Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Race Article Names
Not sure if this is the correct place, but have noticed that articles on Australian races seem to include the sponsor's name. 2013 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000, 2013 Wilson Security Sandown 500 etc. Looking at articles for similar events 2013 British Grand Prix, 2013 Grand National, 2013 Kentucky Derby etc they seem to omit any references to sponsors in the article names.
Given that the title sponsors do turn over, is there a reason why the Australian articles have adopted a different naming convention? V7867 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds the same as NASCAR in the United States. Check out the subcategories of Category:NASCAR races by series. Royalbroil 05:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some races have a generic name like the Bathurst 1000, but the majority of V8 Supercar events, like NASCAR do not. Unlike Formula One who has had a constant naming since the beginning. A different standard required different naming procedure. --Falcadore (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The IndyCar Series also follows the same pattern, where applicable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some races have a generic name like the Bathurst 1000, but the majority of V8 Supercar events, like NASCAR do not. Unlike Formula One who has had a constant naming since the beginning. A different standard required different naming procedure. --Falcadore (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Adelaide 500, Tasmania 360, Auckland 400, Perth 360, Austin 400, Darwin Triple Crown, Townsville 400, Ipswich 360, Sandown 500, Bathurst 1000, Gold Coast 600, Phillip Island 360, Sydney 500. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some of those names are only around some year or so old and are unrepresentative of the individual races history. Certainly COMMONNAME would be difficult to establish. Auckland 400 and Ipswich 360 in particular as the majority of their history they've been known as the V8 International and the Queensland insert-distance-here. And Darwin Triple Crown has NEVER been used as a race name. Making names up is certainly something to be avoided. --Falcadore (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Adelaide 500, Tasmania 360, Auckland 400, Perth 360, Austin 400, Darwin Triple Crown, Townsville 400, Ipswich 360, Sandown 500, Bathurst 1000, Gold Coast 600, Phillip Island 360, Sydney 500. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople
FYI, Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople had been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. (I thought this category may be of interest to members of the project as numerous racing drivers fall into the category). DH85868993 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear racing enthusiasts: Here's an old draft that was never submitted at Afc to be added to the encyclopedia. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- He's marginal. He finished 14th, near the bottom of the 2012 Star Mazda Championship season points. Many of the drivers above him in points have an article. Here's a good reliable source with a reprint of a marketing piece [1]. Royalbroil 05:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I have added the source. By editing it, I have given the draft a 6 month extension to give time for someone to work on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that he's relevant, in my opinion it should be deleted. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Relevant" isn't how we count things here, "notable" is. However, I don't think there's notability here - I'm not sure how Star Mazda compares to the various European Formula series that are considered notable, but I'd rank it, based just on this side of the pond, as being belowthe point where "competing in the series confers notability" kicks in (which would be, IMHO, at Indy Lights...) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to all of you who took the time to look a this. It will hang around for a while since I edited it, but fade away eventually. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Relevant" isn't how we count things here, "notable" is. However, I don't think there's notability here - I'm not sure how Star Mazda compares to the various European Formula series that are considered notable, but I'd rank it, based just on this side of the pond, as being belowthe point where "competing in the series confers notability" kicks in (which would be, IMHO, at Indy Lights...) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that he's relevant, in my opinion it should be deleted. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Azerbaijan Grand Prix
Azerbaijan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment at the deletion discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
New driver infobox
OK, you may remember that a while ago, I suggested we overhaul the Template:Infobox racing driver, because it is quite sloppy and outdated when it comes to the formatting on "previous series", "championships" and "awards" (you have to separate everything with
