Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Archive 10

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

Numbers in team infoboxes

A user has deleted the numbers field in team infoboxes and the infobox template itself claiming the sections are prone to vandalism. This user made no attempt at consensus before doing so. I reverted some of the edits but thought to bring the issue here. Thoughts on the numbers field in team infoboxes? Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Willsome429:, it would help to notify and tag me, since I'm the "user" you're talking about. And yes, that section is prone to vandalism in the form of IP users adding random, unverifiable numbers. In my view, the only other solution would be to manually add citations to every single number in the list, which, even if it's as simple as adding a link to the Jayski chart for the single year they ran it, would be painstakingly time consuming.
My second reasoning is that the teams' current numbers get added in with the list of race drivers and the list of sponsors within the same infobox. Hence it becomes redundant.
Thirdly, having a list of numbers with absolutely zero context or meaning is frankly WP:Listcruft. Teams that have a historic association with a past number (Such as Hendrick Motorsports and Nos. 5 and 25) are generally already expanded on in the article itself, or if not, can be. Otherwise, how do we prove WP:Notability of the list? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The assumption that all former numbers are covered in the articles is a good-intentioned one that’s not quite there yet. Especially with old teams that ran their course before Wikipedia came into existence, not all significant numbers from the team’s history remain in prose. Recently as well, we have had some team articles created that aren’t spectacular and are a bit lax on total history. On another note, the number field does not mean just NASCAR. Take DGR-Crosley: their late model numbers aren’t covered by Jayski but still are a part of the team. The list, especially for NASCAR teams with Rick Allen calling races, is notable - with sponsors/drivers changing, numbers are sometimes the most recognizable constant for a team. And “prone” to vandalism is a relative term- a lot of teams’ pages have not been changed by IPs, some of which are productive contributions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
In your example of DGR-Crosley, do what we've done for Penske and Ganassi and their IndyCar programs: Add a section under "Race drivers" for their Late Model program if you feel it is notable. If not, it doesn't belong, nor should the numbers. That is really a non-argument to keeping a list of numbers. Especially since that article mentions nothing about what numbers the drivers will even be running in its prose, just "Drivers X and Y will be driving Late Models for this team in 2019".
The simple fact is that every number must be Verifiable to be listed. The burden of which falls on whoever adds or restores the content. As it is, there is no way of telling what numbers are true, or random gibberish unless they are individually cited. You also haven't answered my other question which is of WP:Listcruft. How do you respond to points 2, 4, 6, and 11? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is known for being the world’s most extensive collection of knowledge, and maybe this is just my own viewpoint, but I’d rather include more content than less. As for point two, I don’t think so. Unless you’re a diehard NASCAR fan you have no clue how many numbers Front Row Motorsports went through in its Nationwide stage and even into its early Cup years. With point six, it is in no way, shape or form unlimited. The Penske/Ganassi example is a rarity, teams don’t change numbers often, analog the effort to maintain minimal. Point four requires more effort but the content is not unverifiable or non-notable; as stated above, oftentimes drivers, sponsors, liveries or manufacturers change more often than numbers do. That alone makes the field worth keeping over the aforementioned fields, oftentimes none of which are sourced. As for the final point, I don’t know how a list of numbers could be considered “volatile”; once a team uses it, it uses it. If you would like to also open a discussion on the validity of the driver, sponsor and manufacturer fields in the infobox, go ahead. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is known for being the world’s most extensive collection of knowledge"
WP:IINFO, WP:Directory point 7, specifically "Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose."
"Unless you’re a diehard NASCAR fan you have no clue how many numbers Front Row Motorsports went through in its Nationwide stage and even into its early Cup years."
And if you're not a hardcore NASCAR fan, why does it matter? Even for those of us who are, the same question applies. If they are not using the number currently, and there is no verifiable info as to why that number that they are not using anymore is of significance, why should it be added? WP:NOTDIARY WP:TOOMUCH
"as stated above, oftentimes drivers, sponsors, liveries or manufacturers change more often than numbers do. That alone makes the field worth keeping over the aforementioned fields, oftentimes none of which are sourced."
A) We don't keep endless lists of every driver, sponsor, or manufacturer the team has utilized. Some IndyCar team articles do this, but within prose, as it should be here if chosen to be done (the Team templates at the bottom of the articles does a great job of this already, though).
B) The above are all very verifiable; often in news releases containing the whole shebang, as well as the number they will run, which gets added ng side the relevant driver, and sponsor.
C) If a driver or sponsor is listed without a source, then it should be verified and either removed or a citation added. It takes significantly less effort for this.
"I don’t know how a list of numbers could be considered “volatile”; once a team uses it, it uses it."
And once they stop, what notability does it actually have? Going back to my Hendrick example, it's much more encyclopedic to find sources on how No. 25 is notable (historically poor results relative to rest of the team; a quick Google search for "Hendrick 25 curse" brings up a Fox Sports and a Yahoo article covering it, and a Bleacher Report article countering the point to bring in a more NPOV!), than it is to just chuck it into a contextless list with no coverage outside of the infobox.
"If you would like to also open a discussion on the validity of the driver, sponsor and manufacturer fields in the infobox, go ahead."
Well, they all have easily verifiable and notable inclusions, the majority of which are linked to further articles on Wikipedia expanding on those subjects, so I wont, and if someone did, I'd argue against their deletion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
FRM’s page has nearly 5,000 page views in the past month. Although it is impossible to accurately gauge how many found the number list interesting, it is against editor etiquette to make such a drastic change without community consensus. Pinging @Jahn1234567890:, @ZappaOMatic:, and @Bcschneider53: to try and gain a clearer community consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsome429 (talk • contribs)
@Willsome429: Just a heads up, I didn't receive the ping because you forgot to sign (so I'll go ahead ping @Jahn1234567890: and @ZappaOMatic: this time to make sure they get it). I personally have no strong opinion either way as long as they're sourced, then again, if they can be adequately covered in prose, perhaps it might be better to keep track of them there, especially for teams like Rick Ware Racing, which has forty-two numbers listed in the infobox right now. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Numbers definitely are more important in NASCAR than any other motorsport considering their usage for the owner's points and whatnot, but I'm with Ben on this one. While I think it's important to note what numbers teams used throughout their history (in prose, especially with numbers/owner points shifting between cars as the years progress), some like backmarkers/start-and-parks probably have too many to list in an infobox. Since some pages also have results tables of their own, I feel that's a more readable/"less list-y" way of putting numbers. Zappa⚡Matic 01:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Willsome429:, what do page views have to do with how notable a team's past numbers are, and whether they should be explained in prose, or listed? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn’t get a ping for whatever reason. Since all three of y’all support removing it I’ll drop the argument. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series at Requested moves

Looks like Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series has a move request to NASCAR Premier Series at Talk:Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series#Requested move 3 April 2019, but nobody's partaken in it in the week since it opened. Might be worth bringing up here to raise some attention. Zappa⚡Matic 00:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dustin Skinner article nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Skinner. This new article seriously needs rescue. Royalbroil 14:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would be agreeable to it, I could take the page on as a project in my sandbox if you could restore it there after deletion. If that happens, any member of this WikiProject would also be welcome to work on it there. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
You can copy and paste what's there until it's deleted, but what's there isn't helpful. You would compose that little in 1 or 2 minutes. Royalbroil 19:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC which impacts this WikiProject's articles

An RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles which has wide implications for this WikiProject. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discssion.
SSSB (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Teams that fade into obscurity

I'm still (compared to some) new on the WikiProject NASCAR scene, and with some teams closing up shop without any official announcement, I've been wondering what to do with the team's pages. Specifically in the case of Bolen Motorsports, the team just gradually faded out, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage on the demise of the team after its final race. Any suggestions on how to deal with this sceanrio for Bolen/other teams like that? Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willsome429: Perhaps go with something like Bolen Motorsports is currently inactive, with its last recorded race ....

generally I search through NewspaperArchive, Google News, etc. (list of some sources to search here). It's tough when there's no official announcement, but I usually just go with "last known" — Ched (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Good solution! Royalbroil 00:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

