Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Red Bull (various)

Hi all. user:Cvinne has just moved Red Bull Racing (the F1 team article) to Red Bull Racing (Formula One) and (I think) Team Red Bull (the NASCAR team) to Red Bull Racing Team (NASCAR). Probably quite logical, but I don't think it's been discussed, so I thought I should bring it up here for a project-wide view. Also, would anyone like to volunteer to get a bot to sort out all the links. I know redirects will take care of it, but that gets very messy if things change again in future. I've left messages at WP:NASCAR and WP:F1, but probably best if we reach agreement here. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt that it could be kind of confusing for a unknowledgeable user to find the correct information they were looking for looking for, and noticed the changes had been brought up on each pages talk page, so I went ahead and did it. I probably should have increased discussion of it first. Cvinne (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to have Red Bull Racing redirecting to Red Bull Racing (Formula One), either Red Bull Racing should become a disambiguation page or the move should be reverted. I'd prefer the latter, as the NASCAR team isn't called "Red Bull Racing", it's called "Red Bull Racing Team". MTC (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page for two pages is pointless, especially when it is for things with ifferent names. Just move the F1 page back, dump a hat on the F1 team page if thre isn't one already that points to the NASCAR team and move the NASCAR team back --Narson ~ Talk • 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see the importance of the move. Both teams have albeit similar sounding but entirely different names. There is no need for creating differentiating parenthetic names for both articles. A simple hatnote at the top of each article explaining different teams should suffice as a mean to avoid confusion.

Couple of other related issues: Team Red Bull is a double redirect and needs to be fixed (directing to name agreed after consensus). And should there be an agreement on inserting hatnotes, Red Bull Racing (disambiguation) is redundant and should be either deleted or redirected. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo move and create hatnotes with the standard "not to be confused with..." hatnote verbage. I agree it is confusing, and I think hatnotes are the best way to deal with it. Let me know if we need any admin-level speedy deletions. Royalbroil 04:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move of Red Bull Racing as no rationale was given and significant opposition voiced (I hadn't seen the comment here). I have no opinion on naming NASCAR pages but a move to Red Bull Racing Team would be fine by me. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the take on the dab page mentioned above? It's useless now that hatnotes have been inserted for both the pages and not a single article links to the dab page. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not needed and can't really be sensibly redirected anywhere; I suggest deleting it. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's certainly not needed now, and if it ever were then it could be very quickly recreated. Pyrope 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the speedy deletion criteria would apply to the disambiguous page. It could be prod'd if someone wants to nominate it. I do see a potential use, so I don't want to nom it, but I won't stand in the way of a prod. Royalbroil 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page requesting to apply CSD G7 to ease the matters. Otherwise, what about CSD G6? I feel deleting that dab won't be that controversial. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the page sits uncomfortably between CSD G6 and CSD G8. If the creator won't tag it, I don't see any great harm in letting it sit out the timeout as a prod, unless an admin feels they can be bold and snowball it. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can somebody please merge Bucharest Street Circuit into Bucharest Ring? The circuit is called Bucharest Ring and for some reason, somebody made another article about the same subject. So please merge. Thanks. 66.56.26.75 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the heads up! Readro (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Readro. However, I found something else that is like this. Someone created Guia Circuit, even though the circuit is called Macau Guia. Please merge Guia Circuit into Macau Guia. Thanks. 66.56.26.75 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrutineering?

After accusations of vandalism & trolling, & fairly blatant POV pushing, by Andy Dingley here (with the excuse for inclusion here), let me try & do the right thing & ask for other opinions. (After my experience here, however, I have slim hope of being upheld.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Donald Campbell record should not appear. Once jet powered cars had been ratified as eligible then Campbell had to beat Craig Breedlove. The table is for the land speed record, not the land speed record with certain conditions. I would have no objections to a seperate table, in a seperate article for wheel driven records. --Falcadore (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore. As the chart stands now, it should contain overall records. Specific records for certain types would need to be separate. The359 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, I have proposed a Land Speed Racing page, where the (post-SoA) wheel-driven & class records can be added as found. Just haven't gotten to it, 'cause my sole source is on Bonneville & far from complete. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Once jet powered cars had been ratified as eligible then Campbell had to beat Craig Breedlove."
Potentially true, except that neither jet cars nor three wheelers were ratified by the FIA at the time of the '64 CN7 record. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And, yet again, a failure to grasp the LSR page isn't "the FIA-sanctioned LSR" page, it's the absolute LSR page, or all pre-FIA records would need to be removed. And Andy only objects to removal of Cambell's CN7 record, not Goldenrod, as far as I can tell, which smacks of POV. Not to mention accusing me of trolling, vandalism, "simply staggering" ignorance, having "a grudge against Campbell", & placing myself above FIA (in some fashion I haven't figured out). Plus what appear logical fallacies (tho I can't get ahold of which one{s?}). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"'it's the absolute LSR page"
Then it should be deleted as WP:OR. This page is currently no more than "Trekphiler's personal list of favourites", where you get to choose the inclusion criteria.

I know little of Goldenrod in detail, but if it achieved a record that was sanctioned as an absolute record by any of the relevant bodies, then it ought to be included. Over time the "land speed record" has been defined in terms of the superset of records recognised by several of the major motorsport bodies (national at one time, then later international). An article that lists all those records recognised as the absolute record, by any one of these bodies, is a reasonable interpretation of this historical situation. Picking and choosing isn't. If this leads to a situation where the FIA had recognised one record and the FIM had simultaneously recognised another, then it's hardly difficult to explain that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I get to count that as another attack? In case our blinkered friend hasn't noticed, I didn't add or select any of the others, all of which are supported by at least one source, so his claim of OR is as baseless as his claims of vandalism & trolling. His inclusion of Bluebird is a pretty obvious POV push, since it's contradicted by the trend for the rest of the page, & since, AFAIK, nobody else supports it. And I'm not the one setting the inclusion criteria. The page is setting the inclusion criteria, & the page includes a good half-dozen non-FIA or pre-FIA records, so FiA sanction does not hold sway, no matter what Andy, or I, have to say about it. And "know little of Goldenrod in detail"? Then who is "staggeringly ignorant"? (Notice, I got called that for claiming other people probably hadn't heard of Bluebird...). Including Goldenrod is a wrong call for the same reason: it was a beaten record before it was ever set, & FIA sanction doesn't bear on it, either. Nor is including Spirit of '76 justified, for the same reason. And, BTW, if we accept Andy's reasoning, Spirit of America should be excluded, because she wasn't FIA sanctioned. Who votes to delete? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) How about we find a reputable, highly-reliable independent source that we all would believe in when it comes to all matters like this, and go with whatever they say? Is there a list in the latest Guinness Book of World Records? Royalbroil 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Trekphiler doesn't believe the FIA when the FIA say that the '64 CN7 record was valid, so I can't really see what he'd regard as a "reliable" source for his page. If you want printed books that support it, then Holthuser's "Land Speed Record" and Tremayne's "Behind the mask" are both pretty robust sources according to wikipedia's usual policies. I note that he's yet to cite a single WP:RS that claims CN7 wasn't a valid record. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And, yet again, a misrepresentation. (Does that count as another attack?) I never said Bluebird did not set a sanctioned, FIA-valid record. I never said I don't believe it was set. What I said (& I invite doubters to read the LSR talk page) was, it was beaten before it was ever set (which even Andy admits), is therefore lower than an existing record (which even Andy admits), & is being defended for inclusion, AFAICT, on the sole ground that it was sanctioned by FIA, in spite of the fact it's lower. (There also appears to be the ground it was set by Campbell, given Andy's claim I have a "grudge against Campbell", which is even less solid ground for inclusion, IMO.) Given the bulk of the visits to the page will be by people who never heard of Bluebird (or is that "staggering ignorance"?), it is a puzzle to me how that is a sensible solution. As noted, I would heartily support a separate page for the class & (post-SoA) wheel-driven records (& if it gets created, I'll personally put CN7 on it!). As an "alternative", that strikes me as the most reasonable. Moreover, it would settle the continuing confusion at LSR over why w-d records aren't in, & proposals/adds for solar cars & other things, all of which (pay attention, Andy) aren't being included, either. It would, IMO, also be a reasonable place to host the moto class records (which have been added & deleted here a time or two). Instead, Andy demands we add CN7, contrary to the trend on the page, contrary to what (IMO) is good sense in dealing with the uninitiated, & insists on resorting to insult & misrepresentation when he fails to get his way. POV? Pique? And dare I wonder what his reaction will be if the consensus is "remove"? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Cite a WP:RS that supports your viewpoint and away you go. I've pointed you at several that support the FIA-sanctioned '64 CN7 record as being a world land speed record, according to a referable definition of "land speed record" for that period. What have you got to support your position? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough. The page in question is not a list, it is an encyclopedic page simply entitled Land speed record. Therefore it should include everything, and moreover should do it in prose, not tabulated. There was controversy at the time over CN7 and it continues, apparently, as there there was then and is now a distinction between "land speed record" (a defined term with rules and criteria) and "fastest thing to have traveled on wheels" (which is a much more ambiguous notion). If their are rival claimants at any point in time then these should be included and explained. Certainly this can be done in prose using a proper narrative structure, but it can also be done in a table by using coloured backgrounds for those claimants who were not sanctioned by any adjudicating body, or similar. Excluding anything that has a justifiable and citable claim on the land speed record is POV. However, for now I would recommend that both of you take a week off. Go and edit something else, or better still go out and enjoy some fresh air; you need to stop taking things so personally. Pyrope 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you guys both need some fresh air. This is not worth getting the stress. We've all had to click off Wikipedia for a short time when involved in issues like this. I wrote a lot of the early article on Malcolm Campbell, so I know what the Bluebirds were. Royalbroil 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave up editing this page months ago, but that recent deletion is a step too far. What's next, AfD Campbell as NN, because he never set any records?
I'd also point out that there wasn't any controversy over CN7's record at the time (the Australians even threw him a ticker-tape parade), the "controversy", such as it was was over Breedlove's SoA record, until the FIM accepted that under their rules. At the time there wasn't even any controversy over the vehicle being wheel-driven or jet, the issue was over it being a tricycle (hence the FIM involvement). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I though leaving this would let me stop being PO'd at the insults & general indifference to my points. It hasn't. I tried, in good faith, to achieve what I thought was a sensible solution, resorting to the "Joe Public" answer, the most accessible approach for the most people, which I thought, in my overweening ignorance, was what WP was about. Obviously, I was wrong. What happened? I got insults, legal arguments, baseless claims of grudges, & a proposed solution that is less accessible & less easily understood for fewer people. The effort, just as it was here, proved a complete waste of time & effort, & the result was, as I expected, exactly what the opposition wanted. I daresay, had I made the remarks about Andy he made about me, I'd've bought myself a warning, if not an outright block, 'cause I'm not sufficiently well connected. So be it. I will, in time, create the LSRacing page I proposed, copy (faithfully) Campbell's records (the ones he actually set, not just the ones in dispute, nor the ones he "didn't" that would earn him that AfD Andy seems to believe, for whatever deluded reason, I think Campbell deserves), & Andy can take his POV, his ignorance, & his insults, & stuff them. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not understanding the specifics, I will say that there are some articles that I have had to walk away from. Sometimes you have to get a third opinion, and they don't agree with you. Then it's time to unclick the "unwatch" button on the article. Life is so much better. I'm sure you can find other things to do that won't stress you. Royalbroil 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nearest Airport???

