![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
@ Falcadore, DH85868993, Bretonbanquet, and Tvx1: Pinging some more experienced editors as experience is necessary for this topic.
The rise in popularity of feeder series has led to a ridiculous number of drivers with no notability gaining articles, especially thanks to editors such as User:Formula Downforce and User:KVYTICAL (but not limited to - don't feel personally attacked). Therefore, I want to once and for all flesh out just what constitutes a driver worthy of a Wikipedia article and get a consensus on where the line is drawn - and possibly create a guide article once consensus is reached. I'm fairly sure there was a consensus on this a while ago, but I can't find it and seemingly it hasn't been enforced.
To keep it simple, I'll split this into three categories - if you think these categories should change, feel free to debate before we come to a conclusion.
Drivers that have two or more event starts in the following championships:
Drivers that have ONLY competed in the following championships:
And finally, karting results do not meet WP:NOTABILITY so therefore karting results tables need to be removed from any driver articles. MSportWiki ( talk) 02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
With regard to participants in lower formulae and the dozens of feeder series currently operating, I think it's naive to think a flat notability guideline or policy could be worked out. There isn't much precedent here for thrashing out good quality operating procedures without resorting to arguments and ultra-long drawn out discussions. As people have said, some articles about drivers who are just starting out, or who have not yet attained any great results, are actually pretty good – well written, referenced and balanced. There's no sense in throwing these out in favour of a one-size-fits-all policy. If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it should stay. I'm willing to bet many don't get anywhere near that threshold, and we should be thinking about deleting them, regardless of what series the driver is in. Articles can always be recreated if someone wants to write one properly. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
To split things off from the above conversation, which has gotten a bit unwieldy with multiple threads forming within it, I would like to address my concerns regarding this specific area of article creation. Many of the WP:BLPs that are being created (and often subsequently nominated for deletion) are of WP:MINORS, sometimes as young as fourteen or fifteen, and to me this raises many additional ethical concerns when compared to the creation of articles about dubiously-notable adults. Having an article about them might make a kid more likely to become a subject of school bullying, or may attract the attention of unsavoury characters towards someone who is still at a vulnerable stage in their development, and as such far more care needs to be taken in determining whether or not it's appropriate to create articles about these very young competitors. There is also the issue that exists in many sports where parents pressure their children into competing, meaning there's a concern that many of the kids may be going through this additional attention not entirely of their own free will.
Additionally, at such an early stage in these careers, most of these competitors can only really be said to be noteworthy for at most WP:ONEEVENT (such as winning a junior formula championship), and the effort expended on creating biographies of these competitors would be better put towards improving the articles about said competitions instead. Obviously there are cases where young competitors are easily notable enough to warrant having an article (with Max Verstappen in 2015 being the obvious example), but I think a very high standard needs to be held and that these BLPs of competitors under the age of eighteen should not be created unless sustained significant coverage from prominent independent sources (ie. national newspapers and not Formula Scout) can be demonstrated. As a rule of thumb this would mean that kids competing at a level below FIA Formula 3 in the European single-seater ladder shouldn't have their own articles, while at the FIA Formula 3 Championship level and above things will be more circumstantial.
HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(@ GhostOfDanGurney, HumanBodyPiloter5, SSSB, DH85868993, X750, A7V2, and Tvx1: Pinging a few recently active users for assistance) I have received a rather incredulous message from the subject of this page after I made a significant effort to clean it up and enforce Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality. I have attempted to get the page pre-emptively protected to avoid what will inevitably become an edit war, but my requests have been turned down (as a side note, I believe that not taking action against potential problems in advance is the wrong attitude to have). Can we please be vigilant about activity on this page and come up with a longer term solution in the process? MSportWiki ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that every major racing series somehow uses a different color scheme for the race results in the results overview table.
Formula 1: light green up to 10th place IndyCar: light green up to 5th place and light blue up to 10th place NASCAR: silver up to 5th place, bronze up to 10th place, light green up to 20th place
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same color schemes for all? -- Mark McWire ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I would be in favor of using the colors gold, silver and bronze only for the podium places, even in NASCAR. If a distinction between the top 10 and top 20 is so important, we could use the light blue color like IndyCar. So 4-10 in light green, 11-20 in light blue, 21-43 in dark blue, DNFs in purple. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 08:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Given an essential part of motorsport is the CARS, I find it ludicrous that cars are left out of drivers' results summary tables. Clearly there is some sort of consensus on this that I can't find, but frankly it needs to be changed as it only appears to be lazy on our part.