tags). Well, I've finally decided to do an updated version, which is currently userfied at User:Lukeno94/Template:Infobox racing driver v2 - it gives us the ability to separate out 40 different racing series, 20 championship titles and 20 awards as it stands, in a manner similar to what the Template:Infobox football biography uses. Now, I'm a complete novice at this sort of thing, so I would appreciate any constructive comments here. I hope that we can adopt something at least similar to this template, and move on past our current one, which hasn't been majorly updated since 2011, whilst still using the same very basic format that it did back in 2007. I've also written an updated documentation page for my proposed template. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also removed the engine, crew chief and spotter parts from the template, as very few articles appear to use these. However, I left their IDs free, so they can be readded without a problem, if people think they should be readded. In theory, the template should also be backwards-compatible, when excluding those three parts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Any open wheeler category would use engine. Crew Chief and Spotter belong specifically to NASCAR drivers. These infoboxes have quite a few seemingly surplus categories but that is to make it a suitable catch-all infobox usable for every category in racing where the emphasis is on different statistics in different categories. For example - podiums is a meaningless statistic in North American racing because their podiums are for winners only. Second and third are not recognised in the same manner as elsewhere. --Falcadore (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll happily readd them if enough people want, as I said, but I'll note that I've never seen an open-wheeler category article use the engine section (and I deliberately checked several recent IRL drivers as well). NASCAR now has its own infobox, so we probably don't need to cater for those drivers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The original author of the driver infobox regularly goes around putting TFDs on the other infoboxes and has had more than half of them deleted. I wouldn't say its guaranteed the NASCAR box will stay. --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite meaningless, Falcadore - open-wheel racing uses the "Podiums" stat quite extensively over here, indeed that IS the standard stat for IndyCar and CART (See for instance Scott Dixon's page at Racing-Reference and {{Infobox Champ Car driver}}). Now as for this box, I'd suggest including not just it, but also a "top 10s" line, as that's a standard stat across virtually all series. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be surprised if he managed to get rid of the NASCAR infobox though, because that's quite a good one. I'm certainly not averse to adding in a "podiums" bit, although I probably would personally draw the line at "top 10s" (some series didn't necessarily get 10 entries in every event, and it's a bit arbitrary: finishing in the top 10 in a field of 12 or 14 is meaningless, whilst finishing in the top 10 in a field of 30 or 40 means a lot more). I'll put in whatever consensus wants me to. I could also take a leaf out of the football infobox and, for the previous series, have a "races" and "wins" for each series, if that's what people want. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it might be a bit arbitrary, but it's what everyone uses as a benchmark - compare to a baseball pitcher, for instance, "Wins" would be the "Wins-Losses", while "Top 10s" would be the stastical equivilant of "ERA" - it's a stat you simply don't see not given. It's the top five in my experience that is the "expendable" stat, because in series which track podiums (aka most open-wheel series and I think many sports-car series) it's rather silly, while in those that don't (which usually list top 5's instead) counting podiums would be WP:SYNTH. So IMHO "Wins", "Podiums" with a <!-- Comment --> that "only for series that track this stat", Top 10s, and Poles would be the best "positional" thingies to include. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Should we begin the switch to my template then, and continue to discuss extra fields once it is live? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite meaningless, Falcadore - open-wheel racing uses the "Podiums" stat quite extensively over here, indeed that IS the standard stat for IndyCar and CART (See for instance Scott Dixon's page at Racing-Reference and {{Infobox Champ Car driver}}). Now as for this box, I'd suggest including not just it, but also a "top 10s" line, as that's a standard stat across virtually all series. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The original author of the driver infobox regularly goes around putting TFDs on the other infoboxes and has had more than half of them deleted. I wouldn't say its guaranteed the NASCAR box will stay. --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Any open wheeler category would use engine. Crew Chief and Spotter belong specifically to NASCAR drivers. These infoboxes have quite a few seemingly surplus categories but that is to make it a suitable catch-all infobox usable for every category in racing where the emphasis is on different statistics in different categories. For example - podiums is a meaningless statistic in North American racing because their podiums are for winners only. Second and third are not recognised in the same manner as elsewhere. --Falcadore (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Bumping to prevent archiving. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Center-align numbers
There is a bit of a minor dispute brewing at 2014 GP2 Series season and 2014 GP3 Series season over the use of the centre alignment of the numbers column in the teams and drivers table. Looking through other motorsport season articles, the majority of recent ones have it, but older articles do not. It is also inconsistent from category to category; GP2 and GP3 do not do it, but WRC and V8 Supercars do. The primary argument against it on the GP2 and GP3 Series articles seems to be that other articles do not do it, and that it makes the coding too complex.