Notice that User:Cheetaih is adding the location of the nearest airport to every race track page. Last I saw Wikipedia ain't a travel guide. While I love User:Cheetaih's enthusiasm is it possible it could be focussed on sometihng less trivial and rollback these largely irrelevant edits? --Falcadore (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Destroy with fire! The359 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Call in an airstrike? :p TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Undo - rollback is for obvious vandalism not good faith (but ill-advised) edits like this. Royalbroil 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Damon Hill FAR

Damon Hill has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatigue

There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with endurance racing. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please merge

Can somebody merge Guia Circuit into Macau Guia? The articles are the same. Pandyu (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. One is the circuit, the other is a race held at the circuit. Royalbroil 03:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the Macau Guia is just the touring car race. Several other series and formulas use the Guia Circuit. The359 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Macau Guia into Macau Grand Prix then. Pandyu (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm going to have to oppose again. The Macau Grand Prix refers to a Formula 3 event. It's not the same event as the Macau Guia touring car race. The359 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. All circuit have separate articles from the events held there, so please reconsider your merge proposals. Royalbroil 04:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody add the coordinates to Grand Prix of Houston, Gingerman Raceway, and Roebling Road Raceway? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it. Pandyu (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Macau Grand Prix drivers

Is this a worthwhile category? I put it up for Cfd because it is indiscriminate and half-baked, and while it may be considered somewhat prestigious and important for an F3 race, it is still a minor series race and does not rank among events like the triple crown.Karpouzi (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

See above --Falcadore (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD: Jithendra Shenoy

FYI, I have nominated Jithendra Shenoy for deletion on notability grounds here.--Diniz(talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Race Cancelled" in results tables

As you may already be aware, the second races of this week's rounds of the 2008-09 GP2 Asia Series season and the 2008-09 Speedcar Series season have been cancelled due to flooding. I'm not sure how this should be indicated in the results tables, as I don't think any of the existing options in the legend correspond exactly to the situation. An IP editor has added "RACE CANCELLED" to every driver's cell in the GP2 Asia results table, but this looks extremely ugly in my opinion. Any thoughts?--Diniz(talk) 11:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A similar situation occured for the 250cc race at Indianapolis this year. The consensus was just to put a "C" (Cancelled) for everyone that was scheduled to compete in the race in the table. D.M.N. (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good solution. Would people be happy with me adding a "race cancelled" field to the {{F1 driver results legend}} template (which is currently used by GP2, Speedcar and other motorsports articles), or would it be preferable to create a new template? As far as I am aware, the "race cancelled" field does not need to be used in any F1-specific case, and it may be confusing to add such a field to a nominally F1-specific template.--Diniz(talk) 11:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, about the only F1-related articles that actually use {{F1 driver results legend}} are the season summary articles, which should probably use {{F1 driver results legend 2}} instead, like all the F1 team, car & driver articles do. So I think it's fine to add "race cancelled" to {{F1 driver results legend}} (which could/should probably be renamed to something more generic like "auto race results legend", but that's a separate issue). DH85868993 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just leave the box blank. There will be annotation elsewhere to explain the empty spaces. --Falcadore (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of that. The box should only be blank if the driver was not scheduled to participate in the race. Take for instance Renger van der Zande in this table. The Netherlands boxes are blank because he wasn't scheduled to compete - having the UAE box blank for a completely seperate reason will confuse the layman. D.M.N. (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if a driver was not scheduled to take part in a race that did not occur since we're using bolds. The participants in the Feature Race should be ample indication of who should have started the Sprint Race if it is that important to you. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Either put it as a "C" just like the 250s at Indy or do not have it listed on the results column just like the 1985 Nürburgring F3000 round. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a "C", as the race is part of a championship round, not a whole championship round as is the case with the F3000 example.--Diniz(talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

International Formula 3000 season

Noticed a bit of too and fro amongst the series articles today and popped in to find, no less than four tables depicting variations of results and virtually no narrative.