Therefore, I propose that we replace the existing tables with these kind:
Season | Series | Position | Team | Car |
---|---|---|---|---|
2004 | Australian Formula 3 Championship | 10th | Team BRM | Dallara–Spiess Opel F301 |
Australian Formula Ford Championship | 29th | Ben Fitzgerald | Van Diemen– Ford RF01 |
It covers all the necessary bases (year, championship, standings position, team, car). If people want detailed results, they can go to the DriverDatabase link at the bottom of almost any driver article or the championship article – and it saves us from filling the result columns with useless question marks if information is not available. It's a lot narrower than the existing format making it easier to read (and if it's still too wide we can always use the <div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0"> scrollbar option as demonstrated here), and it's a lot less time consuming to keep up-to-date. MSportWiki ( talk) 21:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
"If you are clutching at straws or grasping at straws, you are trying unusual or extreme ideas or methods because other ideas or methods have failed."I think this is an egregious mischaracterization of the arguments presented. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Can anybody provide a source that this is a common phrase/term? The article Formula racing provides none and is poorly referenced generally. It says "The origin of the term lies in the nomenclature that was adopted by the FIA for all of its post-World War II single-seater regulations, or formulae." Says who, why this?
Meanwhile on Auto racing, the preferred term is open-wheel racing, but the main article is Formula racing.
On which, it says, "Common usage of "formula racing" encompasses other single-seater series, including the IndyCar Series and the Super Formula Championship." apart from the question of 'what common usage', the link is to American open-wheel car racing. This is also the name of the Wikiproject whilst there is no Formula racing project.
There are three terms being used to all mean the same thing:
Is there any desire to have a conversation on consistency? Rally Wonk ( talk) 21:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It's bizarre that Auto racing is the flagship article for what in other languages is called automobile sport. Who uses the term auto racing outside of Wikipedia? The article has no supporting sources! Not all automobile sport is racing, I'd be disappointed to hear arguments that this is a good title.
Consider the other major languages:
I'm not proposing a move to automobile sport because I don't expect it to be supported. But does anybody support the notion that motor sport is the historic term encompassing cars, motorcyles, boats and planes; whilst motorsport is the common word for automobile sport even if it includes motorcycles? The FIA affiliated national sporting authorities of UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa and USA all use motorsport (Canada: autosport). Although these are official, there's no doubt in my mind motorsport is the common use.
See this ngram. Motorsport became popular in the second half of the 20th century, long after boating and air sports had found their own terms. Newspapers.com may agree but is down at the moment.
Wonder if anybody supports moving Auto racing to Motorsport (automobile sport)? Or if Motorsport should cover both purposes. Rally Wonk ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion reagarding the WRC championship standings tables at Talk:2024 World Rally Championship as the championship would feature a new points system in 2024, which is rather complicated. Inputs are welcome. Unnamelessness ( talk) 02:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Pinging various editors who were active in the last (now archived :( ) discussion or who regularly edit the relevant IndyCar season articles. @ Mark McWire, RegalZ8790, Tvx1, Mikulitsi, HotMAN0199, H4MCHTR, Migiditch, Glman, Finn Shipley, Cs-wolves, Vin28rol, MasterAlSpain, and Wildarms007:. Feel free to ping more.
For those maybe unaware, there was a discussion (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 24#IndyCar (schedule) tables a few months back about the use of (for lack of better term I can think of) icons used as a legend for schedule tables, specifically on those for American open-wheel car racing season articles (eg. 2024 IndyCar Series, 1988 CART PPG Indy Car World Series, 2006 Champ Car season etc.). The discussion was started by me on Mark McWire's talk page (later moved here), due to my opposition to him adding a new "icon" denoting street courses. The discussion ultimately went nowhere, with no consensus reached for anything.
Since that discussion ended, I've reflected on it, come to agree with many of Mark McWire's points, and have changed my opinion. Where there is a lack of secondary sourcing in regards to differentiating of track types, I think it should be okay to use the primary sourcing. Additionally, we can easily find secondary sourcing, especially within the last 10 years, describing how this style of racing is incredibly diverse in terms of track types, such as here.
