Mark Martin (NASCAR), who has continued to race in the second best series (the Busch Series) for the fun of it, and not for points? He holds the record for the most wins in series even though he doesn't race full-time in it. I love the idea, but I don't see how it could be implemented consistently. Royalbroil 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, though it needs some documentation if it's to replace all the others. Also, please use {{birth date and age}} for the entry in the birth date field. Finally, please do not use colour alone to denote data, as in your yellow backgrounds - think how it will appear printed in B&W, or sound when read by, say, a blind user's assistive software. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to merge all the xxxxx driver templates, it must support all the fields currently used for each championship. Only the present series isn't good enough because, for example, Mika Hakkinen would have DTM information, but his Career Points, First Win etc. for his F1 career wouldn't be included. AlexJ 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't help feeling that this proposal could unleash havoc. Far better to have the flexibility of multiple boxes, and as they are all pretty much formatted to a standard they stack quite neatly when needed (see John Surtees) and allow separation when a driver has a significant career in multiple disciplines (see Juan Pablo Montoya). Maintaining separate boxes allows each specialist Wikiproject to adjust their box details without risking damage to something not linked to their field of knowlege. (As an F1/sportscar fan I haven't got a clue about NASCAR for example...) The resultant code and template would be so enormous that it would be extremely difficult to use, and literally hundreds of pages would have to be changed from their current form by hand. The proposal implies changes that are far too complex for any bot to cope with. You are trying to solve a problem that just doesn't exist, and in doing so you will create many. Pyrope 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. DH85868993 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"I can't help feeling that this proposal could unleash havoc" - Such hyperbole is unsupported by experience elsewhere. One of the problems with having multiple boxes is that when something changes, they all have to be updated, rather than the job being done once. Another is the tendency for inconsistencies to creep in. The effect on John Surtees can be achieved just as easily with one template; and bots can make the necessary changes. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm back after internet problems for the past 7 days. Rarely is hyperbole of this magnitude true, but this is an exception. I can't imagine attempting a driver's infobox for Mario Andretti. I invite you to prove me wrong. A case for a universal driver's infobox needs to demonstrate its extreme versatility for Andretti before it could be used. Juan Pablo Montoya would be difficult too as noted above. Royalbroil 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Large number of freely-licensed photos available on Flickr

I thought I should let everyone know that a huge number of freely licensed photos depicting classic F1 and sports cars were uploaded to Flickr yesterday, by this user: [1]. A number of these should be useful for illustrating articles covered by this Wikiproject.--Diniz (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to the set is here. There are 178 photos available in all! ;)--Diniz (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only F1, but sportscars! Awesome. Now I just have to identify all of them... The359 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A very special collection. I have commented there so the photographer can read it. Royalbroil 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject award

We need to come up with a WikiProject award for WikiProject Motor. There are several contributors that deserve the honor. Please nominate a barnstar, and add it to a gallery below. I propose that we accept designs until the end of the day (UTC) on August 15 (14 days). I propose voting starting at the beginning of the day on August 16 and ending at the end of the day on August 22 UTC (7 days). Royalbroil 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note - make your images 120px wide if possible. Mine was 111px at first and the software screwed up the resizing for the gallery. Readro 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Small idea Readro - Can you use your helmet templates and make a helmet BS one, please? You know, with the star on the helmet, similar to how the "missing barnstar" looks like.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Like this? Readro 21:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the second and third ones. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we wait with commenting until the proposals are all in as I suggested above, or should we start commenting right away? Royalbroil 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As it has been a few days now (and I haven't got the graphics skills to offer up anything!) I will vote for AlexJ's design. He has done a good job with the chequered flag, which has not lost the weighty, metallic appearance of the star. Very classy, with a slightly dirty look reminiscent of engine oil! Adrian M. H. 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think #5 would look even better with victory laurels or something similar on either side. I also like AlexJ's design for the same reasons as Adrian.--Diniz (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote for AlexJ's design too - more like the other barnstars, but also completely distinctive. That's not to say I don't like the others too! 4u1e 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I also like AlexJ's design. When you look at it, you can still see the Barnstar texture, but you know what's it's about.Mustang6172 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My favorite is #3. I like how the helmet is universal to all racing genres. #2 is my least favorite, which is why I redrew as 2B. I don't like the gray parts of star - I like clean well-defined black and white checkers. No worries, though, as I will abide by whatever consensus determines. Royalbroil 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I too will vote for #2, it is the cleanest design and easiest to understand BOTH as a barnstar and as motorsports related. The359 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus easily has #2 as the winner. I will add it to the list of WikiProject Barnstars, and it can be used immediately. I have uploaded the image to Commons, and called it Image:WikiProject Motorsport Barnstar.png. You can find the template for the award at Template:Motorsport Barnstar. The easiest way to award is to cut and paste the following text: {{subst:Motorsport Barnstar|message ~~~~}}        -- Royalbroil 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed designs

Proposed style guideline for UK nationality

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). Adrian M. H. 10:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Category:NASCAR terms and Category:Auto racing terms

Someone has nominated to rename them to "NASCAR terminology" and "Auto racing terminology" / "Motor racing terminology"/ "Motorsport terminology". Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_7#Category:NASCAR_terms. Royalbroil 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The intention of the NASCAR terms category is for terms that are used in NASCAR racing only and no other motorsport. Royalbroil 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The new names are Motorsport terminology and NASCAR terminology. Adrian M. H. 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New infobox