Seriously, what the hell??? Can someone explain the necessity of four tables when one could suffice and there should be no more than two, and why so little narrative? I propose an overhaul for these pages soon. --Falcadore (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The main issue I have with these pages is the table style. See 1985 International Formula 3000 season for examples. While very nice, it's hardly in-keeping with the usual style. I suggest that these articles have their tables reformatted. Readro (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of redundancy there. The second and third tables could be easily merged. --Falcadore (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Midget car racing in Australia

Is anyone from Australia? I keep hearing that midgets are called Speedcars in Australia. Would someone update the article to include the Australian view? Thanks! Royalbroil 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. A great source of information is Speedcar World. --Falcadore (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible restructure of Scuderia Ferrari article

Please add your thoughts at Talk:Scuderia_Ferrari#Possible_restructure. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

Is there a list along the lines of List of motorsport terminology? I realise that there is a category, but I am having a bit of trouble in FACs about F1 articles explaining what "outbrake" and "stint" (as in between pit stops) and other terms mean. Such a list would enable us to have a record of terms which would only make the barest stubs as their own articles and don't seem to fit anywhere else. Any ideas? Apterygial 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that be encroaching on what Wiktionary is intended for? AlexJ (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But is this the sort of thing Wiktionary is intended for? Are we now meant to bombard Wiktionary with all these motorsport terms, some of which (such as stint) are variations of existing words? Apterygial 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking slightly at a tangent - why does stint need clarifying in the first place? Its everyday meaning is the same as the motorsport meaning, isn't it? If the problem is that readers are not familiar with the everyday meaning, then you need to make a judgement about whether to use another everyday word (if you think 'stint' is too uncommon a word - I don't!). I agree outbrake is motorsport-specific terminology. What does Wiktionary say about its purpose in life? 4u1e (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you expecting Wiktionary to talk? :) I wouldn't have thought that stint needed clarifying, even for motorsport, but I was asked in a recent FAC what it meant in this context. I dunno, maybe I just feel a list would give us more scope to talk about motorsport in a less jargony way. We could integrate some of our smaller stubs into such a list. Incidentally, did you know run-off area is featured on the German wikipedia? Weird. Apterygial 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the article would entail. Simple dictionary-style definitions would go against WP:NOTDICDEF. I'd guess if it went beyond a simple definition, it could have an article. Rather than having a bunch of non-related bits and pieces stuck together in a terminology article, could we find homes in other articles? Could outbraking be a part of a wider article on braking f.e.? AlexJ (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any list would probably be formatted like List of ice hockey terminology, List of cricket terms, List of road-related terminology and so on. On your other point, have you seen the article on Brakes? Good luck adding outbrake there. I guess we could have a Braking in motorsport article... I'm just throwing ideas around here, I have no idea where I'm going with this. Apterygial 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done Good Article reviews on several Professional Wrestling articles, and I found the List of professional wrestling terms to be very useful for them. It helped me as the reader (and reviewer) to understand their terminology. I know what stint means in the motorsport world, but I think it's a good idea to have a list article or a Wiktionary definition because I think it requires specialist knowledge. Royalbroil 04:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just came across the proposed guideline on (glossaries), so I withdraw any concerns about the eligibility of the article for Wikipedia. AlexJ (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

←Pity that's only a "working draft of a proposed Wikipedia guideline". Apterygial 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I figure 'stint' is good terminology as it is well known. Outbrake, I'm not sure how to better term that than "braked later than and got past driver (X)". Guroadrunner (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It's a humdinger of a tricky one. Maybe we need a diagram... Apterygial 11:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Can I get an idea that if I was at some point to create such an article, no-one (from here, at least) would AfD it when I wasn't looking, and that others would help expand it (because I suck at things like this)? Apterygial 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will strongly defend this article after it gets created. I wouldn't worry about it getting deleted. Royalbroil 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems at the very least that there is no definite rule against having it, and there seem to be other examples of the same kind of thing, so go for it. I certainly wouldn't AfD it. I still don't think 'stint' needs to be included, though. Wiktionary has it as "A period of time spent doing or being something. A spell.", which seems like an adequate generic description for what we mean here. I would also urge editors to make articles as clear as they can be without access to the list—it's not an excuse for lapsing into jargon. 4u1e (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll create it with a work in progress banner, anyone feel free to drop in and add something. Of course it isn't an excuse for lapsing into jargon, and if I catch anyone doing it you will be trout-slapped :). Apterygial 08:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you, 4u1e. If you look at the other lists mentioned above, they include some words like "cue" and "foreign object" that have obvious generic meanings. I agree with you, though, that articles should be made clear without access to the list. WikiProject Wrestling does add wikilinks to words on the list using the form grid. Royalbroil 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been a fun topic to work on! It brings me back to the earlier days of Wikipedia where there was so much to built because nothing was built. I kept finding other topics that needed work with expansion and citing. Fun! Royalbroil 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here, Royal. Although I do struggle sometimes with this particular topic because I feel one of my additions, "lid" (to describe a crash helmet), is somewhat of a slang like term. Are we including such terms, or not? :-\ --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Slang and other terms. I think with slang though we should mention where the slang comes from, because I've never heard the term "lid". You're right though, it is fun. I just sat there and created it with a stream of consciousness spew. I guess we should start seeding links in our existing articles. Apterygial 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

← I'm thinking that every article in Category:Motorsport terminology should have a brief entry in the list which links out to it. Apterygial 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Refurbishment of library page

I was thinking that we should refurbish the library page so it looks more like what WP:VG currently have. I'm guessing that the library page will only grow over time, so it'd be better having it in the same layout as WP:VG currently have with a series of subpages. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or the other. I've got one question though - weekly magazines. How are we going to cater for these? Obviously there are far too many for a single page. Subpages for each year? Each volume? Readro (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic a bit, but I can't recall if this was discussed when the Library project was first initiated - Should we list videos as well? For instance, I have access to two DVDs covering the Indianapolis 500 and Can-Am, as well as VHS/Beta tape recordings of ABC coverage of past Indianapolis 500s. Presumably these should be listed as library material as well? The359 (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I'd have thought it counts just as much as written material. Readro (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, videos are good as well... for weekly magazines we'd only put on the page what users have got.... we wouldn't list every single magazine if users don't have them! I've got the odd Autosport edition, but not every one from over the years. Subpages for each year would be good though for the weekly ones, i.e. /autosport/2004 as an example. I wouldn't create it though if no one has it, I'd just leave it as a red link unless someone did have it... D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we wouldn't list them if no one had them! It's just if we do have them then a single page for a weekly magazine would get big very quickly. Subdividing into years would work well I think. That would allow us to describe the contents in detail. Readro (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If no one is against me doing this, I'll go ahead and do it within the next week, and slap an underconstruction tag on the top of it. =) D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started to document my Autosports here so that I'll have them all listed ready for when we go live. Readro (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Readro. I've drafted in my sandbox the format that I think we should use should we do this. In my view, the main reason for doing this is so that it's easier to use so that someone doesn't have to scroll down the whole page, they can just click a few buttons and they can find what they want. D.M.N. (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Approaching the time where I recycle my "Autosport Archive" from the previous year. However, I do tend to keep the "Year in Review" type editions for the sake of using them in Wikipedia articles. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything really valuable in any of the magazines (IIRC, they did a "Grand Prix Gold" feature or something for a few editions last year) it might be worth tearing out the page - of course making the note of the edition number in the process. Of course, I wouldn't "force" you to do that. ;-] D.M.N. (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in keeping the newer Autosports. I read them, but they tend to go out for recycling a few weeks later. I've just subscribed to Motor Sport and will be keeping those though. One per month is easier to keep an archive of! I have a 1960s DVD archive of Motor Sport in the post as well :). At the Autosport show, word was that there are 1930s and 1940s archive DVDs in the works at the moment - if this is true then I eagerly anticipate their release. Anyway, I've gone off topic somewhat so I shall sign off here. Readro (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Refurbishment done

I've refurbished the Library page into a series of subpages. Please check in case I have accidentally "lost" any books in the process. Hopefully it's easier to navigate through... although I will probably make a few more minor changes to the pages in the coming days. Thanks to Readro for giving me a few suggestions through the refurbishment. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done :) Readro (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work, I'll have to take a moment sometime to update what I've got available. AlexJ (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue how to contribute to this list now, and I noted more than a few entries from the old list didn't seem to make the passthrough. It's a nice idea, but still seems to have some kinks to be worked out. However, I can't see myself adding to this list. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I've found things -- Indy and NASCAR books got listed under "General" instead of their own subcategories. Not sure why. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to create new subcategories. It is a little Euro-centric at the moment. Readro (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's my fault - I didn't think it warranted a sub-category at the moment. However, as Readro says, you're welcome to create any new subcategories. ;-) D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started the portion of the library involving visual media. At the moment it's broken into Documentaries and Live Broadcast Recordings. I'm thinking there might be a need to include a warning regarding VHS and Betamax tapes because, although I physically have the tapes, I (and I'm sure many others) have not watched them all throughout in many years and cannot guarentee their quality. The359 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind there being a VHS/Media section... but for things like full F1 races, there are several sites on the net where these are available from... I don't have a copy of any races on my PC right now, but that doesn't mean this time next week I won't. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True about the live broadcasts, although I guess I could say that with so many broadcasters, there may still be some people who have recordings that are not available online. And really, teh reason I included it is not so much for the on track action, but for stories or interviews that each broadcaster might have or information they might report. The359 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Drag racers bio pages inconsistent

Several drag racers have inconsistent titles in their pages.