Additionally, post-discussion, the fact that no consensus was reached was used as a reason to change (as far as I've clicked) all past season articles. No consensus should have meant that everything was left as-is, to be fair, but I probably should have also realized that starting such a discussion was going to be so all-encompassing, but at the time my main concern was the recent articles. If we are going to discuss a proposal that is going to affect such a large number of articles, I believe we should strive to achieve some sort of consensus either way. I am debating starting a Request for Comment on this matter, but I think we can still handle this ourselves. Hope everyone's having/has a good holidays! ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Should the "schedule" table in articles listed in Template:American Championship Car seasons have a separate icon denoting street circuits?
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
RegalZ8790 ( talk) 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
MasterAlSpain ( talk) 11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Tartar Torte 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
RegalZ8790 ( talk) 05:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Speedway race format - p6 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
--
65.92.247.66 (
talk)
05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Some editors have removed all tables from the Joe Gibbs Racing article. This edit was needed, as the article was certainly too large, but the tables should be removed to separate pages, like we've done over at Hendrick Motorsports and Hendrick Motorsports in the NASCAR Cup Series. Input in the discussion and help editing new articles would be great! glman ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Motorsport#Motorsport regarding whether the Motorsport article should only cover sports involving automobiles or sports involving all types of motorised vehicles, and whether the Auto racing article should cover all types of automobile sport or only those disciplines where drivers race directly against each other. Also part of the discussion is whether Automobile sport should redirect to Auto racing or Motorsport. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Carfan568 ( talk) 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
At Bristol Motor Speedway article, under "Races" section, I added a "Other races" subsection with these two entries.
After adding, this content was reverted - @ Glman with the Edit summary of no clear reason to add two specific years of races. I understand that not every Bristol event has its own article, but I think it would improve this Bristol article to include a few one-of races. Given track's history since 1960, it would be nice to add a few races maybe from each decade? At this point, I'm asking for discussion and thoughts here about adding the "Other races" section? Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
References
JoeNMLC ( talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jan de Rooy (rally driver)#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A "list of Australian Touring Car Championship/ V8 Supercars drivers" page is currently being constructed here, any assistance to help fill out the page faster (and accurately) would be appreciated. I do ask however that stats up to the end of 2023 are used, with 2024 (or beyond if it takes longer) stats/debutants added after it becomes an article. Please do not move to the draftspace as it's a broken system. MSportWiki ( talk) 12:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I am in process of improving Autocross. There is no such thing as 'British Autocross', 'Australian Autocross' etc. Autocross is autocross with usual differences across borders and there is no need for multiple articles. However, as usual there is a slight difference with autocross in the USA, where it is trade marked as Solo or NASA-X by the different bodies. I would expect to upset people with a bold move with this, and on wikidata Autocross (USA) is already down as comparable to autoslalom elsewhere. I invite comments on whether to:
Related with hope to improve language links:
I hope this all makes sense. I'm not entirely sure of the technical process either so would appreciate comments. Rally Wonk ( talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
(Copied from /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Infobox_motorsport_venue as seems dead) Suggest removing this as in most places it is misused - with only one timezone listed and most venues will use 2 timezones 90.241.211.138 ( talk) 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate any interested editors to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix#Proposed removal of Formula 3 section. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the NASCAR and IMSA articles have hatnotes linking to their respective premier series? Here and here are examples of what I am proposing, and the IndyCar article already has a similar hatnote. WP:HATNOTERULES states that "if a notable topic X is commonly referred to as 'Foo', but the article 'Foo' is not about X, there must be a hatnote linking to the article on X". I think this seems to apply to both NASCAR and IMSA since their premier series seem to be commonly referred to simply by the name of the sanctioning body (some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), although there was some disagreement about this on this discussion on a user talk page, so I am proposing it here to get input from other editors. Carfan568 ( talk) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I am posting this since my two split proposal has been removed.
My issue with that article is that it is suffering from an identity crisis. What does it wants to be? Does it want to be about the headline F3 race as it is known as? Does it want to be about the so-called festivities that doesn’t exist, which it tries to be.
We have an article about the race consisting of bits about support races. This is the other issues we have with that article.
If we were to keep those, do we create articles about the 24h of Le Mans with extra bits about support races? Do we add bits about any F1 GP rounds with subsections about support races? This race has always been and should be about the headline F3 race, not anything else, not the touring car race, not the motorcycle nor the GT race. They belong to separate articles.