I noticed a need for an infobox for governing bodies, so I have started {{Infobox sport governing body}}. Just work-in-progress, though, so I would be glad to have any input that anyone can offer, such as adding any useful fields that I haven't yet thought of. Adrian M. H. 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some governing bodies might have an appropriate logo or other image, so I suggest adding an image capability. Most infoboxes have the image just below the top border. Royalbroil 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added hcard microformat markup; moved the documentation to a separate page; and renamed the "country/region" field to a more generic (and more easily typed!) "location". I'm not sure, though, that both "location" and "headquarters" are needed; in which case the latter is more commonly used on other infoboxes for organisations. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the having both headquarters and location fields. For example, NASCAR is headquartered in the U.S., and has racing series in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Formula One is located worldwide, and its headquarters needs to be added to its article. Royalbroil 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Your examples sound more like, say, "coverage" rather than "location". Please note how "location" is used on other templates - we should be careful to avoid confusing editors by sing the same names for different properties. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The "country/region" field is the area of jurisdiction, not the location of the organisation. That is covered by the "headquarters" filed instead. So the MSA would have United Kingdom and Colnbrook, Berkshire respectively. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I like how clarity of the phrase "area of jurisdiction". I suggest changing the name of the field to "area of jurisdiction". Then "headquarters" could keep the same name. Royalbroil 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I will add the image capability at some point as well. Adrian M. H. 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Then label it as "area of jurisdiction" on the page, and use "coverage" as the property name in the template, to keep the naming in common with other templates. Don't reinvent the wheel. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you give a good reason why the name of the field and the title of the field should be completely different, and why anyone would worry whether this infobox had a field with the same name as other infoboxes? That just doesn't make any sense. Each field's name and title should be substantially the same or in some way similar to assist editors. Adrian M. H. 08:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Commonality of parameter names across infoboxes (like the avoidance of using the same names to mean different things; and their brevity) reduces the burden on editors, to remember and recognise such differences. There are many examples of the displayed label being different to the parameter name; there is no reason why they need to be the same. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from being logical and easy to understand, you mean? This template will be used by a relatively small number of editors in this project and its siblings, so why the need for commonality when clarity is more useful? Anyway, I am just going to give up and let you have your way over the whole area of infoboxes, since that seems to be what you want. You took only four hours after the creation of the infobox to come here and try to dominate its design. All that we as Wikiproject editors want is a selection of infoboxes that are tailored to suit our needs and that does not interfere with anyone or anything else. Adrian M. H. 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"This template will be used by a relatively small number of editors in this project and its siblings" - we can't know who will use it, in the future; WP:OWN applies. Kindly refrain from making personal attacks; assume good faith, and remember that your original comment said "I would be glad to have any input that anyone can offer,". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Andy/Pigs, since you've went there, please give us list some templates that use the name "coverage" to prove why it should be used in this application. Also, I WILL NOT SUPPORT having a parameter name different than its displayed label. There is no reason to do that. It is counterintuitive. Talking about civility and assume good faith: You come to a peaceful WikiProject to which you do not belong, probably are not knowledgable about its subject, and then you hijack a discussion to require us to change the field label to something different than the parameter name without citing one example. Now YOU'RE the one complaining that others are making personal attacks, not assuming good faith? Please leave us alone then. This field is a very minor detail in the big scheme of things, and it is SO not worth ANY drama. Royalbroil 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) "to which you do not belong, probably are not knowledgable (sic) about its subject"; "you hijack a discussion"; "Please leave us alone then" - such comments are wholly unacceptable.

Of the first four infoboxes I checked:

Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spending the time. As for "2006 position", that should remain as is because 2006 was the last year and we need to keep the parameter name generic so only the field label needs to be changed each year. Debut season vs. first year needs to be made the same, so good catch. On "Transmission" and "lap record", the field labels need to be different than the multiple parameters that are used to build the field. Let's change both the field label and parameter name to "Coverage" on the template in question. Then let's end this discussion, for we all have better things to do than to spend more time on something so minor as this field/parameter. Royalbroil 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine a similar thing applies to field names & labels as does to Wikilinks. It's a guideline that Easter Egg wikilinks (that is Wikilinks which don't really tell you where you're going, e.g. linking [[Colin McRae|1995 World Champion]]) shouldn't be used. 'Easter Egg' field names which don't clearly correspond to a field label are just as frustrating for editors. The examples you give above are all perfectly clear for people familiar with the subject whereas Coverage/Location/Region/HQ/Address can all mean the same thing or different things. We need to be as clear as possible with field gives each label. AlexJ 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes; but we need to be consistently clear. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The examples you gave are clear though. The name, number of gears, type and differential make up the transmission, The record_time, driver, team and year make up the lap record. You can't mistake these for anything else. AlexJ 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article I've nominated for deletion

Discussion here. Davnel03 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing, as that is the most appropriate WikiProject. Royalbroil 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19

Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

I would suggest that you take advantage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting system and create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport (or similar) page that would include notification for nominations related to this and all child WikiProjects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I trust the process (in which I actively take part) to delete the crap and keep anything that really is worth keeping, but I suppose that it could be useful to keep track of nominations and outcomes. We don't see very many, though. Adrian M. H. 09:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution for the infobox issue

I think we need to finally fix the whole infobox issue. I believe that a total merger is unwise for the following reasons:

  • The need for a large number of unique fields for Formula One, NASCAR and the WRC (possibly one or two others as well?)
  • The need for specific infoboxes for a small number of major and unique events such as {{Le Mans drivers}} for the 24 Hours of le Mans. At a stretch, these could be merged into one single "event" infobox.
  • A single template with as many fields and sections as we all need would be huge and difficult to manage, which is counter to the intention of the merger proposal.

However, I have come round to the idea that at least some of the other infoboxes can be supplanted. These include {{A1GP Driver}}, {{Junior series driver}}, {{DTM driver}}, {{Former F3 Driver}} and {{Champ Car driver}}, for example. I am in the process of working on a new design that I hope can replace {{Infobox racing driver}} and cover the needs of the other similar templates. It is displayed in use here for both current and retired drivers. If this works out, we could have as little as four or five driver templates, including:

We could even have just one "special event" infobox as well, but personally, I have no specific opinion about that. It is the driver infoboxes that really need to be sorted out at this time.

Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I guessing correctly that the new driver infobox template was inspired (sort of) by the footballer's template? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should try and keep the 'seamless stackability' of the templates (i.e. make the name,photo & nationality optional for each and have them in similar style and size). In addition I think current & former F1 driver templates can be merged, with two different 'pro-formas' provided in the documentation to be used for current or past drivers. AlexJ 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To Alex: Agree totally. I will make those fields optional later today. To Skully: No, because I have never seen the football infobox. Football? Eugh!! ;-) Actually, the nearest thing I had to inspiration was the cyclist infobox. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need all the unique fields for the top series? Couldn't we relegate them to a separate table? Readro 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If you mean the wins/starts data, we have those already in almost all driver templates; they are interesting and informative and I don't think that relegating them anywhere would serve an purpose except to reduce their at-a-glance availability. Readers like to go to, for example, Fernando Alonso or Andy Priaulx (needs a main infobox, actually) and see at a glance how successful they have been in their main field of endeavour. Adrian M. H. 14:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And they are all optional, don't forget. Adrian M. H. 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise, but if you ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates (I'll add a pointer from that project's talk page to here, shortly), I think you will find that techniques exist to overcome your concerns. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Whose concerns do you mean? Adrian M. H. 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yours. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only real concern that I have is the big issue; namely, how to rationalise the templates without losing certain very important templates and ending up with one huge template. Naturally, I think that my proposal can provide that sensible middle ground between what we have now and what some people, yourself included, have favoured. Adrian M. H. 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If we get to the point where we need to start changing over to a new template or make any other changes to affected articles, I have compiled a list in my link directory of templates that are likely to be merged/deleted and the articles that use them. Adrian M. H. 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
{{F1 driver}} and {{Former F1 driver}} merge fairly easily (there's about 5 differences plus the extra British F1 stuff which goes at the end). There's the question of converting the 600-odd articles that currently use the templates but when the new style is agreed on we can convert as and when entries are updated, providing the new box is accepted at WPF1 of course. An example (not with all features added yet) can be seen here AlexJ 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That all looks really good. I like how you've used my design; that shows, I think, that we're on the right track with this combination and the degree of flexibility that we can get. I'll seek some feedback from the WP:AOWR members tomorrow to see if they need any changes or additions. I'm not yet 100% certain how best to handle the changeover if we adopt the new design. It is too different to simply merge into the existing {{Infobox racing driver}}, so I might take a two-step approach. Keep it in a dedicated user sub-page until all the articles that currently use {{Infobox racing driver}} are changed over (should not take me too long) then over-write the old template with new one and the only bit that will need to be changed is the name of the template on the affected articles (about 50 or so). The only other option that I can think of is to create a new template and use that instead, but {{Infobox racing driver}} is by far the most logical name. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are a lot of articles, HermesBot can do the last step (changing the name of the template on the affected articles). AlexJ 00:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The new driver infobox that Adrian proposes looks reasonable to me. I haven't used the Champ Car driver template, so I won't comment as an "expert" user for WP:AOWR. I agree that the 4 driver infoboxes should remain because their uses are so different. I don't want to see the new driver infobox get too complicated. Royalbroil 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have just finished the process of changing the 54(!) articles that used {{Infobox racing driver}} to the new design, kept here for this task. So that's the manual bit out of the way. With no articles using it, I have been able to update {{Infobox racing driver}} to match the new design and I will use a bot (or AWB?) for the simple task of changing the name of the template on each article so that they point to the new design in its proper place. Now we just have to deal with the articles that use the other templates that can be replaced (BTCC, etc.) but that can be done over time, I think. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Race results AfD, could affect all motorsports projects

As part of the 2007 Le Mans Series season, results pages for individual events have been placed on Wikipedia, just like most every major motorsports series (Formula 1 has a results page for every race ever run). Someone has decided to nominate 2007 1000km of Spa, as well as the three other results pages for the 2007 season, claiming that because the majority of the article is a results table, it fails WP:NOT#INFO and should be deleted. This would affect the majority of F1 articles that do not yet have race reports, the majority of Sports Car Racing articles so far, as well as any other results page made by any other series. Please voice your opinions of this at the AfD discussion. The359 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a sticky issue. I participate regularly at AFD, both assessing and nominating, and I tend to favour a fairly firm approach. If I was assessing 2007 1000km of Spa in particular, I would request that text and references are added (the absence of source citations is a big problem) in order to keep it. Point #4 of NOT INFO needs to be addressed, certainly. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Point 4 could certainly be addressed with the addition of a race report, but this holds true for the majority of individual race reports ranging from Formula One to Indianapolis 500 to 1000km of Spa. I hardly see the results of an event as simple "statistics." The359 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nor do I, but I think that a lot of AFD regulars are going to look at these kinds of articles somewhat unfavourably. Part of the underlying problem is the lack of the assertion of notability that comes from having little or no text. Motorsport fans like us know whether an event is notable, but that isn't enough if we don't manage to include some encyclopædic prose and good sources in any such article that currently lacks them. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the race result should have reports and that it should be added, and I certainly hope that all of them can have reports added. But as you know from the F1 race reports, there are simply so many that it is impossible to full all of them with reports at the moment. This will become especially hard when we get into older events where there are no readily available reports of the events. The359 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD discussion was "keep". DH85868993 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for BMW Motorsport

I propose that BMW Motorsport be renamed as BMW in motorsport:

Any objections? DH85868993 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I support the proposed rename. "BMW Motorsport" makes M3's and other high-performance versions of BMWs. "BMW in motorsport" is consistent with an article about motorsport involvement by the whole company, not just the M division, and it's consistent with the other "manufacturer in motorsport" articles. Barno 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. With the Toyota feature in this last week's Autosport maybe I should do an article on "Toyota in motorsport". --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Very sensible, DH85868993. Skully, that is a great idea; I'll keep an eye out for it and help out if I can (though I don't buy any motorsport mags any more). Adrian M. H. 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved. DH85868993 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not agree that BMW Motorsport should automatically redirect to BMW in motorsport. My logic is that, BMW Motorsport is an actual entity and team, who has run cars for the fact for many years. The exploits of the factory team, similar to Scuderia Ferrari, should be listed under BMW Motorsport. BMW in motorsport should describe all of BMW's activities, either as a factory or with privateers/customer cars.