Is there some kind of consensus on this? I feel that there should be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
AfD: March 92S
I have nominated the new article March 92S for deletion. This article to me shows a troubling shift in what is considered notable. It's well established that we have articles on racing cars that never raced, however this article goes a step further in that the March 92S never existed in a physical form. It was merely a design and plan that went under with March when they went bankrupt. Now, cars that were built and never raced were also plans that never came to fruition, but how far can we take this? History has the USF1 Type-1 being merged into the US F1 Team article after that plan was never completed, despite that design actually progressing further in that (a) car part was built and tested. Now, granted, notability could possibly be established for some major projects that failed, but certainly simply being a plan for a major league car from a major league developer does not equate to notability. The359 (Talk) 05:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator needs to read WP:HOUND, WP:BEFORE, and didn't even bother notifying me about the deletion discussion. How sad that you have sunk so low. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The notice was brought up here, and I knew you'd see it either from the article itself or here. No need to be redundant. The359 (Talk) 07:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's bollocks, and you know it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, OK, I'm trying to hide it from you. Totally makes sense. Clearly my cunning plan has failed miserably. The359 (Talk) 07:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The snark is another pathetic tactic from you, and I never said you were trying to hide it from me. You are supposed to nominate the article creator, unless they are a blocked sock or something else, simple as that. Posting on a WikiProject talk page is not the same, and is easily missed. (Also, the way you wrote the initial comment borders on WP:CANVASS...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Asking the group as a whole how they feel about the notability of failed projects is canvassing now? The359 (Talk) 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- You mean, attempting to lean very hard on people to suggest that it should be deleted? The AfD debate is the place for notability discussions, not here. Something else you know full well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Come again? Wikiproject is not the place to establish a guideline for notability? The359 (Talk) 08:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, right here is where notability discussions should take place. Whether or not an individual article is a notable subject is for the AfD. That said, the initial notification here was non-neutral, which makes it canvassing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's a subject matter that hasn't come up before. The AFD is simply the springboard for it. How can I offer an opinion on the notability on the subject matter in general without also bringing up the AFD as it is the only example? The359 (Talk) 08:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Come again? Wikiproject is not the place to establish a guideline for notability? The359 (Talk) 08:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Asking the group as a whole how they feel about the notability of failed projects is canvassing now? The359 (Talk) 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, OK, I'm trying to hide it from you. Totally makes sense. Clearly my cunning plan has failed miserably. The359 (Talk) 07:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The notice was brought up here, and I knew you'd see it either from the article itself or here. No need to be redundant. The359 (Talk) 07:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thai GP?
Thai Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion; is there a non-F1 GP? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. --Falcadore (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
For a long long time the title and usage of the team name Oreca has been as such, despite the name being written in numerous places as ORECA. It's well known for manufacturers and teams to capitalize their titles for promotional purposes (see a lot of Japanese motorsports). The team name is however in fact an acronym (Organisation Exploitation Compétition Automobiles), something I myself did not realize until recently. So the question is, should our usage of the team name be changed to ORECA, or is the use of Oreca fine? I realize this will require a ton of changes, but it's been bugging me a bit as I see ORECA used more and more. The359 (Talk) 21:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that regardless of real-world useage, the Manual of Style dictates (or is held to dictate) that the lowercase form of the word is supposed to be used. (Yes, this is just a little bit of a sore spot with me, but there you go...) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the correct section of the MOS on abbreviations, since Oreca can be pronounced as a word rather than spelled out as individual letters, it should be lowercase, is that the MOS you were referring to? The359 (Talk) 22:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty sure. I'm mostly familiar with "MOS vs acutal uses" from song/band names, and a bit from bird names, but that's where it comes from. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the correct section of the MOS on abbreviations, since Oreca can be pronounced as a word rather than spelled out as individual letters, it should be lowercase, is that the MOS you were referring to? The359 (Talk) 22:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
Request for comment
There has been a long debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season on wether or not to remove the official race titles from the season calendar on the Formula one season articles. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport experts: Here's an old Afc submission that is related to this project. Is this a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a racing team, so WP:NMOTORSPORT doesn't apply; from a quick check I don't think it meets WP:GNG, and the AfC as it stands is somewhat spammy. I'd reccomend WP:BLOWITUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it was poor and probably wouldn't have survived AFD. Royalbroil 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's gone! Tnanks for checking it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it was poor and probably wouldn't have survived AFD. Royalbroil 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
New Project Page
Hello,
I was wondering if users were allowed to create a new Motorsports WikiProject that isn't listed? I was interested in seeing one specifically for Dirt Motorsports but don't see any of the projects here that relates to dirt track racing. I'd like to create articles about dirt modifieds, dirt sportsman, sprint cars, etc and tracks and topics associate with that form of racing and try to get others involved to expand the articles and subjects relating to dirt track racing.
Just wondering anyone's thoughts on this.
Thanks for any info.
Jeff Lambert (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like an interesting idea to me, but do you think it'd be fine as well if the scope becomes slightly more general with non-asphalt racing, with off-road racing topics also included? NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how much relation there would be between other types of off-road racing and dirt track racing. Dirt track racing is more closely related to NASCAR, while off-road racing is closer to rallying, both of which have their own projects.