Bits about support races should not belong there.
If you want it to be about the headline race, then get rid of the sections about the support races, it makes no sense to keep them, plus an article about the Guia race exists. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
For me splitting the article would be a terrible solution with the common user not knowing what is Macau GP is. I think only one think needs to be changed: the lead: Macau GP is not "a race (1 race)" its a series of events during 2 weekends (currently). Should be replaced by something like "is a motor racing event" like we have in [ [9]]. The fact that the article was about F3 and now was moved towards more Touring Car and GT is explained by the changes that the event suffered through time: there was a time that F3 race was with no doubt the most mediatic one, with WTCC it became the one with more mediatic coverage, and with the end o WTCC and the creation of FIA GT World Cup, with so many manufacturers and top drivres, currently this is the race that gets more atention from the media and has more drivers known by readers and spectators. Its not like F1 where people are there just for F1 and the others races are just to fill the gaps and barely no one would watch the races by themselves (I do). And yes, a Grand Prix might not be just one race, like every (or most) MotoGP event article has the results of all races that happened on that weekend. So I think the article has room to improve, to make it less confuse, but splitting it would be worse than keeping it together. Rpo.castro ( talk) 10:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you're mostly and open-wheel racing fan when it comes to motorsports and that's probably why you are mostly interested in the Formula racing part of the Macau Grand Prix.
Hey, y'all. I'm facing a dilemma on my hands and what I believe is a problem that hasn't been addressed in the longest time here; how much do we emphasize the lower-series events? For example, if a series holds NASCAR events, how much do we explain the series races at that facility? At what point do we let the race page do the talking? I think too much emphasis is unnecessary and could very well be explained on the race page of the lower-series event.
Personally, I'm for a minor addition or notice in the events section like so: "Along with its Cup Series dates, the track also has hosted lower-series NASCAR races, including second-tier NASCAR Xfinity Series and third-tier NASCAR Truck Series races." Maybe this is a NASCAR problem more than anything, but I thought I'd raise the issue here. Perhaps I'm too extreme in my views and a compromise would work best. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 14:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
@ Falcadore, DH85868993, Bretonbanquet, and Tvx1: Pinging some more experienced editors as experience is necessary for this topic.
The rise in popularity of feeder series has led to a ridiculous number of drivers with no notability gaining articles, especially thanks to editors such as User:Formula Downforce and User:KVYTICAL (but not limited to - don't feel personally attacked). Therefore, I want to once and for all flesh out just what constitutes a driver worthy of a Wikipedia article and get a consensus on where the line is drawn - and possibly create a guide article once consensus is reached. I'm fairly sure there was a consensus on this a while ago, but I can't find it and seemingly it hasn't been enforced.
To keep it simple, I'll split this into three categories - if you think these categories should change, feel free to debate before we come to a conclusion.
Drivers that have two or more event starts in the following championships:
Drivers that have ONLY competed in the following championships:
And finally, karting results do not meet WP:NOTABILITY so therefore karting results tables need to be removed from any driver articles. MSportWiki ( talk) 02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
With regard to participants in lower formulae and the dozens of feeder series currently operating, I think it's naive to think a flat notability guideline or policy could be worked out. There isn't much precedent here for thrashing out good quality operating procedures without resorting to arguments and ultra-long drawn out discussions. As people have said, some articles about drivers who are just starting out, or who have not yet attained any great results, are actually pretty good – well written, referenced and balanced. There's no sense in throwing these out in favour of a one-size-fits-all policy. If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it should stay. I'm willing to bet many don't get anywhere near that threshold, and we should be thinking about deleting them, regardless of what series the driver is in. Articles can always be recreated if someone wants to write one properly. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
To split things off from the above conversation, which has gotten a bit unwieldy with multiple threads forming within it, I would like to address my concerns regarding this specific area of article creation. Many of the WP:BLPs that are being created (and often subsequently nominated for deletion) are of WP:MINORS, sometimes as young as fourteen or fifteen, and to me this raises many additional ethical concerns when compared to the creation of articles about dubiously-notable adults. Having an article about them might make a kid more likely to become a subject of school bullying, or may attract the attention of unsavoury characters towards someone who is still at a vulnerable stage in their development, and as such far more care needs to be taken in determining whether or not it's appropriate to create articles about these very young competitors. There is also the issue that exists in many sports where parents pressure their children into competing, meaning there's a concern that many of the kids may be going through this additional attention not entirely of their own free will.