New stuff

couple new ones I've added: Palm Beach Speedway and Impound race (NASCAR). Palm Beach Speedway is way to old now to put up for any DYK or anything, and there really wasn't anything there for that. I made "Impound race" race a dab, and moved original article to "Impound race (NASCAR) due to the the Parc fermé article and also the glossary definitions. I don't know if the Impound race is worthy of any DYK or anything (I don't do that stuff anymore), but anyone is welcome to do with it what they will. I'm pretty much done with it (unless I run into something new about the topic). See ya at the track — Ched (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nascar 2020

Excuse Me, but can we have new drivers have "he (or she) is confirmed to compete, full-time, in the {{Insert NASCAR series here}} in their form before the season start? (You can alert me on my talk page)". F1 Mercedes Fan (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

NASCAR Gander RV & Outdoors Truck Series simplification

Leave it to NASCAR to throw a wrench into the offseason with the Truck Series becoming the NASCAR Gander RV & Outdoors Truck Series, a name that is stupidly long even when compared to "Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series". We all know the Monster Energy part in NASCAR Cup Series has been dropped from the official series name, and the kinks for that are being sorted out in the related articles now that the season's over, but the Trucks getting the same treatment is raising some questions for me.

While I don't have any qualms about keeping the parent article at the full name (and the relevant season article at 2020 NASCAR Gander RV & Outdoors Truck Series), I can't help but look at pages like List of NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series champions and List of the closest NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series finishes and cringe at having to add "RV &". WP:OFFICIAL says common name is usually preferred outside of certain exceptions, so I'm not opposed to shortening it to just "NASCAR Truck Series" or "NASCAR Gander Truck Series" for the aforementioned lists (according to this media guide screenshot from Reddit, "Gander Trucks" is to be used over "NGRVOTS" and the like); at the most, the parent page could also get moved to just NASCAR Truck Series for the same explanation. I suppose the same question also applies to results tables, though is more of an aesthetic thing; with the Cup Series just being that now, the section headers are fairly balanced between it and the Xfinity table, but the Truck one is pretty imbalanced since it's the only one with more than two words in its name (look to my sandbox for reference).

What's the plan here? Zappa⚡Matic 03:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@ZappaOMatic: Given what Marcus Lemonis has given to NASCAR, I think he's earned the right to call the Truck Series whatever the heck he wants. That being said, a third name in three years is pretty frustrating for us. I'm personally not opposed to simply saying "Truck Series." Heck, the IndyCar Series is technically the "NTT IndyCar Series" with Verizon and Izod sponsoring before that, and none of those articles used the full name. Common names are Cup, Xfinity (should still be "Xfinity Grand National" or SOMETHING imho), and Trucks. For results tables, I think using the full name would still be preferred though, simply for consistency's sake with past drivers who raced under the Craftsman and Camping World titles. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs

The articles Braden Mitchell and Chuck Buchanan Jr. are nominated for deletion. Their discussions can be found here for Mitchell and here for Buchanan. Any constructive input on these discussions is appreciated. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 05:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Taylor Gray (racing driver) is now nominated for deletion (discussion here). Again, any constructive feedback is appreciated! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Tim Richmond (racing driver, born 1998), Brandon Lynn and Eddie Fatscher are now nominated for deletion under one singluar discussion, which can be found here. Any constructive participation is welcome, and if you would like to be alerted when new motorsport AfD discussions pop upp, add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports to your watchlist. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Broadcaster and viewership information in NASCAR and IndyCar articles

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Broadcaster and viewership information in NASCAR and IndyCar articles. regarding the inclusion of broadcaster and tv viewerships in NASCAR and IndyCar articles. I invite interested editors to contribute there. A7V2 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

DNQ

Why is DNQ being used in results tables (including in races which have not yet taken place!) when no qualifying sessions are taking place? If a driver and/or team is not in the 40 at each race then they should not show up in the tables at all. Effectively their entry has been refused. DNQ implies they showed up, turned laps and didn't make it into the field when that deinately is not what is occurring. 2020 Truck series article is the main offender. --Falcadore (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed but I agree with your assessment. Royalbroil 23:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that, however, there have been times in the past where qualifying has been rained out, meaning that teams did not get a chance to run laps, and were still marked as DNQ. I believe the main reasoning for this comes from Racing-Reference.info, a NASCAR-owned website, listing the entries as DNQs. The teams did not meet NASCAR's standards for qualification (in this case, being one of the 40 trucks entered with the highest owner points totals) and as such, in a sense, "failed to qualify" because they did not accumulate a sufficient amount of owner points. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, I'd like to agree with Will, but I definitely see Falcadore and Royalbroil's point. I think the best thing to do would be to go with whatever NASCAR / Racing-Reference say, so if they list the refused entries as "DNQ" like normal, I see no reason why we shouldn't as well. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore, Royalbroil, Willsome429, and Bcschneider53: Racing-Reference.info and the NASCAR starting lineups that are posted on Jayski currently conflict with one another: Charlotte Truck Series for example: Jayski/NASCAR Statistics showing Did Not Qualify: None & Racing-Reference.info showing the list of DNQs..
If the Jayski/NASCAR Statistics scenario is to be followed, then the only other option in the NASCAR driver results legend template would be Did Not Participate? Craig(talk) 16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Cs-wolves: Well, that's frustrating, especially since NASCAR's digital media network literally owns Racing-Reference. We generally cite the RR pages in results tables though. I'd still lean DNQ, especially if the drivers' individual pages we already cite in many tables are including these races as such. But if it's ambiguous, it's tough... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Cs-wolves: Why "Did Not Participate" if in fact they did not participate? I struggle to see the debate here. These DNQ did not qualify, participate, arrive, enter the building, receive an invitation or bring a car with them. As long as they are not racing they can't accumulate any owners points so they have no opportunity to qualify by any method. They should not be there at all. Following the examples of other perpetuates a false myth. They were not there. Blank squares should abound. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Additionally I have my doubts about Racing Reference. Going through the Formula One data recently has revealed a lot of errors. They need a fair amount of fixing. --Falcadore (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: Racing Reference is definitely a credible source. That is at least their NASCAR and other stock car stats. Their F1 data is indeed full of mistakes. That being said, the same can be said about StatsF1 and ChicaneF1. Sources that are frequently used on wikipedia. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:TRUTH, I'd still swing towards DNQ squares, as we are talking about NASCAR results coming from a NASCAR-owned site. I'd also argue that NASCAR set parameters for qualification (be an entry with one of the 40 highest totals in owner points) that is relatively similar to normal qualification standards (be an entry with one of the 27 fastest times or 5 most owner points that aren't in the top 27) and some teams, just like regular races, failed to meet the standards. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up Falcadore and starting this discussion. I'll throw my two cents in because this is definitely a unique situation we're in that rarely happens. Sorry if this is kinda long but I think it's a good analysis of all this:
I did read everybody's comments above and I think that I agree with Willsome and Bcschneider53 and that we should go off of what Racing Reference says and have the refuted entries (Benning, Kligerman, Hutchens, Viens, Barnhill, and Cram for both Charlotte and Atlanta and then Erik Jones at Homestead and Ragan at Atlanta) listed as DNQ's. I do agree with everyone in saying that that the way it's designated as a DNQ does not entirely reflect how they weren't in the race.
In terms of using the existing terms of DNP (did not participate) or EX (excluded), it could work, but the way those two are used now wouldn't match up to this circumstance. Some places where EX has been used include on the 2011 Cup Series article with Kyle Busch at Texas after being suspended for crashing Hornaday on purpose in that weekend's Truck race. There's also the 2018 Xfinity article where Tony Mrakovich is listed as EX because of crashing in practice and NASCAR not feeling like he was ready due to his limited experience. Both of these are nothing like what's happening now. DNP kind of implies that it was a driver's choice not to race (it's used in the 2009 Cup Series article when Joe Nemechek stepped out of his No. 87 for Scott Speed whenever he qualified but Speed DNQ'ed). However, in this case, it is not their choice to not race, so coming up with something new like CNP (could not participate) might work. Maybe have the background color in red like a DNQ.
However, I'd still prefer using DNQ also because I think that if one of the 40 teams that was allowed to race withdrew to let one of the excluded teams a spot in the field, one of the teams that was excluded would be bumped up and into the field. That didn't happen the last two races but it's still possible that it could if we get more Truck entry lists over 40 (the Homestead entry list should be coming out today so we'll see what happens there). I was quite surprised it didn't and some of the "better/faster" teams like Kligerman, Jones, and Ragan didn't try to court some of the underfunded teams/"slower trucks" to pull their entries a la Paul Menard in 2010 for the Daytona Xfinity race or use their number and owner points like the No. 71 Contreras team did many times in 2016 for MDM, JR Motorsports, etc. The first time they did this Brandon Jones was initially on an entry list in the MDM No. 99 and was going to DNQ due to a large entry list, but then they partnered with Contreras' team and he did race after all. So all in all, I would be OK with coming up with a new term (preferably "CNP") to designate it as, but think keeping them listed as DNQ's is the best option.
Also, is there a way to have this discussion appear on the 2020 Truck Series article's talk page as well as here? TBH, I think that would've been the best place to have this discussion instead of on this talk page. Cavanaughs (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs
The biggest problem I have with all of this is that while DNQ may be a usage of the world that is not technically incorrect it is a different meaning. Normally DNQ is Did Not Qualify for the race. Here in 2020 it is being used as Did Not Qualify for an entry into the race meeting. Same words, completely different in meaning. As a solution, perhaps text notes in the race and championship articles concerned might be best. Sometimes we have a tendency to force explanations into tables as a substitute for writing it out in sentences. The teams concerned had no participation in the events at all. Denied entires have never - to my knowledge - been tracked before in the tables before. Regerdless of the usage of DNQ I do not believe this is something that should be tracked in the tables, but explained with text.
I would be curious to know if Did Not Qualify for an entry has ever been used in the past for a race meeting. --Falcadore (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to come back to this so late, but I'm failing to see how Racing Reference supports the use of DNQ? In the above, the drivers are listed as "Failed to qualify, withdrew, or driver changes" which is not implying the same thing as DNQ. Also @Willsome429:, I don't mean to nitpick but WP:TRUTH refers to what is verifiable in (independent) reliable sources, which of course Racing Reference is not as it is owned by NASCAR. A7V2 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Normally on R-R, DNQs are listed as numbers and DC/WD are listed as such. I can't remember a race with all three off the top of my head, but this one shows an example of a DC with DNQs and this one shows a WD with DNQs. Hope that helps. As for the TRUTH point - I totally get it. NASCAR has done a great job of controlling media coverage of their sport, acquiring R-R a few years ago and buying the largest independent news source, Jayski.com, last year. In the case of entry lists and race results, everything anyone ever sees is a NASCAR-published document. There are no independently published alternatives, and that's what makes this such a bear. Many of the race results cited in race articles are NASCAR-published PDFs. There's no independent coverage stating what happened to these entries, but the fact remains that they filed an entry and didn't make the show. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Willsome429: I see what you mean with the DNQs etc, thanks. And it's a problem across the Motorsport articles of Wikipedia (and probably other sports too) that they have to rely on the "official" websites rather than use independent sources. Probably if it's impossible to find complete results in independent reliable sources then they (complete results tables I mean) don't belong on Wikipedia but that's probably going to be an unpopular opinion! I did have a quick look around online for the 2005 Pennsylvania 500 and very little comes up. In fact I noticed that the 2005 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series article has just one reference, a dead link to the NASCAR website... but this is verymuch sidetracking this thread, although I think there does need to be a discussion about the enormous amount of un(der)sourced motorsport articles. A7V2 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Kentucky Xfinity Doubleheader