- As for starting your own WikiProject, there is absolutely nothing preventing someone from creating one. However, keep in mind how popular your subject might be. A WP:TASKFORCE might be better suited for this subject, similar to our Touring Cars task force. The359 (Talk) 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
True...I guess if it were more popular then there would already be a project relating to dirt track racing. I will keep writing and updating existing pages and see if the popularity grows. Hopefully some people who might be interest begin with their own edits and contributions.
Thanks guys.
Jeff Lambert (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Very interesting. I consider off-road racing (both desert and short course) to be a type of dirt racing and not related to rallying (on-road racing). I work on dirt articles. I don't think there's enough interest to warrant a WikiProject or even a taskforce for the few people who would be interested. Drop me a note on my talkpage anytime if I can be of any assistance to you! I've been to a bunch of Wisconsin dirt tracks and have tons of photographs. Royalbroil 03:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that the Rally Acropolis, Argentina and Safari are very close to the Silk Way, Abu Dhabi Desert Challenge and Dakar Rally. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Historic F1 Championships
Am I right in thinking that the FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship is the continuation of the Historic Formula One Championship (as suggested by this webpage)? If so, then I think the two articles should be merged. DH85868993 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite. Ron Maydon's Masters Series took over the running of the FIA-sanctioned series when TGP went out of business (old website on the Wayback Machine), but he's been running his own F1 series, previously called Grand Prix Masters (Forum mention), since 2004. --Pc13 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- So are there still two championships, or just one now? (I'm confused because Historic Formula One Championship lists 2013 champions in "pre-1978" and "post-1978" classes, yet the "Class System" section makes reference to pre- and post-1971 cars - and FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship talks about pre- and post-1972 classes). DH85868993 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's just one. Those 2013 champions are Masters champions, not TGP F1/HFO, they shouldn't be listed in the HFO article. I don't have a list for Masters champions before they were given FIA status. But the 2013 season is the first one where the FIA gave their title to the Masters series, and TGP/HFO went out of business after the 2012 season. --Pc13 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. I have transferred the 2013 champions from Historic Formula One Championship to FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship and updated the text in Historic Formula One Championship to describe the relationship with FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's just one. Those 2013 champions are Masters champions, not TGP F1/HFO, they shouldn't be listed in the HFO article. I don't have a list for Masters champions before they were given FIA status. But the 2013 season is the first one where the FIA gave their title to the Masters series, and TGP/HFO went out of business after the 2012 season. --Pc13 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- So are there still two championships, or just one now? (I'm confused because Historic Formula One Championship lists 2013 champions in "pre-1978" and "post-1978" classes, yet the "Class System" section makes reference to pre- and post-1971 cars - and FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship talks about pre- and post-1972 classes). DH85868993 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport fans: Here's another one of those old Afc submissions that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. If anyone here thinks that this is a notable topic and wants to work on it, now would be the time. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason to keep it. Very few individual motor vehicles are recognised as being independently noteworthy. One that has only competed in a domestic series and has little reknown outside of its own sport would not seem to meet that. Looks like WP:Fancruft to me. The contents could perhaps be merged into Jimmie Smith (drag racer) if he is sufficiently noteworthy for an article. --Falcadore (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's gone now. Thanks for checking it out for me. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was promoted to FA in 2007 when standards were considerably looser than they are now. It is due to run as TFA on 11 June. There is a need for more citations, especially in the 1974–77: Shadow section. Can any of you help? It would be good to have this looking its best before it appears on the front page. --John (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Motorsport At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Flags in sport articles
The use of flags in sport articles is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Proposed_change_to_MOSFLAG_for_sport_articles, in case anyone is interested. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- How is it going? --Falcadore (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion seems to have petered out - the last comment was 6 days ago. As far as I can tell, there was no clear consensus. DH85868993 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- One thing that came out of it is User:Sillyfolkboy/Resources/MOS:SportsFlag as a proposal that may or may not go forward. My shot at a summary of the discussion:
- 1. Some uses of flags in Wikiprojects Tennis, Football and Formula One (mostly in rosters and lists where space is at a premium, where flags are used without country names, and where the bearer is not representing the country in the sport) are recognized to be NOT in comformance to the current MOS.
- 2. It is argued that those uses are in line with the regular practice in the sports and their coverage by the media, and the MOS needs to be amended to reflect the reality. To serve the readers better in reflecting what they expect, "Wikipedia shouldn't be held hostage to MOS". Sports field need more elbow room to signify the nationalities of the players that are often notable in those competitions that are not in country-against-country format.