The same should apply to Alfa Romeo in motorsport, from which we should have Autodelta and Alfa Corse as a seperete article, as well as keeping Toyota Team Europe seperete from Toyota in motorsport. This also means there should be a Ferrari in motorsport seperete from Scuderia Ferrari. The359 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment regarding BMW Motorsport redirecting to BMW in motorsport. Sometime within the next couple of days (unless someone else beats me to it) I'll go through all the articles which currently link to BMW Motorsport and (if appropriate) change them to link to BMW in motorsport instead. Then I'll turn BMW Motorsport from a redirect into a (stub) article about the entity/team by that name, similar to Alfa Corse. DH85868993 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've updated about half the links to BMW Motorsport to point to BMW in motorsport instead. As discussed, I've converted BMW Motorsport from a redirect into a proper (but very stubby) article. But I wonder whether it could/should possibly just be a redirect to BMW M - are they the same entity? DH85868993 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
From everything I've seen, they are the same basic division, or at least were at one time. However the racing teams have always been known as BMW Motorsport, and the road cars obviously always as BMW M. I think that both articles can be kept seperate, with BMW Motorsport being the race team and BMW M the road car division. The359 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
BMW M (the division) is nowadays responsible only for the special road car models and related development, though there is theoretically potential for a marketing department to opt to associate the title in some form with other activities, such as the M logos that have appeared (and presumably still do) on the cylinder head covers of the company's Formula One engines. I think that is basically how BMW chooses to arrange it these days (though it could make it easier for us!) Adrian M. H. 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Motorsport sections

I have got around to creating the Quotes section, which I will be happy to update each Wednesday, but I was wondering what the Topics section is intended for. It might be a bit redundant next to the list of WikiProjects, depending on what we want to place in it. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers to this list of notable branches of motorsport which do not have their own WikiProjects?--Diniz (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I wondered if it might be usable along those lines, but often, there is no single article to which you can link that introduces the topic. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was a page for notable branches of motorsport which do not have their own WikiProjects. I got at least one to add to the list. Royalbroil 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I added off-road racing. What about including ice racing and board track racing?
In North America, ice racing is possible during up to maybe two months in only a few of the northern-most states in the United States and in southern Canada (since most Canadians live within a few hundred kilometers of the U.S. What happens in Europe and Asia?
Board track racing was a short-lived genre of racing in the U.S. What about other parts of the world? It happened in the U.S. from around 1920 to maybe 1935. It died mainly because of deaths due to poor safety, although the Great Depression likely slowed down most racing in the 1930s. The genre was extremely popular for some of this time since it was racing at a very high speed for the time. There are many websites about the genre, some using the name motordrome. Royalbroil 04:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The only major ice racing I'm aware of in Europe is the Andros Trophy, which is a French championship held each winter. You've got to suspect there're others in Scandanavia and Russia (apart from the obvious rallies!) but I know nothing of them. 4u1e 13:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I might experiment with taking the definitions of things like ice racing, touring cars, stock cars and so on, and writing a pithy description of each as a jumping-off point for readers. I rewrote the Formula racing article yesterday, but many of the equivalent articles need some improvement.
Also, we really need some more quotes, but I lack any good sources for quotes; if anyone can help out with that, please do! Adrian M. H. 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added four definitions to Portal:Motorsport/Motorsport categories (I ended up renaming it because "topics" didn't quite fit and didn't match the text at the top of the portal) but loads more can be added. Hopefully, what I have added so far is along the right lines of what you all had in mind. Adrian M. H. 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability standards for drivers

I have come across articles on a few local drivers with no experience in national or regional series. Is there any precedents in AFD discussions for articles like these? What about if the driver was very successful at the local level and won several local track championships, like Bobby Wilberg? He likely was the subject of multiple press appearances independent of the source. Royalbroil 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines aren't so much about the success or ability of a driver, just that he/she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". In general drivers in national and regional series tend to meet this criteria while local ones do not but there are always exceptions and if well sourced (with multiple reliable sources), there is no reason why local drivers should be deleted just for being a local driver. AlexJ 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for tables in article

Right, several driver articles that have moved from one kind of motorsport to another have two or three different tables in their articles, eg Juan Pablo Montoya, Jacques Villeneuve and Timo Glock. I am proposing that we "combine" the tables so that there is only one table in articles, not two or three as there are in some current articles. My new idea is here in my sandbox. What do you think of it? Davnel03 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with NASCAR where there are close to 40 events per season? Readro 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And we really should have results tables positioned close to the text to which they refer, not all stashed down at the bottom of a page so that to refer back and forth while reading needs continual scrolling. This combines all the tables and prevents them from being shown appropriately. What's with the craze for combining things at the moment? Pyrope 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There has never been a discussion at WikiProject NASCAR to create a table in this form for NASCAR drivers. I favor your proposal for all other series. Royalbroil 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
How would Non-Championship F1 races be included in the table for example? It seems very much weighted towards the current day organised championships as opposed to older drivers who competed in several series at once as well as one-off events. AlexJ 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've only done it with Timo Glock in my sandbox to see what it would look like. Davnel03 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that, I was just asking how it would be adapted. If you propose we do something, the obviously every 'What If?' scenario needs to be met satisfactorily before we can go ahead and use the new system. BTW, what's the meaning of the random bolding of words you use? AlexJ 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a NASCAR table in the Juan Pablo Montoya article. To be honest, I think it could use a rethink because it looks really squashed. I'm not sure this format works so well when there's so many races. Readro 13:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with WikiProject Automobiles