With Kentucky hosting two Xfinity Series races this weekend, wouldn't it make more sense to move the 'new' race (the Shady Rays 200) to the article VisitMyrtleBeach.com 300 ? Since this article is for Kentucky's 2nd race hosted between 2012 and 2017 instead to list both results on the same article of the Alsco 300 (Kentucky), similar to what was done with Pocono Organics 325 and Pocono 350 (even they were a doubleheader, the results were listed on different articles). Luks25 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated Schedule

Hi, I’ve started updating all race results tables with the updated 2020 schedule but I need some help. I’ve chosen DRC for the Daytona Road Course, but obviously this can be changed if needed. Here is the code:

| TEX | KAN | NHA | MCH | MCH | DRC | DOV | DOV | DAY | DAR | RCH | BRI | LVS | TAL | CLT | KAN | TEX | MAR | PHO

Thanks Mrmariomaster (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Per previous precedent with the Charlotte and Indianapolis road courses, the Daytona road course should still be DAY. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Allison Family CfD

There is a discussion about what to do with the category for the Allison Family of NASCAR (Davey, Bobby, Donnie). The discussion is happening at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_22#Category:Allison_family. Royalbroil 00:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Meridian Speedway

I was considering starting an article on the NASCAR West track in Meridian, Idaho. Surprisingly, there is already an article about a rail line with the same name in southern states. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#disambiguation_precedent_for_a_racing_facility? about how to disambiguate the article title. Royalbroil 01:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Cup Schedule

Listen, I don't know who needs to hear this, but for the love of God, the GEICO 500 isn't a crown jewel race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:abb8:4109:50e9:b0e9:46bf:4cc3 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

TobyChristie.com is reliable

I don't know what the criteria for a reliable source is but I only found one article that happened to be wrong in all my time spent on the website, so if someone can show me said criteria, I can prove it. NASCAR Enthusiastnyoom 11:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:RS. However, TC has picked up a reputation for being a prominent rumor site that has had to eat their words in a big way in the past. Just recently, the "Texas Cup race is getting cancelled" news push and the "RPM is telling its employees to look elsewhere" bit turned out to be major false news incidents, and I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting about. Additionally, there is very little on TC that is not already published by a higher-quality outlet. A cursory search of the main page shows clickbait videos and PDFs, as well as a couple run-of-the-mill race recaps that can easily be found by internationally-recognized sites such as Racer, Motorsport or Autoweek. The combo of producing mill-like content and being a rumor hotbed does quite a number on its credibility as a reliable source. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Individual Race Events

What's the general consensus here surrounding whether or not individual race events, for instance, the 2020 Boyd Gaming 300 rather than the Boyd Gaming 300 in general, deserve their own individual article? I know with IndyCar and IMSA, they're generally considered notable, but only if the article's author can construct it well. I've seen quite a few of these languishing in the draft phase, so what's the prevailing idea here? SmackJam (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As somebody who's sent multiple of these to draftspace, the answer is yes, only if the author can construct it well. I can compile PDFs of a local elementary school sporting season and make a page for it off that, but it's not notable that way. Some of the really mundane second-or-third tier events may not pass GNG, but for the most part, I think they do. Yesterday's 2020 SpeedyCash.com 400 was brimming with storylines and certainly passes that threshold. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Should team pages have sections dedicated to the owner(s)?