• Joe Amato (dragster driver)
• Bill Jenkins (dragracer)
• Larry Dixon (drag racer)
• Greg Anderson (driver)

Is there/should there be a standard way of disambiguating? I happen to like the (drag racer) style myself. ScottJ (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambig names aren't a big deal, because they're hidden in almost all of their use cases (disambig pages are about the only one). So add "... (drag racer)" to a project style guide by all means, but I wouldn't do legwork in renaming existing ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer (drag racer) as well. Readro (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer (drag racer) except if they're know for other motorsport like Eddie Hill. I agree with don't bother to move the existing. There appears to be no prolific Wikipedian who's a major drag racing fan. I've been working on American drag racing articles and I'm not a drag racing fan. I have lots of great pictures of the top 50 drag racers of all time. I'd like to see more than just a stub written because I have a great biography source for each driver from their Top 50 article. They're an easy DYK resulting in a B or C class article! Another problem is that the infrastructure is not built for drag racing. Few major national events even have an article (see Category:Drag racing events). It was harder to get Hill's article to GA - I had to delink numerous red links. Royalbroil 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you all need to go outside more often... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.240.184 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

I had been doing random pages searches and came across the Motorsport marshal page.
I had reworded quite a lot of it before I realised that maybe I should have joined the project,
or at least checked to see if anyone was planning to work on it.
I would appreciate if someone could spare ten minutes or so to go check out my changes.

I tried to improve the grammar mainly, as well as take out some repetitions. I also did a little expansion of the Rally marshal page, including sticking in a pic to show some "marshals", as well as finishing off the grammar edit tonight.

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I made a few minor fixes. Royalbroil 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles under GA review

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Articles under GA review D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Filmed deaths in sports added to many drivers -- should it exist?

I noticed that someone has added Category:Filmed deaths in sports to many driver articles who died while racing. I think this fails WP:TRIVIA. Is anyone interested in taking it to Categories for Deletion ( WP:CFD ) Guroadrunner (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no possible way of establishing whether or not a death is filmed. Delete with extreme prejudice. The359 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's easy to determine if the event was televised, like in the case of Dale Earnhardt at the 2001 Daytona 500! I know I was watching it live - it's haunting just thinking about it. I suspect that you'll get objections, as it is a subcategorization of Category:Filmed deaths. I'd comment to keep it. Maybe you should look through the articles and make sure that their event was televised. Some deaths happened at a pre-race practice / qualifying, like Scott Kalitta, so consider that possibility that television crews or fans had videos rolling. I recommend that you DON'T check out youtube for a fan video of his death [1]. I know I couldn't make it past their burnouts. Royalbroil 14:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an unpleasant category and we don't need it. Also, it's not accurate in that there are many more drivers whose deaths were filmed that aren't in the cetegory. The job of verifying that footage exists, which would no doubt have to be done via youtube, would be one of the most upsetting and gruesome tasks I can imagine, and I would be very suspicicous of the motives of anyone who wanted to fill out the category. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, Bretonbanquet. Royalbroil 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph DePalma: Italian or American?

According to the List of Indianapolis 500 winners, 1915 winner Ralph DePalma was born in Italy and "did not become a US citizen until 1920". This assertion is based on ancestry.com, a site that requires a subscription. Use of such sites is discouraged per Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration and I'm not sure ancestry.com is reliable enough for use on Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source that confirms that Ralph DePalma was still an Italian citizen at the time he won the Indy 500 in 1915? Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of those sites is discouraged, not forbidden. I don't see why you couldn't cite it. Regardless, is there any reason why you couldn't list him as Italian-American? Readro (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is discouraged for a reason. The information is not publicly available, we have to believe the word of the person who added this assertion. It's certainly reasonable that DePalma was an Italian citizen in 1915, but it's not verifiable. He could be listed as an Italian-American in articles and categories, sure, but this is not about those articles and categories, this is specifically about the List of Indianapolis 500 winners. We show him with an Italian flag (as an Italian citizen) in the list, but in his biography, we call him an American racing driver. One option is to list him with both flags in the list of Indy 500 winners, but that would be incorrect if he was not a US citizen at the time. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is a source for the information, not an External link! Lots of sources are difficult to access for many people. I don't see a problem with using this as a source. I worked a lot on De Palma's article. The only problem that I see is that the external links in De Palma's are actually sources/references. We used to not do referencing correctly back around 2006, and some articles need work. I'll take care of that. Those sources all say that De Palma emigrated to the U.S. in around 1900, although they don't say when he became a naturalized U.S. citizen. My thought is to list him as an Italian American. Royalbroil 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Remind me on the weekend, but I'll take a look at my 1956 book on the Indy 500 by Brock Yates. DePalma was a part of the book. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I checked, but nothing on his nationality in Yates' small book. The next place I would check is Eddie Rickenbacker's Autobiography, which I read as a young'un -- great book that I've been searching for somewhat. Maybe I'll pick it up at my local library. WorldCat: [2] I also seem to remember someone wrote an extensive book on board track racing by a guy who specialized in Jimmy Murphy that fascinated me a bit -- this one: [3]. Looks like the same guy rote a book on DePalma himself as well, but the closest copy to me in a library is more than 300 miles away WorldCat; no luck for you either RoyalBroil as the closest copy to you is in a Detroit library. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Lusk

Expert opinion needed on notability of Jeremy Lusk. Were the medals he won sufficient to establish notability, or were they local events that don't mean much? Also, is there anything else besides his medals or the flash-fire of press surrounding his injury and death that would indicate notability? Disclaimer: I created the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Please continue the discussion at Talk:Jeremy Lusk#Arbitrary section. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing if he was related to Damon Lusk. - Guroadrunner (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the unorthodox step of asking for outside help for the article Jeremy Lusk. See Talk:Jeremy Lusk#Looking for a photo and additional career highlights for details.

As a result this article will need babysitting for the next few days. Please watchlist it and remove anything that's inappropriate.

Note: I got into trouble for POV-pushing when I asked for outside help on an article early in my wiki-career. That was well over a year and a half ago and I have a much better feel for things but I'm still a bit gun-shy about asking for outside help. As I'm just looking for factual, encyclopedic information and a free-license photo, and the subject matter is not at all controversial, I think this shouldn't be a problem. If I'm wrong please let me know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FIA Formula Two Championship proposed for deletion

FYI, FIA Formula Two Championship has been proposed for deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Marco Apicella

**hears a lot of people shouting "Who?"**

I've tried to expand Apicella's article from this to this (diff). It's not the best article in the world, and providing I have very limited knowledge of him and providing that there are not many sources on him, I think I've done a good job. Does anyone have any book sources on him... or is he mentioned slightly in any books? Also, would anyone be willing to do a minor copy-edit to trim out any errors that maybe in there? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look in my books when I get home but I don't think you'll ever find a huge amount of info on him! Readro (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume most sources would be in Japanese as SuperGT is where he's makes his living the past few years. The359 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

F1 Portal up for Featured portal status

Here. Any and all (relevant) comments welcome. Apterygial 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre 1906 Grands Prix Seasons

I notice the (relatively) recent creation of Pre 1906 Grands Prix Seasons. Whilst I don't object to the creation of an article to collect the details of the pre-1906 races, I do question the article's title. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not Grands Prix. The only one you could feasibly apply the title "Grand Prix" to is the 1901 Pau Grand Prix, which is an anomaly in being first to use the name, but not the format one associates with "Grand Prix". Also, the Automobile Club de France retrospectively stated that some of these trials were incarnations of the "French Grand Prix", which is another problem. All I can come up with is "Early European motorsport", which is terrible. Readro (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"European motorsport 1894-1905"? Agree not Grand Prix. 4u1e (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Early History of Motorsport? --Falcadore (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Race winners on circuit articles

From this discussion on WikiProject F1, I believe that winners of F1 Grands Prix should be removed from the articles on racing circuits, as almost every circuit in existance holds a multitude of races of varying importance. Consensus seems to be that there is approval for removing F1 results from circuit articles.