Additionally, at such an early stage in these careers, most of these competitors can only really be said to be noteworthy for at most WP:ONEEVENT (such as winning a junior formula championship), and the effort expended on creating biographies of these competitors would be better put towards improving the articles about said competitions instead. Obviously there are cases where young competitors are easily notable enough to warrant having an article (with Max Verstappen in 2015 being the obvious example), but I think a very high standard needs to be held and that these BLPs of competitors under the age of eighteen should not be created unless sustained significant coverage from prominent independent sources (ie. national newspapers and not Formula Scout) can be demonstrated. As a rule of thumb this would mean that kids competing at a level below FIA Formula 3 in the European single-seater ladder shouldn't have their own articles, while at the FIA Formula 3 Championship level and above things will be more circumstantial.
HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(@ GhostOfDanGurney, HumanBodyPiloter5, SSSB, DH85868993, X750, A7V2, and Tvx1: Pinging a few recently active users for assistance) I have received a rather incredulous message from the subject of this page after I made a significant effort to clean it up and enforce Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality. I have attempted to get the page pre-emptively protected to avoid what will inevitably become an edit war, but my requests have been turned down (as a side note, I believe that not taking action against potential problems in advance is the wrong attitude to have). Can we please be vigilant about activity on this page and come up with a longer term solution in the process? MSportWiki ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that every major racing series somehow uses a different color scheme for the race results in the results overview table.
Formula 1: light green up to 10th place IndyCar: light green up to 5th place and light blue up to 10th place NASCAR: silver up to 5th place, bronze up to 10th place, light green up to 20th place
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same color schemes for all? -- Mark McWire ( talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I would be in favor of using the colors gold, silver and bronze only for the podium places, even in NASCAR. If a distinction between the top 10 and top 20 is so important, we could use the light blue color like IndyCar. So 4-10 in light green, 11-20 in light blue, 21-43 in dark blue, DNFs in purple. -- Mark McWire ( talk) 08:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Given an essential part of motorsport is the CARS, I find it ludicrous that cars are left out of drivers' results summary tables. Clearly there is some sort of consensus on this that I can't find, but frankly it needs to be changed as it only appears to be lazy on our part.
Therefore, I propose that we replace the existing tables with these kind:
Season | Series | Position | Team | Car |
---|---|---|---|---|
2004 | Australian Formula 3 Championship | 10th | Team BRM | Dallara–Spiess Opel F301 |
Australian Formula Ford Championship | 29th | Ben Fitzgerald | Van Diemen– Ford RF01 |
It covers all the necessary bases (year, championship, standings position, team, car). If people want detailed results, they can go to the DriverDatabase link at the bottom of almost any driver article or the championship article – and it saves us from filling the result columns with useless question marks if information is not available. It's a lot narrower than the existing format making it easier to read (and if it's still too wide we can always use the <div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0"> scrollbar option as demonstrated here), and it's a lot less time consuming to keep up-to-date. MSportWiki ( talk) 21:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
"If you are clutching at straws or grasping at straws, you are trying unusual or extreme ideas or methods because other ideas or methods have failed."I think this is an egregious mischaracterization of the arguments presented. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Can anybody provide a source that this is a common phrase/term? The article Formula racing provides none and is poorly referenced generally. It says "The origin of the term lies in the nomenclature that was adopted by the FIA for all of its post-World War II single-seater regulations, or formulae." Says who, why this?
Meanwhile on Auto racing, the preferred term is open-wheel racing, but the main article is Formula racing.
On which, it says, "Common usage of "formula racing" encompasses other single-seater series, including the IndyCar Series and the Super Formula Championship." apart from the question of 'what common usage', the link is to American open-wheel car racing. This is also the name of the Wikiproject whilst there is no Formula racing project.
There are three terms being used to all mean the same thing:
Is there any desire to have a conversation on consistency? Rally Wonk ( talk) 21:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It's bizarre that Auto racing is the flagship article for what in other languages is called automobile sport. Who uses the term auto racing outside of Wikipedia? The article has no supporting sources! Not all automobile sport is racing, I'd be disappointed to hear arguments that this is a good title.