NASCAR team articles seem to have car history well-covered, but not owner history, so much. I would expect these pages, especially the new 23XI Racing article, to have a section on the owners, describing their relevance/connection to the sport, owner history, co-owners, and anything else relevant to the owner as it relates to the team (not everything that would be covered in the owner's own article, of course). What do you think about this being a part of the "NASCAR team page format"? ~EdGl talk 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I usually try to add that in a general "history" section if the team has one, but I haven't done a ton of work on team articles (a bit in 2016/17 and then again this year). Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

As an attempt to stop a few current and future edit wars, I've decided to post this here because I tried the talk page of the article that is most affected by this (2021 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series), and it didn't get noticed there. Simply reply "yes" if you agree, and "no" if you disagree (please provide a reason for disagreement). If anyone has a different opinion on this topic, or would like to add on to this one, you are welcome to add it here. My opinion is that when it is announced that a driver's contract is extended without a specific number announced, the primary number that the team/driver combination ran in the previous year is listed in the chart. For example, Creed, Smith, and Ankrum would be listed in the 2, 21, and 26 respectively. Although Hocevar will run two races in the 42, his primary number was the 40. Although Deegan only drove one race in the truck, she would be listed in the 17. The only exception would be if it was specifically announced that the driver would not be driving that number. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, NASCAR Enthusiastnyoom 01:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to use TBA{{note}} and have the footnote say something like "[Driver] drove car #__ in [prev. year], although their car number for [this (next) year] has yet to be confirmed as of [current date]." ~EdGl talk 01:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTAL, I would leave it as TBA as to not be presumptive (Pockrass' yearly list of owner points transfers is lengthy) and also avoid speculation by refraining from listing any previous car or truck numbers. Obviously, we are all frustrated by this, but if it can't be sourced, we should not be the ones trying to take a stab at it. That's for Reddit and Twitter, not Wikipedia. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What if we just had something like this in the footnote: "Driver was #xx in the (prev year) season.<ref>(citation)</ref>" (since it is a verified statement of fact) -- that, and having "TBA" in the actual table, sould be enough to get the right point across. Something we can do instead is add a note above the table that explicitly has the word "confirmed" when talking about the car numbers... then that column will either have the reliably-sourced car number or be blank (or have "TBA"). ~EdGl talk 13:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Or, just to add on to @EdGl's idea we can use {{Tooltip}} like TBA. NASCAR Enthusiastnyoom 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I like that. ~EdGl talk 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
So is this a consensus? NASCAR Enthusiastnyoom 16:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll let @Willsome429 speak for himself, but it looks like the issue he raised about WP:CRYSTAL has been addressed (apologies if I got your gender wrong). I think we talked through it enough that we reached a good consensus here. ~EdGl talk 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
By the time I got back to the issue, action had been taken. Hopefully this will be a moot point in a short timeframe. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ARCA races at Toledo

Herr's Potato Chips 200 is, as far as I can tell, the only article dealing with ARCA races at Toledo Speedway. Until 2019 the article covered all ARCA Menards Series races there, including years when more than one race took place. However in June, @Cavanaughs: changed the scope from 2020 to instead cover a race in the 2020 ARCA Menards Series East. However, for 2020 there were actually three races at Toledo in the 2020 ARCA Menards Series, and two in the 2020 ARCA Menards Series East (one of which was shared between them, but not the one listed at the article currently). I noticed this when @Willsome429: nominated two of the non-east races at RfD (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Menards.com 200 presented by XPxE and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Royal Truck & Trailer 200).

I feel that the scope of the article currently at Herr's Potato Chips 200 should go back to being all ARCA Menards Series races at Toledo, and then if others feel necessary, a separate article could be made for the East races, or as second preference, put both in the one article, but I wonder what others think of this? I definitely don't like the current status quo of an article being about all the races in a particular series at a particular track all the way up to 2019 then suddenly its about a specific race in a different series. A7V2 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start out by saying that I also cannot speak to the motivation behind various page moves by Cavanaughs, and that his input would be greatly appreciated in this discussion. Borrowing from NASCAR Cup precedent, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that if a page is titled "Organization XYZ 300" or something of the like, it covered the lineage of that particular race. For example, take Daytona 500 and Coke Zero Sugar 400; both are NASCAR Cup Series races at Daytona, and both have separate pages. At least for me, having a specific race title implies following the lineage of that race and only that race. I split Bush's Beans 200 and Zombie Auto 150 due to this, and have eliminated "second race" sections on some other race pages. It's not like I'm cherrypicking Toledo, although the page is woefully undersourced and in need of cleanup, as the infobox claims a different race title than the actual page title. My main issue with said redirects in question is that number one, they are not mentioned anywhere on the page they redirect to, and number two, they were late-add events to the calendar that will most likely wind up becoming one-off events. They have nothing to contribute to the history of the main Herr's Potato Chips 200 (which should've been dabbed at some point because there was also a Madison race of that name a few years ago). Series realignment is messy and if Sean would like to expound upon his reasoning for his various moves and page edits, that would be spectacular. I'm not opposed to having an all-encompassing "history at a track" page, but if that happens, it should be named something less specific "History of the [insert series here] at [insert track here]" so to account for various race events and race names throughout history. However, I'm also not opposed to the option of dividing it out, as it's the impression I've been under for at least the past 30+ months when I've been active in ARCA pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is similar to an issue I highlighted some time ago on the Sportscar racing wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Car Racing/Archive 3#Continuity of Races) but no-one was interested at the time (admittedly I wrote far too long of a post). I don't really like having articles for a particular race history which isn't documented in reliable sources as having some continuity (indeed this is a violation of policies). I think unless there are actual reliable sources which tie particular races year on year together, then the only other form such articles should take is races of a particular series/class (or possibly multiple related series) at a certain venue (including potentially at successor venues and the like). In cases where there isn't this tie-in of an annual race by reliable sources then I also agree the title should be more generic in the same way they are on, for example racing-reference where they are grouped by championship, not by name, and some years may have more than one race.
In the particular case of Toledo and the redirect discussions you started, I could have just boldly reverted the change in scope, put a mention of the 2020 race titles and included all in the list of winners but I felt it required further discussion beforehand. Given that this will ultimately affect many related articles I'm not sure what the best approach is. A7V2 (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This year especially has exacerbated this issue. It's been a little bit of a mess for a while now but random one-offs has also thrown a wrench in it. I have left a message on the talk page of Cavanaughs formally asking him for his input. As always, any other interested parties are more than welcome and invited to participate. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the article in question to ARCA races at Toledo as that article had covered all ARCA races at Toledo so it doesn't make sense to give it a specific name. I have incorporated all 2020 races into that article, with a separate table for the East races. I have done this as User:Cavanaughs did not contribute and it appears that unfortunately User:Willsome429 has left wikipedia, but of course if either of you, or anyone else, has concerns etc please do let me know (or if you want to tidy the article or change the name etc of course go for it!). A7V2 (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Lore sections on TV templates

At least three American sports lore articles went to AfD with consensus to delete (NFL, NHL, and MLS). In proposing to nominate NASCAR lore to AFD, this would also require the discussion of the future of the lore sections of the following templates:

This decision might also affect the following templates not (directly) related to NASCAR (the last two are WP:AOWR's forte):

Thoughts? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 10:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a page dedicated to listing particularly notable events in the history of NASCAR, although the title should probably be something other than NASCAR lore since "lore" is a word I would usually expect to be used with respect to works of fiction. History of NASCAR would likely be an appropriate location for much of that content. The focus on different television broadcasters is somewhat peculiar however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiConference North America

Hey all! I am planning on having a WikiConference North America sports panel December 12 3:00 EST. This is something that has never been done before and there are many sports which are "native" to North America and part of the America identity. What it seems to be is that we (you, me, and other members of WikiSports) will be in a Zoom (or other video conferencing app) to discuss our experiences in editing sports on Wikipedia. These can range from combating vandalism to how to best get permission to use sports photos. The organizers of WikiConference North America (WCNA) created an Etherpad surrounding planning which I will link here. if you Command F "sports" you will find the section. This will be the very first panel WCNA has ever had on sports so not much to go off of here.