I also further propose, in regards to all motorsports circuits, that any lists of race winners might be removed. It is my feeling that race winners belong on an article about the race, not necessarily on an article about a circuit. Case in point, Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca. Champ Car results are easily duplicated on Monterey Grand Prix, and the other results can also be spun off to other articles, such as the Monterey Sports Car Championships. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree I don't agree that race winners should be removed from articles. Formula One articles on Wikipedia are the only well-developed set of articles that contain articles for each race. NASCAR is probably the next most developed, and it doesn't have an article for each race. Little progress is being made on NASCAR articles anymore; WikiProject NASCAR is a shell of its former self. In short, I don't think that any other series is well-developed enough to warrant removal of race winners. Royalbroil 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think every race having an article should be a requirement. And by race, I mean the event. See, Monte Carlo Rally, 12 Hours of Sebring, French Grand Prix, Monterey Grand Prix, Coca-Cola 600, etc. If we were to keep race results on articles about a circuit, what exactly would be the criteria? Some popular circuits like Watkins Glen International would be full of results tables from every major series that has run there. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's different if there are already existing articles for various series. I know lots of early NASCAR tracks only major races have been NASCAR races. Often main content on the circuit's article is a discussion of the NASCAR results, which were done instead of a separate race article. I didn't agree with it as a blanket statement, but there are lots of situations where it does make sense. So I think that Lakewood Speedway can remain as it is right now, except if someone wants to spend the time to develop separate articles for the NASCAR and AAA/USAC (now Indycar/IRL) races. The same thing with Heidelberg Raceway and the Illinois State Fairgrounds Racetrack. Royalbroil 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor ovals like that I think I can agree on, my concern was mostly with US and international circuits which have a wide variety of racing. This I think should include the likes of oval circuits which also have road courses used for other series. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like we agree then. I can see removing Formula One (and most other major series) results from most (if not all) circuit articles, as long as the results are in another article (which I bet most are). If someone wants to remove results from an article, then they need to check that they are in another article (or create one themself). I have struck out my disagree above. Royalbroil 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a circuit article should primarily be about the circuit itself (construction, major events, layout changes etc.) rather than provide fairly detailed stats about events held at the circuit. AlexJ (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A circuit article does not need a detailed list of winners for any individual event. Pyrope 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Recently, F1 race results have been deleted from (too) many circuit pages, in most cases for no good reason, especially when the circuit doesn't host F1 anymore, or isn't operational anymore. Ain-Diab Circuit hosted a non-WC F1 race in 1957, and its 1958 event counted towards the WC. That's pretty much all we had known about that track - until it was deleted from the circuit page, to be hidden elsewhere. Does it make Wikipedia better to reduce articles back to stubs? Does removing F1 results inspire people to investigate the history of other events there? If F1 GP results are removed, what chance of survival has a F3 or touring car race result? I hope to find an overview of results by all events available at all track pages (or a subpages "list of results at ..."), which may allow comparison between the lap times of different series, the effect of layout changes, when they raced there and when not, etc. Whats the point of removing venue-related information from the venue's article, and hiding it solely in a series page? You guys have a nice way of spoiling holidays. Really. Jesus returned on the third day, though, as they say, but he had to negotiate with death only, not with Wikipedia editors feeling an itch to remove information that in most cases had been added by others. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because we spend our time just thinking of ways to upset other editors. I took your post seriously until the last bit, which was pretty insulting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it make Wikipedia better to reduce articles back to stubs? If a table was the only thing stopping it from being a stub, then a stub is all it was and the rating was false. A table is not a substitute for actual content. --Falcadore (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)For the example you give, Ain-Diab Circuit, I note that in the current version of the text is the following: "On 19 October 1958 the course was the venue for the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix, the final round in the 1958 Formula One season. It was won by Stirling Moss driving a Vanwall, completing the 53 laps in 2h 09m 15.1s." - what did having the table add to that?

Moving back to a more general example, each article should be concise, we can't provide every last detail of every event that has ever occurred there. In what is intended to be a general article about the circuit, a balance must be struck between each aspect, of which events held at a circuit is only one minor part. Hundreds of races may be held at a circuit, but it's only constructed once, modified a handful of times, changes owner once or twice etc. Trying to give the hundreds of events a similar weighting as details on the circuit's conception and construction inevitabely means that there has to be some cut-off in the level of detail provided. The debate is about where that cut-off should be. My personal opinion is that it's relevant to say that a series raced at a track between certain dates, but it's too detailed to give information on the winning drivers and teams from each and every year. It's worth also remembering that an article is intended to primarily be a written section of prose rather than a bunch of tables. The latter type of page is a list and is not what the circuit pages should be. Info about laptimes between layout changes this should be done in prose where context can be provided. The aim of Wikipedia is not to be a stats-fest for the hardcore fan, but to provide accessible information on a topic that can be understood by those with only a basic knowledge of the subject.

Finally, I wonder how Wikipedia would look if we all tried a tug on the heartstrings to get our own way? Keep it factual and to the point, and your argument will be taken more seriously. AlexJ (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 data in main articles i.e. Formula One and World Rally Championship

I've noticed Wrcf1 (talk · contribs) add 2009 data to main series articles, at the moment I've noticed it happen to Formula One and World Rally Championship, see here. It was briefly discussed here, but has since been readded here - I've reverted per WP:RECENTISM. There's also a 2009 calendar over at World Rally Championship which appears to have been put there a while back. IMO, the 2009 data shouldn't be added to the main series articles... it just serves an unncessary addition, and that sections like this just shout out recentism again. Thoughts? (note: I've invited Wrcf1 to contribute in the discussion) D.M.N. (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the WRC table. Its April, deciding these titles is six months away, they'll just be blank for months and months. It's pointless. There are links to current series articles at the top of the page. Completely unnecessary. --Falcadore (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also - the WRC article has had current series information as a large chunk of the piece for a very long time. Years at least. --Falcadore (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Monaco World Series by Renault round

In my view, the above article, plus other WSBR race reports should be sent to AFD. Unlike F1 and MotoGP (and I guess A1GP), this doesn't satisfy notability guidelines in my view. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's too low of a tier in open wheel racing to really need individual race reports. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've AFD'd 2009 Barcelona World Series by Renault round. D.M.N. (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a support race for the 2009 Monaco Grand Prix - merger perhaps? --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think merging with the Grand Prix page would be a good idea, it would set the precedent that all GP articles should detail support races, where the focus should be on F1. A merger with the series season article would be more appropriate. Apterygial

Having edited the Barcelona page, I feel it'd be more appropriate to merge back into the series article. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglo American Racers

While reading through the history of the Eagle Mk1 (Eagle T1G), I noticed that the term Anglo American Racers referred only to the Grand Prix team, which was a division of the All American Racers which raced in USAC, and then continued on in CART and IMSA in later decades. So is there any reason why the article on the team is currently titled Anglo American Racers, and not All American Racers? Surely it should be titled after the parent company and not the F1 division which only ran three seasons. I figured it would be an easy move, but I might as well ask, especially if there were any Anglo American Racers activities outside the three F1 seasons. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so far as I'm aware. I think the Anglo rather than All use is a hang-over from the early days of Wikipedia when the F1:WP was the only one very active. I see no reason not to move the page. Pyrope 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Timezone?

Haven't seen anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=timezone&prefix=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject+Formula+One%2FArchive&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search or related searches, and not sure if this is one for this project or perhaps an ancestor. Basically, what's with the timezone field in circuit infoboxes? Should this be changed everytime a circuit moves into or out of daylight savings? For instance, the UK and Silverstone are currently on BST, (GMT+1), but the box says GMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverstone_Circuit&oldid=283463149). Especially as not everyone changes on the same dates, I think this could only lead to confusion.. Anyway, opening the floor.

(as initially raised at the F1 projectpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One) 78.151.177.80 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DTM and F3 euroseries flags

I think it is better to use the flag of the Land hosting the race weekend instead of the German national flag because these series use German circuits principally, so it is easier to distinguish the area of the circuit. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By that do you mean a German regional flags? Personally I'd be against that unless it was a specifically all German series. Certainly against it for the F3 Euroseries as the series name and its heritage (a merger of the French and German F3 national series) specifically suggests an international series rather than a domestic series. --Falcadore (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

F3 euroseries is a merger, but it is also a support series of the DTM, which is a German series. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can get DTM to stop going to France, Spain, Britain and Holland, I'll agree with you happily. --Falcadore (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed page move - Lola Racing Cars

A bit like AAR, this is another page that has had the wrong title for a long time. The page was originally titled simply Lola or Lola (constructor), I can't recall anymore, but someone decided to rename it in haste in order to clean up some disambiguation, and they basically did it incorrectly. There is no such thing as Lola Racing Cars, hence why I want to fix this problem. This however creates two new problems as 1) What should the proper name be and 2) There's roughly 1000 pages which link to Lola Racing Cars and would need fixing.