- 3. Opponents argue the limited flag-use in MOS is the agreed style just like what's on the left frame, or the tabs, on this page covering the entire main name-space on en-Wiki, and it has been the minimum standard that shouldn't be changed for a few Projects. No flag should be used to indicate the bearer's own nationality (rather than the representing country in the sport/event that is a competition among national teams).
- It is clear that there is no consensus, but the above point #1 may come back haunting. Yiba (talk | contribs) 12:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear racing fans: This is a new submission at Afc. Is this fellow a notable driver? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not that familiar with how F3000 is usually regarded on the sliding scale of conferring notability, but my gut tells me "probably not". - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Two podiums in British F3000, but zero points in FIA F3000. Sounds iffy to me. And the whole chiropractic section is unreferenced. --Pc13 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I intended to remove most of the chiropractic stuff if the motorsport part was kept.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)- Oops, sorry, I forgot, this is not an abandoned Afc, but a fresh one, so instead the Afc reviewers will call for the editor to add references to the chiropractic content. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, International F3000 was the equivilant of old Formula Two and modern GP2, so it's one step below Formula One. That's still a fairly elite group to be in, in terms of international motor sport, even if he had no success. The359 (Talk) 23:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- ...hm. If IF3000 is at that level, then he should be "considered notable for competing" then. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely notable since he competed in International F3000. Will need that section about him being a chiropractor removed though. -Drdisque (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's in mainspace now; perhaps the removal of the chiropractic section was too complete - lots of sports figures have second careers after retirement, and while there may be no need to go on about it, a mention might be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello motor sport experts! Here's a page that has just been submitted at Afc. It may be of interest to the editors here. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- While the reference section is a bit atrocious, the subject is notable (meets WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 and the "has competed in a professional sport at the highest level" criterion of WP:NSPORT basic). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a comment to this effect on the submission. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe, given it isn't a BLP, it's "good enough" to be moved to mainspace. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's now at Jim Parsley. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe, given it isn't a BLP, it's "good enough" to be moved to mainspace. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a comment to this effect on the submission. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"sportscar" v "sports car"
I invite interested editors to comment at Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#"sportscar" v "sports car" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. DH85868993 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:South American racing series templates
Category:South American racing series templates has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Motorsport At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"first year" field in Template:Infobox racing driver
Can someone confirm the correct use of the "first year" field in {{Infobox racing driver}}? My understanding was that the field should be populated with just the first year in which the driver competed in their current series. However, recently I've noticed numerous articles where the field is populated by the year, followed by a dash - see Rio Haryanto as an example. I wanted to check that my understanding was correct before updating any articles. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the first year data is displayed next to a title stating "Debut season", having the dash makes no sense at all. I suspect this is one single editor (who is editing through a mobile interface, by the look of it, so may not have full functionality) who has simply misunderstood the structure of the box. Pyrope 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I've left a message at the editor's talk page. I have removed the dashes added by that editor (I think I got them all). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Liam Dwyer
Does Liam Dwyer, a soldier and current CTSCC driver, seem notable enough for creation? I currently have the article written at User:ZappaOMati/Liam Dwyer. Zappa24Mati 04:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! ZappaOMati I think that Conti Challenge and SCCA World Challenge drivers aren't notable. However, there are already articles for some of them. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- @NaBUru38: Looking at WP:NMOTORSPORT, yeah, I doubt CTSCC drivers are notable, but I felt like his story (him losing a leg and yet still racing) could've allowed him to gain notability. I guess I'll hold off on moving it to mainspace until he moves up. Zappa24Mati 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Clay Regazzoni, Alessandro Zanardi, Jason Watt all lost their legs or the use of their legs and kept on racing, although they were already famous before it happened. --Pc13 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @NaBUru38: Looking at WP:NMOTORSPORT, yeah, I doubt CTSCC drivers are notable, but I felt like his story (him losing a leg and yet still racing) could've allowed him to gain notability. I guess I'll hold off on moving it to mainspace until he moves up. Zappa24Mati 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Remember that if WP:GNG is passed, WP:NMOTORSPORT is irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I saw cars from that lower level sports car series at Road America and I wouldn't expect most of them to be notable. But you have proven GNG if you ask me since you have cited articles from several of the largest sports networks in the USA. I'd go for it. Royalbroil 04:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Just putting it out there...