Hi all, I'm bringing this up here so it gets more attention from people knowledgable about the subject. I've created a section at WikiProject Automobiles to discuss whether race cars are covered by that project, I'm thinking of things like Formula 1 cars; are they really covered by the project? Anyway, to prevent a discussion happening on 2 talk pages, please discuss it over at Wikiproject Automobiles. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is silly to simple say that "The Indy 500, Daytona 500, and ALL Formula One races are notable." Yes, Formula One may be the largest series in the world at the moment, but I think it is a bit ignorant to only allow Formula One and famous single-race events to have individual race reports.
Since motorsports comes in so many different forms, I think that the top league (past or present) in each form should be allowed as much ability at notability as Formula One. Granted, this does present a problem for some forms since there are multiple top tier series (FIA GT Championship, Le Mans Series, and American Le Mans Series I consider all equal). But I think the drawing line should be what is the top echelon of that form of motorsport. Hence, we can have race reports on Formula One, but not ones on GP2.
Also, I do not believe it will be difficult to find notability problems for the top series in each type of motorsport. A simple look at something like ESPN.com automatically has entire sections dedicated to Formula One, IndyCar, Champ Car, NHRA, WRC, MotoGP, etc. Nor do I think having so many race reports will be a problem, such as you illustrate with other sports seasons. Most racing leagues only have a dozen or less races in a season, and every team participates in those races, instead of just having one team against another upwards of 160 times, per team. The359 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea It's only a rough draft. I only gave those three as examples, people who knows more about the subject should wrtite that part of course, but I don't think it's needed to add articles on every single NASCAR race, etc. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
All NASCAR races from 2007 have articles, and I think that it is proper for every NASCAR race to have a report. There are far more than only two or three (multiple) reliable sources reporting on the race. There is a reasonable amount of subject matter, including pre-race happenings, qualifying results, race results, and a race report. I think that all major racing series should be able to have race reports. There was a recent AFD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 1000km of Monza) where this topic was discussed. Royalbroil 07:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For NASCAR I would suggest that only the Nextel Cup get full race reports since it is the premiere championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The359 (talk • contribs) 07:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Ditto on that. Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to come back to the discussion of specific championships/races notability at a later date, but for now I'd rather we didn't lose perspective on what we're actually talking about here, which is Jaranda's proposal. Personally, I would rather WP:N remains generally open and let the Wikiprojects decide guidelines for notability within their respective fields. I trust that, in motorsport, we'll have enough common sense to decide which series and races should have race reports, only season reports, or no season reports. --Pc13 08:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that wikiprojects guidelines aren't really working anymore, WP:BASEBALL guidelines recently got some heavy protest and a notabilty guidelines on sports is a must. Again it's a rough draft, I trust you people work together as the speciallists in the subject, and edit it. Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I made a comment on WP:F1 on this topic, but as discussion seems to be more active here, thought I'd add it here as well: "To me, notability seems pretty simple - if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it is notable. The guidelines will have to say what is almost certainly notable as opposed to what isn't. For example, I don't think we can say all drivers in xxxx series are not-notable because there's occasionally an exception to the rule with someone who at a low level receives a lot of coverage. We could give criteria for topics we definitely know will meet the notability guidelines e.g. every F1 race will have a race report in Autosport, Autocar and Auto Express magazines as well as at GrandPrix.com and other major F1 websites so it will meet the significant coverage in reliable independent sources criteria. Similarly all F1 drivers will have features on these websites and in the specialist magazines so are notable. But to be honest, this has all been pretty much established already. AlexJ 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"
Following on from some previous comments, if we say only Nextel Cup races can have an article but then a big event happens in a Busch Series race which receives significant coverage then what? I say if anyone is willing to write a well referenced encyclopaedic topic on Motorsport then by definition it's notable and it should be allowed. AlexJ 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't like a specific notability standard either. Well referenced needs to be the standard. Some drivers in less popular series are very notable within their genre and within their community. There are scores of notable off-road racing drivers who should have articles but don't. I don't have sources at the moment to source their articles. Some raced against Jimmie Johnson in nationally televised (U.S.) off-road races, and beat him. Having a notability standard based on series might cause well-intentioned contributors to get these articles deleted. I could list other examples if needed. There are very many notable racers without articles that a notability standard might prohibit their article's creation. Things change too, and what was notable in the past may not be notable or even heard of now. How many people know what board track racing was? I didn't until recently. I don't have a problem with race reports in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series or Busch Series, as long as there are multiple reliable sources independent of the source - a standard which is VERY EASILY accomplished. Disk space is not to be considered as a problem, so I think very liberally of notability. My minimum level of notability would be that local racers who race regularly at three or less tracks are not notable, except if they are notable enough to be inducted in a hall of fame such as the National Dirt Late Model Hall of Fame. Any driver in a regional touring series or higher could potentially be included in Wikipedia if multiple reliable sources are found. Royalbroil 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A1 Grand Prix race articles