So, Lola themselves is officially the Lola Group, which features Lola Cars and Lola Composites. The car division is obviously what the entire article about, although Lola Composites does have some mentions elsewhere (for instance, the BAE Mantis UAV). So, it makes sense to me to move Lola Racing Cars to Lola Group, even though the article is currently only about the race cars. However I'm open to suggestion, as Lola Cars works as well and fits with what the article obviously covers. Of course, someone could also add the Lola Composites information to the Lola article, but whichever, I leave this open to discussion.

After the name is decided, I'll need some help from people to fix all the Lola links so that they go to the correct page. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's actually no need to fix the links, per WP:NOTBROKEN. DH85868993 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems silly not to, to me at least... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are other things I'd rather spend my time on. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* Any name suggestions though? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably go for "Lola Cars". DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably "Lola Cars". If we had "Lola Group" we'd probably have to have "McLaren Group" too. Apterygial 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We do. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In which case I have no problem with "Lola Group". Probably should have checked that. Apterygial 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My heart says Lola Cars, but logically I guess Lola Group is correct, with redirects from Lola Cars and Lola Racing Cars. Regarding the amount of work, can we place a request for a bot to do it? 4u1e (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No preference. Just updating the templates manually often fixes many wikilinks. Royalbroil 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the page only concerns the cars part of the group I'd say Lola Cars was the better title. The group and the composites parts of the company can be mentioned and should someone want to create those pages then let them, but to give the page a general title when the subject is specific seems odd. Pyrope 13:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article moved to Lola Cars with mentions of Lola Group and Lola Composites. I've mostly made corrections to templates and major articles about Lola teams and cars. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Motorsport in 2009

I think serious consideration has to be taken into deleting this template. It is turning into a monster. Every little 2009, 2008/09 and 2009/10 motor racing series is going to get added as each editor running those pages finds, and adds their series. It is already a very bloated template, that is going to get worse. And does it really add anything not done by the Category:2009 in motorsport ?

Its a good idea but without reasonable and enforcable limits it will turn into a large glob of fat at the bottom of referenced pages. Potentially it could yet grow to double its present size. --Falcadore (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it may be a good idea, but as User:Falcadore says, it will only get bigger. If a user wants to look for 2009 series, then they can look at the 2009 in motorsport category page. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete I would make it unusable if I put in every series that I know about. Royalbroil 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As the person who created the template, I guess I should weigh in. The reason I created the template in the first place was because, as a user, I found it somewhat inconvenient to navigate between the pages of the 2009 F1 season, the 2009 World Rally Championship season, the 2009 MotoGP season etc when I wanted to check on the status of these series. I know it is not excessively difficult, but the template makes it a lot simpler. Regarding categories and in particular Category:2009 in motorsport, they definitely have their place but are not so useful for day to day navigation. The relevant pages and subcategories are not laid out so that you can see all the major motorsport series grouped together in a convenient way. In fact, for everyday usage I think it is more convenient to navigate by using the search box.

I take the point about the amount of things in the template. Is that a major problem? As it stands I think it looks comprehensive rather than overbearing. If it is a problem, maybe the template could be trimmed rather than scrapped altogether. It could be only for truly premier class series and "international" series only, without any feeder series. Of course I realise there may arise conflicts over the definitions of these terms, e.g. someone might argue that the IndyCar series is not truly international and can be regarded as a non-premier or feeder class for formula 1, whereas I would regard it as a premier class and international series. However, I think it would be possible to come to a consensus as to which series might qualify as sufficiently high-level.

Basically, I advocate keeping it, as it is useful for navigability, but possibly trimming it down to the really top level international series and events (eg of such an event - the Dakar Rally). Juwe (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I meant by it not having reasonable and enforcable limits, either shrink it to top level international series (and deciding what series gets those honours will be as popular as delisting F1 test drivers), or subdivide it into particular streams - Motorcycling, Rallying, Open Wheel, Sports/GT, Touring/Stock Cars etc --Falcadore (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have been guilty myself of adding too many championships, but I agree that we should keep it, just trim it down to championships with international significance, which would include BTCC and V8 Supercars, but not STCC. Petera93 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we move this... box to the category itself? The category lists the pages by name, so the box could help users to search pages by race type. I've suggested the same regarding automobile timelines. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would have in a trimmed-down version of the template. DO NOT EDIT THIS VERSION- JUST SUGGEST CHANGES BELOW. One-off events part of other championships such as indy and daytona have been removed. Alternatively we could have seperate templates for each genre as Falcadore suggested. What do we think? Petera93 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that could be added to the version above (please give reasons)

• How about including Category:2009 in motorsport in an "Other" row?--Midgrid(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• The Intercontinental Rally Challenge, FIA GT3 European Championship and Motocross World Championship are all international level. The IRC is organized by Eurosport, held all over the world, features works-supported teams and is included in the list of FIA approved series. GT3 is part of the titles attributed by the FIA, and World Motocross is self-explanatory. I don't include the European Rally Championship because the competition is mostly dead and most ERC rounds are also IRC rounds. --Pc13 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you with IRC- I created the page but I wasn't sure how seriously it is taken. I also agree with you with removing Grand-Am and the minor Nascar series Petera93 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that could be removed from the version above (please give reason)

• I imagine both the Rolex Sports Car Series (Grand-Am) and any NASCAR division with the exception of the NASCAR Sprint Cup will have low interest outside its country of origin. If you say NASCAR to a motorsports fan outside North America, he will think only of the Sprint Cup, which is the only series I've seen with reporting in the European media. Likewise, the Rolex series, usually just called "Grand-Am" (erroneously, I know), has reporting identical in size to stuff like Super GT, FFSA GT, ADAC GT, Belcar and the International GT Open in European magazines. I cite my experience reading Autosport (UK), Autosprint (Italy) and Auto Hebdo and Le Mans Magazine (both France). --Pc13 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stock car and Touring car really should be merged. Both are sedan based silouhette series. --Falcadore (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What title could we give it? Petera93 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Saloon Cars? Saloon Cars & Stock Cars? Touring Cars & Stock Cars? --Pc13 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sedan racing? The article is called Sedan (automobile) is it not? --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No one in the U.S. will look for NASCAR if the section title isn't stock car racing. I disagree with any of these other names. Stock cars and touring cars shouldn't be merged, even if they are both used to based on production vehicles. Royalbroil 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Touring & Stock car racing" would seem a reasonable name which avoids confusion. Juwe (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one in the U.S. will look for NASCAR if the section title isn't stock car racing - but it will say NASCAR right beside it. I think that's a touch OTT reaction. If word NASCAR was hidden, I'd agree, but it isn't. It's merely a recognition that there are two different words that mean the same thing. The goal here I believe was to make this smaller, to have two different lines for sedan based series seems non-sensical. It would be like having two different lines based on whether a league refers to itself as Association Football or Soccer. We merge GT and Protoypes into Sports Cars because its a catch all phrase, Sedan would perform a similar function and on the same basis. I'd be happy with Touring and Stock as well but there I do not believe there to be a justification to not merge. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what OTT means. And I meant that the template won't be useable for Americans, they'll find it pretty difficult to navigate. I don't think that the template is too high - we should be able to easily have both stock car and touring car lines. If it would HAVE to be merged (which I don't think it does), then the "touring & stock car racing" is a much better option than making up a name like saloon or sedan cars. There isn't even agreement in the English speaking world which is the preferred term. So it looks like there's no neutral term. Looking at the article sedan (automobile), it says that the car has 2 rows of seats. NASCAR has one racing seat for the driver and that's it. With the Car of Tomorrow, it is located more towards the center of the car than a traditional driver's seat. Royalbroil 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OTT - Over the top. I picked Sedan, because the article was titled Sedan rather than Saloon. And of course there are no racing cars with back seats, a reference to the origination vehicle rather than a race car, in the same way that a Le Mans Porsche 997 GT3 is substantionally different from a 997 road car. But I fail to see how it becomes hard to navigate, is it your contention that these Americans could not find the word 'NASCAR' left-most in the list line, and in acronym capitals no less, in the list above without the Stock Car in the Group Line next to it?