Please ping me if you have questions as this page is not on my watchlist. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

NASCAR Sponsers

I have been editiing NASCAR Sprint cup series 2015 and 2016 because I feel that someone should be able to know who Jimmy John's sponserd in 2015 or who Shell sponsred in 2007 or who Lowe's sponsord in 2016 and I feel that we should put sponsers on the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twnkies (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

NASCAR Sponsers

I hate to repeat this message but i did not sign the last one as I belive that sponsers should be on the tables or somewhere on the article as some people might want to know who McDoalds sponsored in 2007 or who Jimmy Johns sponsored in 2010.Twnkies (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a decent idea at first... but then you start looking at teams with multiple sponsors each race. If we add sponsor columns to tables, they'll just become even more jumbled and cluttered. Outside of guys like Denny Hamlin (FedEx) and Jimmie Johnson (Ally), drivers these days just don't have consistent sponsorship and there isn't much reason to mention that if they have little bearing on the standings and how races go.
What about one-off sponsors like movies? What about companies that promote multiple brands like Mountain Dew with Diet Dew and Baja Blast? What about cars that had multiple main sponsors in a race? Wikipedia isn't a place for indiscriminate information like these when they're already (and more appropriately) at sites like Racing-Reference and Jayski.
Heck, we used to add sponsors to driver articles' leads before axing them because they were getting too long. Zappa⚡Matic 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Sponsors are usually only really relevant to mention if they effect the actual competition in some way. If a team loses a sponsor and has to withdraw or make redundancies that may be relevant to note. If a sponsor demands that a race they're sponsoring be moved from starting at 13:00 to starting at 11:00 and changed in length from 500 miles to 1000 kilometres then that's relevant. If a sponsor provides a driver with funding that allows them to get a contract with a team who otherwise would have signed another driver that's probably relevant. However the fact that a given sponsor happened to sponsor a particular team or driver or race is not usually relevant or even especially notable; unless for example there's some sort of controversy involved, such as the Mission Winnow situation with Ferrari in Formula One and Ducati in MotoGP, or Viagra sponsoring Mark Martin in NASCAR. Most teams, drivers, and races have sponsors in order to make money and remain in business, and the fundamental operations they engage in are unlikely to change much regardless of whether they're sponsored by Woolworths or by Dixons or by Blockbuster Video. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

NASCAR Sponsers

How about we only add 1 or 2 sponsors per driver that way is is nit all confusing but they still know that they can find it on wikipedia? IE: Joey Logano we only add shell pennzoil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twnkies (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

NASCAR Sponsers

How about we only add 2 sponsors per driver Twnkies (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about two links to disambiguation pages: NHA in the tables at 2009 NASCAR Nationwide Series#Full Drivers' Championship and 2010 NASCAR Nationwide Series#Full Drivers' Championship. In both cases, the link goes to Camping World RV Sales 200, which apparently can refer to various races. I know nothing about NASCAR and am unable to solve this one. Lennart97 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lennart97:  Fixed "NHA" refers to New Hampshire, so it'd be the ROXOR 200 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. That said, one of the redirects is Camping World RV Sales 200 (Loudon) so just using that as a link (as I did) works too. Zappa⚡Matic 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Lennart97 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Did not start

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past but I think we should as did not start "DNS" to the NASCAR/ARCA results key. Racing Reference usually list DNS entries in there race results section. This can lead to some confusion. I feel like we should list a driver that did not start the race as a DNS unless NASCAR list a DNS driver in their race results. e.g. Justin Marks at the 2016 Ollie's Bargain Outlet 200 (Dover).

As of now these entries are listed as a retirement and I think that is wrong as these drivers did not actually start the race. e.g. Derrike Cope at the 1987 Miller American 400 (Michigan). Any thoughts?

In NASCAR's history it did not happen often that drivers get listed as a DNS, but I do wonder if Racing-Reference has some sort of filter to search for all did not starts across all series? As it will be too much work to check this all manually. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1956 NASCAR Grand National Series

I moved this out from my user space to article space if anyone is interested in the old stuff. — Ched (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone have any input in the WP:DAB vs WP:SIA debate when it comes to our project? Particularly as it pertains to our yearly dabs such as 2000 in NASCAR. example — Ched (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... haven't looked at those <YEAR> in Nascar pages before... compare 1996 in NASCAR to 2000 in NASCAR. I feel like they all should all be one or the other (disambiguation or full article). Good catch and definitely worth discussing; hopefully others will weigh in. ~EdGl talk 20:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
EdGl, I suspect there are or will be discussions beyond the NASCAR project. For me sometimes (such as the talk page at wp:sia) it gradually becomes white noise. I'd be interested in hearing ZappaOMatic's thoughts as well as NASCARfan0548 since last I knew they were pretty active in the area. As best as I can tell, Royal seems to be busy off-wiki a lot at the moment (hopefully getting more of those great pics.) I am definitely NOT a fan of simply removing the dab templates just for the sake of increasing someone's edit count. (not a an accusation aimed at anyone, at least not yet).
I do think there's a tremendous overlap of the DAB and SIA projects, and I think the differences need to be clearly defined. I think Martin (forget the actual user name) has some experience in the DAB stuff, and may ping him to somewhere eventually. I also have some thoughts regarding our own DABs .. but will discuss that later. Thanks for the response Ed. — Ched (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not particular active right now (but not inactive) while working on another project that about 90% complete. Not a pics project and I've taken few photos in the past year. I read both SIA & DAB pages. My thought is DAB not SIA. These are titles of Wikipedia articles, not items in a list (such as mountains on a mountain chain). Royalbroil 01:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I rarely edit NASCAR articles, but to me regardless of whether these articles are called disambiguation pages or set indices, I think articles like 1996 in NASCAR are much better anyway, especially as they allow for brief descriptions of what could be otherwise non-notable championship seasons. A7V2 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    A7V2, I agree that 1996 is an exceptional article (thanks primarily to User:The Bushranger), and would love to see all the years covered like that. It's a huge effort to get all those years 1948/49 through 2021 done like that. Right now, we have a lot of DAB pages that just list links to corresponding series articles, (Cup, Xfinity, truck - depending on year) and a LOT of those are red-links. I suppose the DAB/SIA issue is very minor in the grand scheme of things, but I'm seeing a LOT of DAB templates being removed - and not just in NASCAR stuff. DABs go back almost 20 years, whereas the SIA stuff is relatively new. Perhaps I need to look to a larger venue. I'll think on it. — Ched (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • adding reping: Michaelwallace22 ... conflated 2 different types of pings in original. — Ched (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm new and I don't know how to do stuff lol

So... I'm doing results tables for drivers. Only problem- I don't exactly know how to highlight the boxes based on their results. Like, how do you highlight them? I know what color you're supposed to use, it's just that idk how to highlight it lol (posted by: Nascar9919)

I responded on your talk page, and as much as I hate to throw too much at one time, you should get used to signing your posts on talk pages: Signing your posts on talk pages (normally using four tildes: ~~~~), which is taken from Wikipedia:Signatures. — Ched (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

A redirect relevant to this Wikiproject has been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#Nascar racing. Interested users are invited to participate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Difference in the size of the numbers in the results table

I wonder why in pages like Kyle Busch and Kevin Harvick the numbers in results tables are big (without the template small) and almost all other drivers pages the numbers in results tables are small like Joey Logano article? There is a rule to define this or is it just a mistake in the articles? Luks25 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see this discussion regarding the mentioning of commentators on Nascar race reports: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Edit_warring_over_commentators_on_Nascar_race_reports
SSSB (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviation of Milwaukee Mile in the results tables

On the NASCAR articles, and on the drivers pages in NASCAR tables the Milwaukee track is listed as MLW but in ARCA articles and tables they are abbreviated as MIL, wouldn't it make more sense to leave just one as a standard ? As this can cause confusion, making people think they are different tracks. In my opinion, if that's done, I think it would be interesting to switch to MLW as the default because the ARCA has had few races in Milwaukee so it would be easier to fix the articles since there are few of them compared to NASCAR that would have to be changed. Luks25 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"History of NASCAR schedule realignments" article

When contributing to the above mentioned AFD, I noticed this article, History of NASCAR schedule realignments. I am curious what the point of it is? Everything is well referenced, yes, but it seems to be a duplication of what belongs in season and race articles, and perhaps some in the history sections of the championship articles. I don't see this being an independently notable topic? The only mentions of "NASCAR realignment" I found in reliable sources are in articles referring to a specific season's changes, but these are already summarised in season articles, eg 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series#Schedule. I am considering nominating for deletion but I wonder what others think of this? A7V2 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD: NASCAR lore