I am planning to AFD all of the A1 Grand Prix race articles. Unless A1 GP becomes really big, and possibly nearly as big as Formula One, I can't see much point of the race report articles with the series only been in existance for two years. Instead, possibly have something like this for the related season articles. No matter what though, I think the A1 GP race reports fail notability. Davnel03 12:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Expect opposition. A recent simular discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 1000km of Monza. Royalbroil 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability is definitely met as I can think of several reliable sources for each race (e.g. Autosport Magazine and skysports.com off the top of my head.) AlexJ 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, but even so, should there be a seperate page for each race given the popularity of the series (which isn't that high). Davnel03 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they should be merged into the season articles. There are more significant championships for which we do not (and should not) have individual race reports. It is not just about notability by definition of media coverage, but about importance as well. Adrian M. H. 13:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm finding myself drawn more to Davnel's side of this argument. I'm afraid that I don't consider the specialist press and the series broadcaster to be sufficiently detached to constitute proper notability criteria. To be notable it needs to have reasonable coverage in mainstream national press, at the very least. If I wanted to I could find a couple of articles for many club level FF1600 races, from Autosport and Motor Racing News amongst others, but that doesn't mean that they are notable. Until I see such races receiving regular coverage in national daily newspapers I'd say that they lacked individual notability. Pyrope 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To add to my earlier point, I consider (others may disagree) A1 GP to sit at the same level as GP2, which also doesn't have any race report articles. In my eyes the series doesn't fail notability, but individual races do. Unlike Formula One and MotoGP, A1 GP doesn't get TV or Newspaper coverage like the two others I mentioned do. Unless I see a news coverage website (BBC for instance) cover A1, these race report articles should be AFD'd. Also, Autosport only covers it as it does with other less-notable motorsports (ChampCar, Nascar, GP2, Rally etc.), and SkySports.com covers it as A1 GP has a contract with them to broadcast their races. Davnel03 11:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked over autosport.com, and they appear to have a F1 centric view. It is not fair to use them to determine the notability of race reports of other American series like NASCAR, Champcar, Indy Racing League, etc. Local television news covers every NASCAR Cup and Busch Series race, almost every IRL race, most NASCAR Truck Series races, and some ChampCar races. Local mainstream daily newspapers cover every NASCAR Cup, NASCAR Busch Series, NASCAR Truck Series, and IRL race. They usually cover ChampCar races. The American LeMans series are sometimes in local newspapers. I am not talking about specialist magazines. I am not speaking about the notability of race reports in the A1 GP at the moment, just these other series. Royalbroil 12:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I was actually saying that a listing by Autosport is not sufficient for notability. My experience is that top level motorsport gets more coverage in the US. The complicating factor is that local news media is a far more significant player in news dissemination over there than it is in the UK (other countries care to comment too?). So although national broadcasters like CBS and MSNBC are important, the strong local US media groups mean they are nowhere near as exclusive as the UK BBC or ITN news. As for print media, papers like the New York Post are not national dailies, such as we would understand the term in the UK, but they do cover a lot more national and international sport than our local papers. In the UK, most local papers only seriously cover sport that occurs within 20 miles of their headquaters town. You have to adjust your criteria to reflect the situation in each country. However... I would seriously argue that a simple results listing is never acceptable, at the very least they should be accompanied by a 200-300 word lead section. This should state the usual "what, where, when, who, why" notability justification. An argument that "there is simply so much to do I didn't have time" isn't really valid, as a few lines of text takes far less time to compose than a 40 line table. Pyrope 12:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on that one Pyrope. If I wanted to, right now I would nominate every single (or virtually 95% of them) F1 race report article for deletion. But of course they are notable, and covered by a various amount of sources, whereas A1 GP is not. I can't speak for other countries on this point, but Formula One over here in the UK is getting tonnes more newspaper and news coverage mainly because of Hamilton joining the sport. Davnel03 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." - I'd consider Haymarket/Autosport to meet this criteria. Having said that, I don't feel too strongly about keeping the A1 race reports, I'm just wary of setting a precedent which could be used against other similar reports on bigger subjects in future. I also think those that have contributed heavily (such as the people who've written a full report at 2005-06 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Germany) should be contacted individually to inform them. AlexJ 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if an article meets notability then Autosport would be an excellent source to use. The two are not synonyms. I still reckon that highly specilist media, and those with a financial interest in a race series, are not good citations to use if you are trying to argue notability. Where do you stop? There are a spectrum of national print media sources available, from national daily newspapers (which have an extremely broad remit and only cover significant motorsport events) to highly specilist news magazines (such as Motor Racing News, which is not really read outside the industry itself). We are debating a way of determining notability, not source reliability. Pyrope 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But then if we take Cytokine for example, which is a group of proteins, I've never heard of these or read about them in any newspaper or general interest text so I assume they are only discussed in specialist texts and they pass notability. I'm also sure I read somewhere that in South Africa, A1GP was being promoted more than F1. I'll try and find something to back that up. AlexJ 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not being a mollecular biologist I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't mind putting a small wager on their being included in the vast majority of textbooks and college/university curricula. Just a brief read of the article shows that they are an important group for life itself. This highlights the fact that notability criteria have to be considered in light of the proposed subject, and that one topic's criteria are of little applicability to another. I think you are right about South Africa, that's why I am keen to get some non-UK/USA input on this. Similarly, the Bathurst 1000 barely rates a mention outside the Antipodes, yet there it is a significant event and so has a page here. Pyrope 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have never created a race report article - I spend time doing other things. I do find race reports to be notable if they are at minimum for a major national touring series. I do agree that simple results listing is not acceptable, and contributors need to make at minimum a race event summary. There are other places on the web for people to find the simple results of any race. The problem is that I expect that someday someone would fill out the race summary, and having a stub is no reason to delete an article. Royalbroil 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Cytokine maybe included, but would examples of it such as CD32 be in every book? As for South Africa, so far I've noticed at the seemingly quite important http://www.motoring.co.za/ it is given equal prominence and coverage as F1. My opinion is that if someone's willing to write and maintain the stuff and it can be sourced, then I see more benefit in keeping it than in not keeping it. WP:PAPER and all that. AlexJ 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