Are you saying that rough approximation is too hard to navigate? --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult. Most know NASCAR as NASCAR -- much like tissues are Kleenex and healing devices are Band-Aids. I could see the general category for this purpose as sedan racing. The combination of NASCAR and Touring Cars into a single article describing sedan racing (not sure if this is the direction going) is a no-no, though. WTCC and BTCC are very different than NASCAR/CASCAR. I would even place V8 Supercars as its own category. For template purposes I could see it called sedan racing, but stock car racing would be preferred. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sedan racing" can't be used because not all touring cars are sedans. There are lots of hatchbacks and a few station wagons (examples one, two). --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody happy for me to go ahead and cut down this template? Don't forget that whatever changes I make are not final. Petera93 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now cut down the template and given it a new title: 'International Motorsport in 2009'. This should help to make sure that it doesn't get less significant series added to it. I would have added Motorcross to it if there was actually a page on the 2009 season. For those NASCAR fans unhappy with just the Sprint Cup on there, could I suggest that you make a new template called 'NASCAR in 2009' featuring all the NASCAR series that were previously on this template. If you would like to make any changes to this template then please raise it here first. Petera93 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A. J. Foyt

User:Erika39 has controversially moved the article to Anthony Joseph Foyt. I have decided to dispute the move per WP:COMMONNAME. Please comment with your opinion about the name for his article at Talk:Anthony Joseph Foyt. Royalbroil 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep as most commonly known name. Everyone knows A.J. - nobody knows what A.J. stands for and would not look him up on that basis. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion closed after 9 hours with 12 supports to move and 0 opposes. Royalbroil 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

BTCC Drivers now in the WTCC (and other series) and their infoboxes

I believe that having the BTCC alumnus infobox rather than the Racing driver infobox for former btcc drivers now best known for their exploits in other series like the WTCC (e.g. Yvan Muller, Rob Huff etc.) is incorrect as it is better for their infobox to include details about their current career, rather than their past. Therefore I have changed Andy Priaulx's infobox, although I have kept his BTCC alumnus box below, albeit without info like name and image. Anyone with any objections to this before I go ahead and do this with Muller, Huff, Menu and many other drivers? Also, I could do this with former F1 drivers like Tiago Monteiro. Petera93 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Think you'd get a fight from the F1 folk, with F1 considered above all else and all. --Falcadore (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, consider Juan Pablo Montoya for example. If a driver is currently active it seems to make sense that the top infobox is their current series. If they are retired it should be that series in which they had the greatest degree of success. Pyrope 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Driver's results tables

Rather than the current Wikipedia format indicating a driver's placing, Autocourse and Motocourse indicate points earned as in the following John Surtees example. I don't think there will be much clamor for change, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.

Position	1	2	3	4	5	6
Points	8	6	4	3	2	1

Year	Class	Team	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Points	Rank	Wins
1952	500cc	MV Agusta	GER -	IOM 6	NED 8	BEL -	ULS -	NAT 3			17	3rd	1

Orsoni (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Although that is a valid point, I'm afraid that I'm not a fan of that system because it is not immediately clear where the driver finished in each race. Also, it would take forever to change it all. Therefore it should stay as it is.

Meanwhile, while we're on the subject of drivers results tables I have created one for World Touring Car Drivers here. I unfortunately haven't had the time to add this to any drivers yet, though as WTCC is only in its fifth season it won't be too hard to do if anyone would be interested in helping out. (Ignore the results already entered- these were just from where I copied it from Timo Scheider's page, and ignore the BRC points table as well.) Petera93 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The drama with the presentation format is how do you differentiate in the finishing order of those who finish outside of the points. 7th would look exactly the same as sixteenth - that shade of blue with a '0' in it. There are some series I would be in favour of it though, series like British Touring Car Championship, and V8 Supercar where points structure varies from race to race. It would have to be limited to those circumstance though. --Falcadore (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points.Orsoni (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Racing families

Shouldn't there be articles for racing families, like there are for political and other sorts of families? I would think a central clearing house for general information on the likes of the Brabhams would be a good idea. say... Brabham racing family or Brabham family. Or other similar families. (I should say there should be atleast three prominent members of the family... so there wouldn't be a Schumacher racing family article, since it's just two brothers...) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Perhaps long-winded (all links are to the "patriarch", if you will), but I agree on pages created for the Brabhams, and for the Andrettis, the Unsers, the Foyts (but I imagine info on AJ IV and Larry is on AJ's page), the Bettenhausens, the Villeneuves, the Scheckters, and the Davisons. Maybe The Mears Gang, the Fittipaldis, The Laziers, and (dare I suggest) The Whittington brothers?

In NASCAR, they would be The Earnhardts, The Pettys, The Allisons The Wallaces, The Jarretts, The Sauters, and The Bodines. Perhaps The Waltrips, The Bakers, The Labontes, The Marlins, The Greens, The Houstons, The Keselowskis, and The Woods.

There is a page devoted to this topic, but certainly racing's most prominent families should have a cumulative page (Andretti, Unser, Earnhardt, etc). On such a page for each family, perhaps a side-by-side comparison could be made between father and son or brother VS brother. 97.125.92.220 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for the various surnnames should be enough to handle this on a basic level. Additionally the varied members of a racing family each have very different racing careers which may not be easily comparable, and each racer should stand on their own merits anyway. And side-by-side comparison will be wading into WP:Original Research. --Falcadore (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But there are books on racing families, so it isn't necesssarily OR. And we have articles on political families, and you could say the same thing about the very different environments that each of the members of those families encountered.

In any case, we can do better than just a dab page - especially when members don't necessarily share a family name (ie. women's married names, maternal relations (such as in US politics, the Kennedy clan has politicos from the Fitzgeralds, and many female descendants with different family names, like Maria Shriver)), a {{SIA}} set index page can be built for racing families - SIA's allow redlinks and some basic descriptive information -- as a start before going full bore on family articles.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)I

If the side-by-side comparison isn't in the book, it would be. I believe it to be unnecessary, but my opinion has only the power you give it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Iffy. Could see purposes for famous racing families that have three or more members like the Earnhardts, Allisons, Pettys, Brabhams, Andrettis and Bettenhausens. The Bodines? True, there's Brett, Geoff and Todd, but honestly I would disagee with it unless we got into what's in the Chemung, N.Y. waters that brought them all to NASCAR. Would have to be inclusive of dynasties and more than simply a page discussing the fact they happen to all race. I would orient it more toward families with multiple generations racing (i.e. Marco Andretti and Jeffery Earnhardt getting into the top ranks of their series). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another concern I would have was that there would very likely to be a large amount of duplication in these articles of information from articles based on the individual drivers. The end result of one of these family pages would have to be markedly different from the individual driver articles, and it would have to be an articles on the family, rather than on the individual members of the family. A case like the Brabhams would be difficult as each of the five (Matthew Brabham is beginning to verge on notability) of them have had completely divergent careers with little in common. --Falcadore (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula Two driver infobox template

An editor has created {{F2 driver}} and put it in the Kazimieras Vasiliauskas article. Is this template really needed, or is it redundant to {{Infobox racing driver}}?--Midgrid(talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I think it's a gppd idea. Formula Two is the second thing after Formula One and if we want people to know about Formula Two, we need to give them more information... - TrickOrDeath 14:53, May 31, 2009 (UTC)

But what new information does a separate template provide that justifies its existence? And if you're proposing that the F2-specific infobox should remain in the article once a driver leaves the series, then this is not (usually) the case with similar-level championships such as International Formula 3000 and the GP2 Series: all are covered by the Infobox racing driver template.--Midgrid(talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary, and as User:Midgrid states, it is all covered by the original infobox template. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. It would only have a use if it didn't actually have the 'team' section, because I don't really like having MotorsportVision every time, but its just not needed. On a similar theme, what do we think of the BTCC Driver template (Template:BTCC driver), because what useful information (i.e. more than just a nickname) does that cover that isn't in the standard Racing Driver infobox? In fact, the standard template is actually more useful as it has the driver's racing history. I'm a massive BTCC fan- but I don't think it needs its own driver template. Petera93 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe its sufficiently notable to justify it. It most definitely does not operate on the same level as F3000/GP2 as one rung below F1. Probably around the same level as WSR or EuroF3 really. --Falcadore (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Spainsh GP2 Race