Consider the other major languages:
I'm not proposing a move to automobile sport because I don't expect it to be supported. But does anybody support the notion that motor sport is the historic term encompassing cars, motorcyles, boats and planes; whilst motorsport is the common word for automobile sport even if it includes motorcycles? The FIA affiliated national sporting authorities of UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa and USA all use motorsport (Canada: autosport). Although these are official, there's no doubt in my mind motorsport is the common use.
See this ngram. Motorsport became popular in the second half of the 20th century, long after boating and air sports had found their own terms. Newspapers.com may agree but is down at the moment.
Wonder if anybody supports moving Auto racing to Motorsport (automobile sport)? Or if Motorsport should cover both purposes. Rally Wonk ( talk) 00:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion reagarding the WRC championship standings tables at Talk:2024 World Rally Championship as the championship would feature a new points system in 2024, which is rather complicated. Inputs are welcome. Unnamelessness ( talk) 02:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Pinging various editors who were active in the last (now archived :( ) discussion or who regularly edit the relevant IndyCar season articles. @ Mark McWire, RegalZ8790, Tvx1, Mikulitsi, HotMAN0199, H4MCHTR, Migiditch, Glman, Finn Shipley, Cs-wolves, Vin28rol, MasterAlSpain, and Wildarms007:. Feel free to ping more.
For those maybe unaware, there was a discussion (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 24#IndyCar (schedule) tables a few months back about the use of (for lack of better term I can think of) icons used as a legend for schedule tables, specifically on those for American open-wheel car racing season articles (eg. 2024 IndyCar Series, 1988 CART PPG Indy Car World Series, 2006 Champ Car season etc.). The discussion was started by me on Mark McWire's talk page (later moved here), due to my opposition to him adding a new "icon" denoting street courses. The discussion ultimately went nowhere, with no consensus reached for anything.
Since that discussion ended, I've reflected on it, come to agree with many of Mark McWire's points, and have changed my opinion. Where there is a lack of secondary sourcing in regards to differentiating of track types, I think it should be okay to use the primary sourcing. Additionally, we can easily find secondary sourcing, especially within the last 10 years, describing how this style of racing is incredibly diverse in terms of track types, such as here.
Additionally, post-discussion, the fact that no consensus was reached was used as a reason to change (as far as I've clicked) all past season articles. No consensus should have meant that everything was left as-is, to be fair, but I probably should have also realized that starting such a discussion was going to be so all-encompassing, but at the time my main concern was the recent articles. If we are going to discuss a proposal that is going to affect such a large number of articles, I believe we should strive to achieve some sort of consensus either way. I am debating starting a Request for Comment on this matter, but I think we can still handle this ourselves. Hope everyone's having/has a good holidays! ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Should the "schedule" table in articles listed in Template:American Championship Car seasons have a separate icon denoting street circuits?
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
RegalZ8790 ( talk) 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
MasterAlSpain ( talk) 11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Tartar Torte 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
RegalZ8790 ( talk) 05:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Speedway race format - p6 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
--
65.92.247.66 (
talk)
05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Some editors have removed all tables from the Joe Gibbs Racing article. This edit was needed, as the article was certainly too large, but the tables should be removed to separate pages, like we've done over at Hendrick Motorsports and Hendrick Motorsports in the NASCAR Cup Series. Input in the discussion and help editing new articles would be great! glman ( talk) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Motorsport#Motorsport regarding whether the Motorsport article should only cover sports involving automobiles or sports involving all types of motorised vehicles, and whether the Auto racing article should cover all types of automobile sport or only those disciplines where drivers race directly against each other. Also part of the discussion is whether Automobile sport should redirect to Auto racing or Motorsport. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Carfan568 ( talk) 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
At Bristol Motor Speedway article, under "Races" section, I added a "Other races" subsection with these two entries.