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCAR lore is up now, by someone else - I pre-discussed this last November in an proposal that would also bundled removal of "lore" sections from NASCAR on TV templates but I didn't get any consensus on that part. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 14:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that the article went to delete, I went ahead and also removed lore sections from the templates I mentioned earlier (including Template:NASCAR on NBC, which I forgot to mention in it). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 14:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice: Jeremy Mayfield - removal of page information

Something suspicious is going on with Jeremy Mayfield page to the point almost all of his controversies were removed - I've notified ANI about this. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

IPs has since been blocked (and I restored the revision before the IPs began editing), but I still harbor some suspicion considering these IPs are from Hickory, NC and Mayfield used to race at Hickory Motor Speedway in his post-NASCAR years. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NMOTORSPORTS

Did you know that the notability for motorsports was completely changed with little discussion and it not being brought up here? At present, the only notable topics are drivers who have raced a full season in Cup in the modern era. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_23#WP:NMOTORSPORTS. Royalbroil 15:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The proposal was discussed for several months and went through a request for comment. I believe you may be misunderstanding the guidelines, which are worded to indicate which competitors are almost certain to meet the WP:GNG, not to say that competitors who don't meet them aren't notable. The Nascar Cup Series is explicitly mentioned because drivers in that series are generally far more notable than drivers in other national-level racing series. The Xfinity and Truck series are clearly both "primarily-professional series of significant national importance" and are implicitly included in that part of the guideline. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Royalbroil: (or anyone else wondering) - See the RFC here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RfC_on_new_Motorsports_guidelines. This one completely slipped my notice too! Now, firstly I agree with you that this absolutely should have been mentioned on the motorsport wikiprojects, both for the RFC which I didn't know about and the original discussion on WikiProject_Motorsport. To be honest, I had to check the archives of this page as I didn't believe it that no-one notified this wikiproject and as a participant in that discussion I apologise for not doing it myself. But yes I think the proposal is a good thing. I think it's very unfortunate that small tinkering at the edges appears to be a bureaucratic nightmare if we want to make small changes, but reading comments in the RFC there is a desire there for a definitive list (though I argue such a list is not necessarily possible) so of course we should involve all of the child Wikiprojects in this. But the non-inclusion of the second and below tiers of NASCAR should not be taken in any way as to say the drivers aren't notable. As HumanBodyPiloter5 said, the guideline is supposed to give a near guarantee that the driver is notable. Further, for at least the top two tiers they are included in points 4 and 5 of the now-current WP:NMOTORSPORTS. I wonder if boldly adding say the NASCAR Truck Series to the list in point 4 would work? A7V2 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how a massive change to notability standards can happen without involving the people volunteering in that area. All motorsports Wikiprojects should have been invited to the discussion. It looks like the standards were changed because of a side discussion in a corner room. No wonder that someone commented how it looks like there is such small participation in the discussion.
I recently had WP:NACTOR used by others at a deletion discussion to delete then reject an AFC article that (IMHO) meets GNG. There are multiple reliable sources written specifically about this actress (IMHO). The actress is part of the main cast of a top 10 American network television show since its inception. Since the young(er) actress has only 1 significant role, non-notability is assumed. NACTOR ruled over GNG.
The changed Motorsports notability will be used at AFD to determine the outcome of motorsports articles based on the opinion of a tiny group of people. Now that the standards state that only Cup drivers who raced a full season since 1972, then that's the standard that will be applied. The previous notability was "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series." It was a single race in the top 3 NASCAR series which is completely different than an entire season in Cup. A Wikipedia who is reviewing a new article on any other series or discussing an article at AFD will not know the professionalism of a series and assume non-notable except if explicit. Explicit will be used not implicit. These type of concerns might have been brought up in a wide discussion. I see a massive rewrite of the standards not the intended tinkering. Royalbroil 01:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The old criteria made very little sense, and was a poor indicator of notability (eg the example of a professional series was quite dubious as it was the Trans-Am Series). The purpose of the guidelines is not to say "not meeting these guidelines means someone is not notable", but to say only that someone meeting them IS notable. GNG takes precedence in all matters. No-one should be nominating drivers who are borderline on this new requirement for that fact alone, and evidence of substantial coverage is all that is required for articles to be kept. Also as to the last point, yes it was a massive rewrite, hence the discussion which lasted over a month on Wikiproject:Motorsport and ended with the support of all participants (admittedly only five or so) followed by a similar discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports) which also saw no opposition, followed by the aforementioned RFC. I do think arguably NASCAR has in particular been hard done by, and would support small changes to that area in particular (but again, I must emphasise these are only guidelines as to what would guarantee notability), but I really don't anticipate too many issues regarding deletions (an issue I did raise in the first discussion though I had in mind more pre-war Grand Prix drivers than NASCAR). See also an enormous ongoing discussion about abolishing, or at least restricting the usage of, the various sport related notability guidelines on WP:NSPORTS. A7V2 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Very poor form, and should be invalidated. — Ched (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you help to disambiguate links to Alsco Uniforms 300 and Zinsser SmartCoat 200 please. Todays dablink report shows 136 links at Disambig fix list for Alsco Uniforms 300 and 65 at Disambig fix list for Zinsser SmartCoat 200. In each case there are more than one race under that title and the information given in the articles is often not enough to differentiate. Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - these appear to be largely sorted.— Rod talk 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting 'silly seasons' from Series season article.

Hello. I am proposing that we split the sections concerning silly season out from articles such as 2022 NASCAR Xfinity Series into their own articles as they tend to be very large, making the articles very long. I am bringing this here and not to any specific article in mainspace because I believe that this should both a) be a new precedent going forward (at least once the season starts), and b) be applied to previous years' articles. I am seeking input and consensus on whether this change should be applied. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Current Cup races

Hey y'all- I would like to point out what I think to be the lack of information in Cup articles. The Xfinity and Truck articles have more information and personally, seem neater and better sourced than the Cup articles! I am seeking input to see on how we can make Cup articles better. The Cup races should not lack information that the Xfinity and Truck articles have. For example, the Cup pages don't even have average speeds for qualifying, while the Xfinity and Trucks have a full entry list with sponsors, times and speeds, times they took places, and more info (the only thing I don't see is media). Thanks. Nascar9919 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It would make the articles more detailed, with more information, etc. Tyman9348 (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I recently made edits on the 2022 Texas Grand Prix, but it keeps getting reverted. And I'm giving more information and details about it. Why does it need to be reverted? Tyman9348 (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

eNASCAR

I have created an ENASCAR article. NASCAR views its esports as a separate arm, and that is reflected in this article. Any input and edits would be a great help. --KD0710 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ginn Racing#Requested move 14 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ginn Racing#Requested move 14 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability of NASCAR's Pinty Series drivers in Canada?

Are Canadian Pinty's Series drivers notable? There is a deletion discussion about Treyten Lapcevich. He was the 2021 series Rookie of the Year, a full-time driver who finished 5th in points, and just won his first series race last weekend. The article was started with just database entries and without citing publication of the subject in major independent sports/racing periodicals that the rest of Wikipedia expects to see.