Hello everyone. A user has created the 2009 Spainsh GP2 Race, which I have nominated for deletion due to the precedent of deleting and redirecting articles about individual World Series by Renault races. Any input would be welcomed.--Midgrid(talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

stats FYI

User talk:Mr.Z-man is working on something that will provide us with some stats. on page views along the lines of:

• stats.grok.se

He's working on this for June - so maybe by next month we'll be able to see what articles are getting the most traffic. He also mentioned that he'll be doing this for WP:NASCAR. Just an FYI on future improvements. — Ched :  ?  21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD: World Le Mans Series

User:The359 has nominated for deletion the article World Le Mans Series I've created. Please join the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Season templates for everything other than F1

I've just discovered that in F1 there used to be a template for the teams and drivers for each year - until it was decided to just have the one Template:Formula One teams and change it each year. IndyCar already has a similar system. Should the rest of motorsport not follow suit and just have one template, for example: Template:BTCC teams and drivers (and it would include tracks), rather than Template:BTCC 2008 and Template:BTCC 2009? Thoughts? Petera93 (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of each series only having a single template which is updated every year, as described above. I raised the issue that the BTCC templates are inconsistent with most other series in this regard at WikiProject British Motorsport back in 2007 but received no response. With regard to the comment that "in F1 there used to be a template for the teams and drivers for each year" - since I joined WP:F1 back in 2006, there's only ever been the one template (Template:Formula One teams) which has been updated every year - this is supported by the template's revision history which goes all the way back to 2004. Admittedly the template was renamed to "Template:2008 Formula One teams" from early November 2007 to early January 2008 - an editor renamed the template without discussion and it took a couple of months for the name to be changed back. DH85868993 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I'd just seen that the 2008 template had been renamed and assumed this was a change from the norm. I only joined back in February so I just had to go by looking at previous discussions. Petera93 (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it's sometimes difficult to follow the history of articles unless you "were there at the time". DH85868993 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of expanding/merging Infobox racing driver

Most templates found in Category:Racecar driver infobox templates are very similar to each other. Except those Nascar ones, which are full of particular details as we could expect in an English-language encyclopedia, I believe that the rest can be merged into Template:Infobox racing driver:

• Personal information like name, image, place and date of birth, nationality etc are already found in the top of the template.
• In the section about the last series' details, we could add "cars" (very relevant in most racing forms), "podium finishes" (or "top 5 finishes" depending on series), "first/last race", "first/last win", "co-driver" and "stage wins", (for rally drivers) and "championship points". Actually, I find the latter field irrelevant, since most championships change the points system every few seasons.
• Most important of all, there should be at least three championship sections, for drivers such as Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Pablo Montoya who raced in nearly major racing series.

I've created an example here. What do you think? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula Two

I've noticed the Formula Two season pages from 1967 to 1984 don't make references to non-championship races (which started in 1964, not 67), or to the Trophées de France, Autocar F2 Championship and Temporada Series which ran to F2 regulations in the mid to late 60s. Should these have their own articles or do they work better in the respective European Formula Two season article? --Pc13 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Autocar, Trophee de France and Temporada could each justify their own article, once there's enough material on them. I'm not sure about the non-championship races. Perhaps they should be included with whichever ever series seems natural (i.e. British ones in the right period with the British F2 series, French ones in the right period with the French F2 series, other European ones of the right period with the European F2 series etc)? 4u1e (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Haven

If anyone knows anything about the commentator Martin Haven feel free to add it, as i've done a lot of it from memory, and that doesn't go back very far. Thanks Petera93(talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Category: Numbers on Racing Cars?

I'm a bit puzzled by this. On the wikipedia commons there appears to be a collection of numbers on racing car categories there. For certain numbers, such as "0", I would agree with there being a category as zero is a rather strange number to encounter on a racing car and arguably number one as well. I don't quite understand, what purpose these categories satisfy exactly? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A question to be asked on a Commons talk page rather than here I would have thought. --Falcadore (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but my logic was that more people would be able to see it here than on the commons, no? ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was very strange to see numbers added to images that I uploaded on Commons. I don't understand how that grouping is useful for an image repository. How many readers will use car number as a searching index? Royalbroil 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost no-one I would have thought. I had a think and these were the only examples I could think of: 0 (Damon Hill for two years in F1), 27 (Gilles Villeneuve for 2 years in F1 and Jacques Villeneuve in Indycar), and Greg Moore's 99 in Indycar. I really can't imagine many people wanting to search on that basis though. 4u1e (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting Jody Scheckter carried the number zero as well, 4u1e. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Userboxes for your User Page

I've created some userboxes on my user page to show what racing series I follow, and therefore contribute to. Feel free to use these on your user page or create your own for the series that I have left out. A selection of them are below. Thanks MotorsportPete93 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

F1This user follows Formula One

BTCCThis user follows the British Touring Car Championship

WTCCThis user follows the World Touring Car Championship

WRCThis user follows the World Rally Championship

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Motorsport to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 Curitiba World Touring Car Championship round for deletion?

Do you believe that the User:F1season's article is relevant enough? I believe it's not. NaBUru38 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself needs some work, but I believe a race event from a series of World Championhsip status is highly relevant. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly agree that WTCC is under represented. We have four articles up on individual rounds of the 1987 WTCC (and a brand new User Infobox just two items above this section!), why not the 2008 WTCC, or even better the 2009 WTCC? And should not the name of the article be Race of Brazil? --Falcadore (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right Falcadore with the name, I think it should be 2008 WTCC Race of Brazil. I'm happy to do articles about the 2009 season. Should I include support race (F2, IFM, Leon Eurocup etc.) data? In fact could we give races their proper titles, e.g. 2009 FIA WTCC HSBC Race of Brazil? MotorsportPete93 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just created 2009 FIA WTCC Race of Portugal MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you get too carried away, driver and team articles need much work. 2008 Curitiba World Touring Car Championship round in its current condition could fail, certainly needs some prose added and some citations. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this WP:NOTABLE though? OK, it may have "World" in its name - but is it picked up by mainstream media that can justify its notability? D.M.N. (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's broadcast live on Eurosport. Is that enough? --Pc13 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With very active domestic touring car series across Wiki and a rich category history dating back into the 1960s under its predeccor name the ETCC and with factory backed team efforts from four manufacturers, one of them from a developing motoring manufacturer nation, and who headline their own race meetings, I believe so, although it will require some more enthusiastic editting than presently available, and some priority should be shifted to expansion of team and driver articles first like RML certainly and definately BMW Team UK.

I don't really believe notability is the biggest problem. Individual rounds could be justifiably removed, especially if it is just a list of results, while articles on series, drivers and teams are improved and/or created. Certainly the page in question is deleteable as it carries no information other than the finishing order.

My opinions however have only the power you give them. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are race report-type articles on series far less notable that this one! If someone wants to spend the time to do an article and they use reliable sources - then let them. I suggest NOT getting people's opinion about whether or not a topic is notable - use the notability guideline. Per Wikipedia:Notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute. Just meet the following sentence: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If you have significant coverage in reliable independent sources, then you have a valid topic. AFD regulars will base their opinion on these 2 sentences. Royalbroil 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is worthy of more coverage on Wikipedia. It is the thrid FIA World Championship and at the moment probably gets less coverage than V8 Supercars or FIA GT. The manufacturer presence is also of significance. The Porto round is still work in progress by the way. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that sentence, Royalbroil. If I'm not mistaken, several media outiside Eurosport have covered the WTCC, so under that definition the issue is notable indeed. Actually, my view is that one article per season is enough, even for Formula One. But I'm very late to the party, of course, so et's go ahead with articles on WTCC races. I'd go for "2008 WTCC Race of Brazil" as the right title format - we don't use sponsor names for non-American races. However, some countries receive more than one race per season, so that may cause trouble. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Imola's race last year was 'Race of Europe'. In previous years I think it was 'Race of San Marino'. This year it's 'Race of Italy' anyway. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [4]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Formula BMW GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Formula BMW for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Brabham BT46 GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Brabham BT46 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)