...and thus the system works! All that is really required is that notability is asserted in the article lead, and that, if challenged, somebody can defend it. Certainly A1GP is not notable in the UK, but if a general interest motoring ezine is prepared to devote this effort to it then it must be of note in that country. As for CD32, no claim for specific notability is given and the article is very short. I am very tempted to go back and tag it. Pyrope 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think A1GP is notable if drivers, racing teams and related people are notable (in addition to the popularity). There ex-F1 drivers (Verstappen, Yoong, Firman...), Champ Car drivers (Jani, Power...), IRL drivers (Briscoe, Carpentier...) and of course many young drivers implied in "promotional formula" (GP2, F3...) with greats results. Then, there racing team implicated in many motorsport categories (DAMS, Super Nova, Arden...). With this point of view, A1 is notable - Rollof1 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
False logic. Famous Formula One team Cooper, Stirling Moss, Peter Collins and many others were active in F3 in the 1950s, do we have race reports for that series? No. You have to justify the series itself. Pyrope 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not even discussed this with Wikipedia:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix. As you've been told repeatedly, you need to inform people involved about what you plan to do to their pages before you make sweeping changes. Very strongly oppose any attempt to delete a couple dozen articles if you have not even talked to the people that created and edit them. The359 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I put it here as the A1 GP project is very inactive. Davnel03 09:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything, besides that comment, to mark the project as Inactive. At best it should have been posted at both projects. The359 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough but it hasn't had many comments in the past few months. Personally, I think the project, if it doesn't become very active should be disbanded, and possibly merged into this page. Davnel03 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I mooted that possibility earlier this year, based on the rationale that it seems unnecessary to create and manage a project for just one championship. But I opted not to raise the issue with its members because of the time of year (closed season for A1GP). Let us see how the project progresses this season (and how active it is) and then perhaps propose a friendly takeover after that if it makes sense. Adrian M. H. 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
One reason why I think the project should go is because half of their race reports, like this one are incomplete. Davnel03 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the 'downgrading' of the Wikiproject to a taskforce or similar but not with the logic you've used (if we used that, and considering probably 80% of F1 race reports are incomplete then WP:F1 would be under threat!). If there are only a handful of contributors, then having it as a taskforce allows a central place for discussion without the need to maintain a WikiProject itself. Less administration means more time to write articles. Perhaps we should start a separate discussion on this below and leave a message on the talkpage of all listed members of WP:A1GP. AlexJ 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree on that one. I've started a new conversation below. Davnel03 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Right so are we in unaminous agreement that either the A1 Grand Prix race report articles should stay or get AFD'd? Davnel03 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about unanimous, but for my way of thinking it would be a good idea to tag them with {{importance}} or {{notability}} and then wait a while, like a month or so, and if there is no movement then move to AfD. Mind you, I'd do the same for F1 race reports without a proper lead section too, just to be fair. Pyrope 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If I did that with F1 race reports it would more than certainly be speedy keep with most of the users saying passes notability. A1 GP articles, well that's possibly a different story.... I'll go round tagging all race report articles with those two templates, Pyrope. Davnel03 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to provide more than just a WP:ILIKEIT vote, you need a reasoned argument. The use of "speedy" or "strong" means nothing if you don't justify your opinion. Pyrope 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would agrue to keep the GP1 articles if they are as complete as the U.S. event that you listed. I meant articles shouldn't have ONLY the final race results, like this or this if it didn't have the second sentence. Disk space is unlimited, so anything that someone might look for that can be verified with multiple reports from reliable sources should be kept IMHO. I tend to be more inclusionist, thinking "What does it hurt to keep it?" Royalbroil 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It can't be sourced from multiple sources like Formula One or MotoGP can, that's my point. Some of this in my view fails overall notability in the long view. Look, I think that the A1 GP race reports are not notable enough to seek inclusion into an encyclopedia. Davnel03 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it can be sourced from multiple sources. I've already given Autosport, SkySports.com (although I understand Sky may not be considered totally independent, we do however use BBC for F1, and they have rights for it) and motoring.co.za and we can add SuperSport (who I don't think are the SA broadcaster but still provide news on their website) and Speed (okay, it's the USA broadcaster but again, we use the two UK F1 broadcasters websites ITV-F1.com and bbc.co.uk regularly so I don't see the problem here), the Belfast Telegraph, pitpass.com and wheels24.co.za - and that's just from 5 minutes Googling. AlexJ 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Citing a broadcaster is no more questionable than citing a newspaper; in both cases, a journalist or reporter of some description has probably had direct contact with the subject, which is perfectly acceptable once that research is published because the broadcaster/newspaper can be deemed to be independent (or sufficiently so). Such sources are usually among the most reliable in practice. Adrian M. H. 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I get 1.8 MILLION hits on google with the term "A1GP". There has to be very many reliable sources with race reports in that large of a group.
What we are experiencing now is the difference of opinion between wikipedians about what they personally consider notable. Some people tend to be more inclusionist and some more deletionist. There's nothing wrong with these differences, but it will preclude a precise solution in this case. I don't see how specific standards can be agreed upon with these fundamental differences between contributors. Royalbroil 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Joining in as I noticed the {{importance}} and {{notability}} tags plastered over the top of all the race articles. The ones I've noticed appear to all have introductory paragraphs which state something like "The 2006-07 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Great Britain was an A1 Grand Prix race, held on 29 April 2007 at Brands Hatch, Great Britain. This was the eleventh and final race in the 2006-07 A1 Grand Prix season and the second meeting held at the circuit." To me, this asserts both notability and importance. Even if it didn't, is it really necessary to use both templates??? A1GP very quickly became the second-most-important (to spectators) international open-wheel racing series in the world. I agree that many of the race articles are incomplete, however they appear to have a suitable intro, navboxes and category to lead readers to related articles, as well as the results lists which also link to drivers, many of whom are notable. Ideally there would be a summary of what happened in the race, and empty section headers are ugly, but that doesn't warrant deletion of the articles. Someone above said the series is not notable if the BBC doesn't report on it. That would be something like this from last week and photo 5 from here (I can't work out a URL to show it without clicking on the 5). Remember that notability is not limited to one country, or even to only English speakers. The fact that many of the driver articles link to the race reports suggests that the authors of those articles believe the individual races to be notable, too. The problem is not that the topics are not notable, but that the articles have not been fully written. Deleting them won't help that. --Scott Davis Talk 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible downgrading on A1 GP WikiProject to Taskforce status