After adding, this content was reverted - @ Glman with the Edit summary of no clear reason to add two specific years of races. I understand that not every Bristol event has its own article, but I think it would improve this Bristol article to include a few one-of races. Given track's history since 1960, it would be nice to add a few races maybe from each decade? At this point, I'm asking for discussion and thoughts here about adding the "Other races" section? Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
References
JoeNMLC ( talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jan de Rooy (rally driver)#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A "list of Australian Touring Car Championship/ V8 Supercars drivers" page is currently being constructed here, any assistance to help fill out the page faster (and accurately) would be appreciated. I do ask however that stats up to the end of 2023 are used, with 2024 (or beyond if it takes longer) stats/debutants added after it becomes an article. Please do not move to the draftspace as it's a broken system. MSportWiki ( talk) 12:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I am in process of improving Autocross. There is no such thing as 'British Autocross', 'Australian Autocross' etc. Autocross is autocross with usual differences across borders and there is no need for multiple articles. However, as usual there is a slight difference with autocross in the USA, where it is trade marked as Solo or NASA-X by the different bodies. I would expect to upset people with a bold move with this, and on wikidata Autocross (USA) is already down as comparable to autoslalom elsewhere. I invite comments on whether to:
Related with hope to improve language links:
I hope this all makes sense. I'm not entirely sure of the technical process either so would appreciate comments. Rally Wonk ( talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
(Copied from /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Infobox_motorsport_venue as seems dead) Suggest removing this as in most places it is misused - with only one timezone listed and most venues will use 2 timezones 90.241.211.138 ( talk) 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate any interested editors to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Australian Grand Prix#Proposed removal of Formula 3 section. Thanks. A7V2 ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the NASCAR and IMSA articles have hatnotes linking to their respective premier series? Here and here are examples of what I am proposing, and the IndyCar article already has a similar hatnote. WP:HATNOTERULES states that "if a notable topic X is commonly referred to as 'Foo', but the article 'Foo' is not about X, there must be a hatnote linking to the article on X". I think this seems to apply to both NASCAR and IMSA since their premier series seem to be commonly referred to simply by the name of the sanctioning body (some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), although there was some disagreement about this on this discussion on a user talk page, so I am proposing it here to get input from other editors. Carfan568 ( talk) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I am posting this since my two split proposal has been removed.
My issue with that article is that it is suffering from an identity crisis. What does it wants to be? Does it want to be about the headline F3 race as it is known as? Does it want to be about the so-called festivities that doesn’t exist, which it tries to be.
We have an article about the race consisting of bits about support races. This is the other issues we have with that article.
If we were to keep those, do we create articles about the 24h of Le Mans with extra bits about support races? Do we add bits about any F1 GP rounds with subsections about support races? This race has always been and should be about the headline F3 race, not anything else, not the touring car race, not the motorcycle nor the GT race. They belong to separate articles.
Bits about support races should not belong there.
If you want it to be about the headline race, then get rid of the sections about the support races, it makes no sense to keep them, plus an article about the Guia race exists. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
For me splitting the article would be a terrible solution with the common user not knowing what is Macau GP is. I think only one think needs to be changed: the lead: Macau GP is not "a race (1 race)" its a series of events during 2 weekends (currently). Should be replaced by something like "is a motor racing event" like we have in [ [9]]. The fact that the article was about F3 and now was moved towards more Touring Car and GT is explained by the changes that the event suffered through time: there was a time that F3 race was with no doubt the most mediatic one, with WTCC it became the one with more mediatic coverage, and with the end o WTCC and the creation of FIA GT World Cup, with so many manufacturers and top drivres, currently this is the race that gets more atention from the media and has more drivers known by readers and spectators. Its not like F1 where people are there just for F1 and the others races are just to fill the gaps and barely no one would watch the races by themselves (I do). And yes, a Grand Prix might not be just one race, like every (or most) MotoGP event article has the results of all races that happened on that weekend. So I think the article has room to improve, to make it less confuse, but splitting it would be worse than keeping it together. Rpo.castro ( talk) 10:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you're mostly and open-wheel racing fan when it comes to motorsports and that's probably why you are mostly interested in the Formula racing part of the Macau Grand Prix.
Hey, y'all. I'm facing a dilemma on my hands and what I believe is a problem that hasn't been addressed in the longest time here; how much do we emphasize the lower-series events? For example, if a series holds NASCAR events, how much do we explain the series races at that facility? At what point do we let the race page do the talking? I think too much emphasis is unnecessary and could very well be explained on the race page of the lower-series event.
Personally, I'm for a minor addition or notice in the events section like so: "Along with its Cup Series dates, the track also has hosted lower-series NASCAR races, including second-tier NASCAR Xfinity Series and third-tier NASCAR Truck Series races." Maybe this is a NASCAR problem more than anything, but I thought I'd raise the issue here. Perhaps I'm too extreme in my views and a compromise would work best. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 14:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)