This is the major problem that this WikiProject keeps facing (articles started without fleshing out the subject's history using reliable sources). NASCAR's licensing prevents drivers from appearing out of thin air as their racing history needs to show a level of progression up to the NASCAR level. You don't just move directly from the lowest level at a local track to NASCAR without proving progression on larger local / regional track in high horsepower racecars. Articles about drivers who race in other major national touring series often are started without even a mention that they currently race professionally full-time in USAC, Lucas Oil / World of Outlaws Super Late Models on dirt, etc. or part-time in the biggest regional touring series such as CARS, ARCA Midwest Tour, Short Track Super Series, etc. Kudos to User:Tyman9348 for recently doing the opposite - an excellent job on Buddy Kofoid. This is an example of what an ideal new article should look like (and I know others are also doing a great job and you know who you are). My comments are especially relevant to the group of people starting out articles on below-NASCAR drivers (ARCA) with highly questionable notability for a on-off start. I'm not singling out any individual contributors - rather talking in general. It's a bad feeling when I realize that I wasted precious time after one of the articles that I worked on gets deleted for not being notable. Royalbroil 01:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

AFD: Yellow-line rule

Yellow-line rule is listed on AFD (by myself, due to WP:CFORK concerns). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Reese's 150#Requested move 6 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Reese's 150#Requested move 6 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Race report formats

Got to ask a question. We got two different formats, separating into what we currently have for recent Cup races created mainly by A.lanzetta and what we have for Xfinity, Truck, and the vintage Cup reports created by mainly myself and Tyman9348. Which do y'all think is better? Nascar9919 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Followup: I mainly am asking this because I feel like we should just stick to one format. I honestly think that the Xfinity and Truck articles look and are formatted better (with more information for that matter) than what we got for current Cup articles. I feel that we could benefit from switching the Cup articles over to that format, but I'd like to hear from y'all first. Nascar9919 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Best finish for ineligible drivers

Driver pages currently list "best finish" even if they were ineligible for points, see Austin Cindric or Noah Gragson under Cup Series. This is misleading, as they finished with no points, and the ranking listed is just organized by order of those below lowest points earner. Glman99 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Names of races

As pointed out in the requested move above, there is an issue of race pages being (needed to be) moved every time there are sponsorship changes. @GhostOfDanGurney (who pointed out there, btw) have WP:BOLDly moved some of the pages to a "[series] at [track]", but these moves often resulted in pages with two infoboxes (three in case of NASCAR Xfinity Series at Martinsville), with affected races having the first race (on the calendar) being on the lead. Ideally, if we go that way, I would it be like how first 3 races in Crayon 200 are arranged.

What does anyone think about the issue? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel that a large part of the issue is we have a significant amount of WP:OR in these articles regarding "lineages" which are simply not supported by reliable sources. Often, we see sources say a line such as "Jeff Gordon and Denny Hamlin have 6 Cup Series wins at Pocono" instead of "Denny Hamlin has 4 wins in the M&Ms Fan Appreciation 400" (such as this example from SportsNet). In fact, you almost never see a line like that for the latter unless it's a major race such as the Daytona 500 or Coca-Cola 600. Using the Martinsville Xfinity Series example, I see no reason not to merge all three results tables into a section titled "Race results" below the sections detailing the three different races, exactly like in the "Crayon 200" example (which, to my original point about WP:COMMONNAME, I also had no idea what racetrack or series held this race until clicking). They are simply not distinct nor major enough based on the relative lack of sources. The reason I didn't at the time is because this is a massive effort to undertake manually, and I am umaware of any scripts that can be used to assist editing these tables. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
It's an absurd system. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise whoever the highest bidder is on a racing event name. BD2412 T 03:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. With very occasional exceptions (the Coca-Cola 600 is the only one I'm particularly aware of) these sponsored titles fail most of the WP:CRITERIA that English Wikipedia has for naming articles.
  • They lack WP:RECOGNISABILITY, because they change frequently and usually lack any obvious connection to the circuit they are held at.
  • They lack WP:NATURALNESS, because people who aren't being paid to say "the British Home Stores 500" tend not to talk about races that way, and instead say something descriptive like "the Spring 2007 Nascar Cup race at Richmond".
  • WP:PRECISION is often used as an argument in their favour, but even this falls short, as sponsors often sponsor multiple different races which wind up having the same titles (ie. Quaker State 400 (Kentucky) and Quaker State 400 (Atlanta), or various events with a title that's a variant of "Goody's Headache Powder X00").
  • In terms of WP:CONCISION they can vary wildly. Sometimes an event might be called the "Ally 400", other times an event might be called the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner. 300".
  • I suppose the current system technically has WP:CONSISTENCY, but consistency does not actually make a system good.
There is also the issue that using these ephemeral sponsored titles to refer to an entire lineage of races, rather than just whichever most recent race in that lineage happens to have used that title, is in most cases frankly WP:OR. No independent reliable source is going to say "John Smith has won the [Latest Ephemeral Sponsor 400] five times" rather than "John Smith has won the Spring Cup Series race at [Circuit Name] five times", or "John Smith has won seven times at [Circuit Name] in the Nascar Cup Series". Even if "2022 Woolworths 500" is a commonly recognisable name for that specific race, it does not make "Woolworths 500" a commonly recognisable or even accurate name when referring to dozens of prior events which did not go by that title.
In the case of individual race events I think it's somewhat less of an issue, as at the very least the sponsored titles usually accurately represent one of the names used for the article's subject (rather than just representing the name of the most recent event discussed within the article), but even then it must be addressed that some of these titles are just downright confusing, with 2007 Centurion Boats at the Glen being probably the most egregious example I am aware of.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with most of what everyone is saying above. With some exceptions (most already mentioned) these should be moved to more "timeless" titles. I also agree that many of the continuities are mostly original research (which is very much a motorsport-wide, not just NASCAR issue!), and so I think articles should generally be more along the lines of "Series at Track", especially since that's how sources tend to treat these races. I don't agree that there is any need for any changes to individual race article titles however, these should be given the common name as used by reliable sources and I think that can be determined on a case-by-case basis. 2007 Centurion Boats at the Glen may be a bit over the top but then what alternative title could it have without making up our own? A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
"2007 Watkins Glen NASCAR Cup Series round" (format used by F1 feeder series and WTCC) is even wordier and doesn't seem to pass WP:COMMONNAME. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, with the "2007 Centurion Boats at the Glen" thing I'm not using that example to argue that every single individual event needs to have its article moved to a WP:NDESC title, but I think in that case (and possibly a few others that I am unaware of) the WP:OFFICIALNAME drifts too far from being descriptive to be a helpful title for the relevant Wikipedia article. "2007 Centurion Boats at the Glen" describes an event in 2007 involving boats belonging to ancient Roman army commanders in an unspecified yet apparently definitive Scottish valley. If it was "2007 Centurion Boats 200 at the Glen" then the "200" would make it consistent with the naming format of most other Nascar races and would make it far more obvious to readers that the page in question is about some sort of motor race. If someone makes a web search for "2007 Nascar Watkins Glen" and they see "2007 Centurion Boats at the Glen - Wikipedia" in the results I would not expect them to intuit that that was related to their search rather than a false positive result they can skip over, whereas "2015 Spongebob Squarepants 400 - Wikipedia" is consistent with the naming format of almost all other Nascar races.
I still take issue with other cases of using sponsored WP:OFFICIALNAMEs for article titles, but only because I do not expect most readers to be intimately familiar with the complete history of Nascar races' title sponsorship deals, but I do still see the benefits of titling articles that way when the titles in question are unambiguous and follow a format that is consistent with other Nascar races.
Of course, this is a separate issue from the main subject being discussed, which is articles about supposed "lineages" that are covered in articles like Winston Western 500 or Quaker State 400 (Atlanta), which often seem to be WP:OR outside of a small number of "crown jewel" events like the Daytona 500.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with most points said above. However, as the creator of many individual race reports on this project, I believe it would be much better to leave it at their official names for that year. Makes more sense for race reports. I agree though that changing the race titles on race pages every year just because a title sponsor is the highest bidder can get ridiculous. Nascar9919 (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems we're pretty much in agreement on the issue at hand then. I do feel that individual race report names should be discussed further; I agree with FMecha here but HumanBodyPiloter5 brings up good points. But as for the main articles, I think starting an RfC to add a line about article titles to WP:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards#Race_articles is fair at this stage. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd also comment that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE can be a relevant part of how we structure these articles. Having an overview article called "NASCAR Cup Series races at Charlotte Motor Speedway" which features a brief section about and linking to the Coca-Cola 600 article shouldn't be out of the question, for example. For most venues I think there should just be a single article about the history of a particular championship competing there, regardless of how many different dates there are. Cases where specific events at a venue can be considered independently notable enough from both a WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:OR perspective can be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the Nascar Cup Series I'd say that the Daytona 500 and the Coke Zero Sugar 400 articles can remain separate (the title of the latter is a separate matter), and the Brickyard 400 and Verizon 200 at the Brickyard articles should also probably remain separate. The Coca-Cola 600 should definitely have a separate article from other events at Charlotte, as should the Roval 400. The history of races at Darlington seems kind of messy, but the Southern 500 seems to form enough of a clearly defined lineage to probably warrant its own article. If the Bristol Dirt Race continues to be held then it will probably warrant its own article at some point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Dual-purpose bump/pinging @Zrcook610:. We have a rough consensus here that [Series] at [Racetrack] is the most appropriate way to title race history articles such as the ones you made move requests for today. Your requests reminded me of the discussion here and also that I need to get off my ass and make an RfC for my proposal. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 05:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob Whitcomb Racing page