I have started this new section on the basis on AlexJ's comments about the WikiProject:

Agree with the 'downgrading' of the Wikiproject to a taskforce or similar but not with the logic you've used (if we used that, and considering probably 80% of F1 race reports are incomplete then WP:F1 would be under threat!). If there are only a handful of contributors, then having it as a taskforce allows a central place for discussion without the need to maintain a WikiProject itself. Less administration means more time to write articles. Perhaps we should start a separate discussion on this below and leave a message on the talkpage of all listed members of WP:A1GP. AlexJ 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Alex on that point, and have started this discussion. I believe that A1 GP should be downgraded to just a taskforce. I'm also going to leave comments with all members of the project to direct them to this conversation. Thanks - Davnel03 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the suggestion was that we see how well they do with their upcoming season in a few months before deciding what to do with them? The359 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I would rather do. I don't want us to start making what could be seen as a bullish move. I noticed that the project's talk page activity picked up last month after two silent months. That said, there is no real harm in gently sounding out the interested parties to see what they think. On the upside, they would receive more direct access to input from this project's members. Adrian M. H. 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go to say that the activity's picked up to much. There's never been much real discussion on that talkpage. It only picked up last month yes with three comments, one about the lack of activity on the talkpage, one about a point to do with the standings, and the other Royalbroil made informing them about this conversation! Davnel03 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think a Taskforce would suit A1GP far better than a WikiProject. The change wouldn't affect their goals - they'd have their own introductory page and talk page located at a subpage of WP:MOTOR (Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/A1GP and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/A1GP). The WP:MOTOR banner on each article would have an option to add the line "This article is supported by the A1GP taskforce". It basically just removes the administration aspect of running the Wikiproject. I know WP:Video Games uses taskforces successfully for several different video game series (e.g. Grand Theft Auto series has a taskforce) each taskforce having between 10-25 participants. This seems a similar number to WP:A1GP's current membership. AlexJ 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree to downgrade it to a taskforce. I'm not sure if that would give it a new impulse of activities tho. I personally am in a busy time of my life so I contribute less to Wikipedia than I would like. I also haven't been able to watch many A1GP races so I am even more limited in contributing to this project at the moment. Felsir 08:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as some of us are in agreement then about this, I will transform it into a taskforce. I'll try and come up with something in my sandbox and come back with my idea. Davnel03 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

STOP! A handful of people, including just one member of the Wikiproject is not enough to go ahead with the changes. I was thinking of a timescale measured in months, not hours, for the change to allow everyone to voice their opinion and to make sure we're out of the off-season before making any changes. AlexJ 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep your cool please. It was only a suggestion. Thanks, Davnel03 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Davnel, if you start saying things like "I will transform it into a taskforce" then expect people to shout at you. You were the one at fault there. Pyrope 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One word mistake, get over it. I made a mistake, everybody does. Davnel03 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct thing to do would have been to apologise for rushing into it, not telling someone to "get over it". It's ironic that you mention WP:CIVIL because your last comment is fairly rude and you might want to avoid that in future given that you're on shakey ground as it is. Readro 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A1GP is a nation-wide series, which is important just like Formula One (no matter that it's too young). If we continue with a downgrading, we also should raise the similar question about Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs)
Is this OK? It's not up to scratch, but its something. Davnel03 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd wait until enough people agree before starting to draw up ideas. Given you have little interest in the series Davnel, it's probably best to leave regular contributors decide on how they want it to look. AlexJ 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Do we agree on keeping the race report articles though? Davnel03 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, but that's for discussion under the appropriate heading above. AlexJ 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Alex about that. Give it some time (months is about right) and if it gets enough support from the people who are most affected, let them have the biggest say in what happens. Adrian M. H. 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original proposal to downgrade. I don't think I have ever really understood why a subject as narrow as a non-world championship series should have a project to itself. As one of the contributors (for a while the only contributor to some pages) I would have no objection - it would in fact give the series a not too dissimilar status to that held by another one of my old pet projects, improving and creating Speedway Grand Prix articles. Jsydave 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto racing team categories

As per this discussion, I've created a series of "<country> auto racing teams" categories, e.g. Category:American auto racing teams, Category:Austrian auto racing teams, etc. Currently, these categories are included as direct subcategories of Category:Auto racing teams, and hence are intermingled with the "racing series" subcategories, e.g.:

Category:Auto racing teams
:
Category:French auto racing teams
Category:GP2 teams
Category:German auto racing teams
Category:Grand American Road Racing Association teams
Category:Indy Racing League teams
Category:Irish auto racing teams

Are people happy with this, or would you rather see all the "country" categories grouped under an "Auto racing teams by country" subcategory, to separate them from the "racing series" subcategories, e.g.

Category:Auto racing teams
Category:Auto racing teams by country
:
Category:French auto racing teams
Category:German auto racing teams
Category:Irish auto racing teams
Category:GP2 teams
Category:Grand American Road Racing Association teams
Category:Indy Racing League teams

DH85868993 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"...by country" is tidy and logical, and seems to be the preferred approach elsewhere. I would recommend that option. Adrian M. H. 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the second option for two reasons. First, it is confusing to have the two ways to sort teams intermingled. Second, by country is the preferred approach used elsewhere per Adrain. Royalbroil 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too. The same system works well over at Commons, where the "Racing cars by country" seems to work as a logical grouping. Pyrope 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the second option too to keep things tidy - "A place for everything and everything in its place" AlexJ 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. DH85868993 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_3&oldid=1136413042"