Hi, I tried to build a page for Bob Whitcomb Racing but it was declined at this time. It needs to be built up if it is wanted. I think it belongs considering its relation to the 1990 Daytona 500. Can you help? Thoughts? Not sure how to link, but it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bob_Whitcomb_Racing

A reviewer said it needs: " This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

  • in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
  • reliable
  • secondary
  • independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Guroadrunner (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've tried adding a couple more sources, and also copied a new duplicate of the Bob Whitcomb page into DiGard Motorsports as Whitcomb was DiGard's successor. It was asked, though, that DiGard and Whitcomb be split. However, Whitcomb is facing an uphill battle of deletion unless the draft is improved enough to "pass approval." Guroadrunner (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Editor persistently changing broadcast information

Adamracer08 is peresistently changing infoboxes of 2023 NASCAR races from Fox to ESPN and commentators to a different set. As a non-NASCAR fan, to the best of my understanding ESPN has not broadcast NASCAR for a number of years and Fox holds the exclusive rights, but I could well be mistaken. Interested editors will likely want to get involved to correct this. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this broadcast information actually noteworthy in most cases? How much coverage does it tend to receive from independent reliable sources? I have also seen persistent edit warring occur in Nascar articles over this subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure. It's included as an infobox field so I assume there's a WikiProject consensus for its inclusion. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox discussion at Motorsport wikiproject

Hi. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Infobox bloat? in which I have raised an issue with the inclusion of the "sponsor" section in Infobox:NASCAR team amongst a variety of issues stated there regarding motorsport infoboxes in general. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does "Winston Cup" start in 1972 in driver biographies, not in 1971?

I have a question regarding the distinction between "Grand National Series" and "Winston Cup Series" in driver biographies. I have tried to find information about this topic in the talk pages of this project and in the project documentation, e.g Wikipedia:WikiProject_NASCAR/Standards, but I could not find any. If this has already been discussed and/or documented then I would be very thankful for some pointers. And in that case, my comments can probably be ignored. Here is my question:

In the biographies of NASCAR drivers who were active in the early 70s, in the "Motorsport career results" sections, the NASCAR results all seem to be divided into two tables: "Grand National Series" and "Winston Cup Series". In all articles that I have looked at, the "Grand National" chapter ends with the 1971 season and the "Winston Cup" chapter starts with the 1972 season. See, e.g. Richard Petty#NASCAR or Cale Yarborough#NASCAR. But if I read the article about the NASCAR Cup Series correctly, the first season with the name "Winston Cup Grand National Series" was actually the 1971 season, not the 1972 season. There was a large reduction in the number of races between 1971 and 1972, and it seems that several publications define the "Modern Era" of NASCAR as beginning with the 1972 season. But the tables do not distinguish between something like "Classic Era" and "Modern Era" but between "Grand National" and "Winston Cup". So I would think that either we would have to change the names of the chapters or we would have to move the 1971 season to the "Winston Cup" chapter. What do you think? Spike (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The pages in category:NASCAR seasons

Why do most of the pages in the category:NASCAR seasons exist? 2022 in NASCAR has not been updated in quite a while and 2023 in NASCAR is just a copy and paste of it. When I tried to do the same it was turned into a draft, Draft:2024 in NASCAR. There is a bunch of pages in the category that are just the same copy and pasted no references pages that are basically disambiguation pages. Should these pages be expanded or should they just be deleted altogether? MagicalBear0 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Color Code for rankings in race results overview

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Color_Code_for_ranking --Mark McWire (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kory Rabenold for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kory Rabenold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kory Rabenold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TartarTorte 19:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Full Race Names

I'm wondering whether the 'subtitle' (e.g. presented by..., powered by... etc.) of race/event names should be included in the Wikipedia page title (or in the Wikipedia page at all) as I've noticed their inclusion is inconsistent at least in the pages I've seen. For example, the Pennzoil 400 presented by Jiffy Lube and Quaker State 400 available at Walmart pages have the full name in the first sentence but not in the title whereas the Enjoy Illinois 300 presented by TicketSmarter and Iowa Corn 350, Powered by Ethanol do not have the full name at all. I've had a look in this Wikiproject's standards but I haven't found anything related to this. Thanks. UseroftheWikis (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NASCAR race articles

Now I know we can be a little too early, but I was wondering how early is too early? I want to finish up the rest of the rest of the seasons articles. and I know we have either the race program or the race track, but since the roval got a redesign and all. 45BearsFan (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

New Charlotte Roval file?

When should we consider making a file for the new charlotte roval? If we do I wouldnt really recommend taking it from the charlotte website but something like daytona? 45BearsFan (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Conversion to km/h

35.139.154.158 reverted my addition of conversions to km/h in the qualifying lap table on 2012 Pocono 400 and deleted my request for conversions on 2012 FedEx 400. I believe these conversions are required by MOS:CONVERSIONS, but 35.139.154.158 has asserted they are not. Speeds and distances are converted to metric elsewhere in these articles, so it seems inconsistent not to convert them everywhere. These conversions are useful to allow readers to compare these events to events that take place outside the United States, and also to allow non-US readers to get a sense of how fast people were driving. What do other editors think? -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree here and disagree with 35.139....'s rationale written in the edit summaries. Those reverts should not have been made. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Okey, I've added conversions to the tables in both these articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
35.139.154.15 (who appears to be Deacon Vorbis editing while logged out) has reverted these changes. I have asked them to come to this thread to discuss. In particular they said "inappropriate to add conversions when they're completely uncustomary". I'm not sure if they mean uncustomary in the US, on Wikipedia, or NASCAR articles, or what. Clarification might be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CONVERSIONS between commonly-used units like kilometres and miles should always be in place. Removing them is just chauvinistic vandalism. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith and that other editors have a reason for doing so which seems logical to them. Sometimes this sort of change is made on the grounds that conversions clutter up pages, for example. I don't agree with that in this case, but I also wouldn't label trying to tidy up as "vandalism". -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
FTR, conversions have been added to both articles in question. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I think someone can be entirely acting in good faith and still vandalise an article. Maybe someone sincerely believes that an article would be better if there wasn't any punctuation, that wouldn't make it not vandalism for them to go through an article and remove every comma, full stop, and apostrophe. The outcome of their edit is what I'm judging, and the belief that metric or imperial units should for some reason be favoured over the other is inherently chauvinistic. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vandalism has a more limited definition in mind which requires bad intentions; it says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Calling someone a vandal when they don't meet that definition usually just angers them and makes it more difficult to resolve the content disagreement.
The point of WP:AGF is to not infer bad intentions from the fact that we disagree with a given edit. When we disagree over what is best, it's often difficult to see why anyone would think anything different is better (which is usually what is happening) but easy to incorrectly assume malicious intent. I'm not even sure Deacon Vorbis is American, so it would be unwise to jump to conclusions that they are blindly promoting in-group conventions. It's also entirely possible they would make the same edit if the question was metric-to-US in an article about France. The conversation generally goes a lot better if we ask and try to resolve the conflict based on actual facts, rather than assume and start the conversation by insulting the other person or being angry at them for something they don't actually believe, either of which will make them less likely to cooperate to resolve a simple disagreement. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps vandalism is the wrong word and I should have called it disruptive instead. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_NASCAR/Archive_10&oldid=1258763902"