I have had an admittedly radical idea in that we should possibly create an Off-Road Racing WikiProject. I know that this has been debated before but it could see decent use as a lot of articles that would fall under that banner (namely Rallycross and its' spin-offs) need a clean up. Holdenman05 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree - I don't think there's any interest. The short-course off-road racing articles that I wrote for major US drivers aren't being edited by regular contributors. This isn't even worthy of a task force. Royalbroil 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Holdenman05, if you find other editors interested in off-road racing, you are welcome to create a taskforce. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks but it sounds like there wouldn't be enough support for the project. I'd bet you that a Formula E taskforce would be a lot better off than an off-road racing one, but I'm not a betting man. Actually, that sounds like a good idea now that I think of it... Holdenman05 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Holdenman05, if you find other editors interested in off-road racing, you are welcome to create a taskforce. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2016 F1 Season Article
On the talk page of the 2015 Formula One season I have requested for a vote on the creation of the 2016 Formula One season. At the moment this cannot be created as some overexcited Wikipedian has made it one too many times. Once we reach a majority conclusion further action can be taken if necessary. Please submit your vote ASAP. Thanks. Holdenman05 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to have a read of [2] before going any further. --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport enthusiasts: This race car designer and driver has been deemed notable by the editors here. I have been fixing up this draft, but as a musician I am out of my depth. Many of the references are not on line and I don't have access to them to place the citations. Also, I don't understand the terminology being used in the mechanical descriptions, so I can't rephrase them for more general reading, and I can't tell which details may be excessive. The references that I have been able to check were okay, so I placed citations, I hope appropriately. Would someone like to take a crack at improving it? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Link ElectroSystems
There is an AFD for this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link ElectroSystems. The company is an NZ company that makes a form of engine management system. Is it notable or not? NealeFamily (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. I'm not sure if this is a notable topic, and even so it will take some TLC to make it into an article. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The driver appears to look notable as an Indy 500 driver. It just needs an awful lot of cleanup. NFLisAwesome 16:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have made a start on cleaning it up, and I found a few of the references on line and linked them. Knowing nothing about racing, though, I can't tell if there are items that should just be left out as excessive detail., or what facts might be considered controversial. If anyone has the urge to pick away at it, please do. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear racing experts: Here's another of those old abandoned AfC submissions . I have tried to add some citations, but I really don't know which sites are reliable in this field. Is this a notable driver, and should the draft be improved and added to the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- He is notable. Article needs some work but since he drove in British F3 he is notable. -Drdisque (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drdisque. By adding sources I have delayed its deletion for six months, so hopefully someone will take an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, motor sport experts. This old AfC submission seems to be about a notable driver. Is it ready for mainspace? I've been de-fluffing it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Normally he wouldn't qualify just based on racing in that series. However, he has been extremely successful in that series, enough to clearly pass the GNG. I think this article is ready. -Drdisque (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drdisque. It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Request for input
There's a discussion in progress at WP:Australian Motorsport regarding the naming of ATCC/V8 Supercar event articles. The discussion has been in progress for 10 days and so far only two us have participated (and we have opposing views), so we'd like some input from other editors. If you feel you could contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian motorsport#Naming of ATCC/V8SC Event Articles. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
There is an editor - User:Therock9998 - who is causing ongoing disruption to a group of articles and I am at a loss with how to deal with him as he completely ignores all attempts to communicate with him, and continues to edit his version back into articles. And because he does not know how to table edit, and ignores offers of assistance, the results look hideous, like this. I am asking for help with this issue, either as a new voice to talk to this editor or for recomendations how to progress. --Falcadore (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- What a mess he leaves. I have blocked for a month and advised that when he comes back, any similar editing risks an indefinite block. Moriori (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed change to wiki markup for motorsport results tables
Hi WikiProject Motorsport. The wiki markup used to produce the background colour in most motorsport results tables (bgcolor="#XXXXXX") is no longer valid HTML and as a result doesn't work properly on mobile devices (no background colour is displayed). There is a proposal at WikiProject Formula One to get a bot to update the markup for all the articles within that WikiProject's scope. I'm letting this project know (a) so that you won't be surprised/confused if you suddenly see lots of articles being updated and are wondering why and (b) just in case you know of a reason why this would be a bad idea. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Bot request. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Formula E WikiProject?
As the FE championship is due to begin on this Saturday, I think we have left it a little late to create a WikiProject for this new series. Still, better late than never - BTW I have already started the 2014 Beijing ePrix article, but it uses an F1 Grand Prix infobox, which isn't ideal as in the box it is titled 2014 Beijing Grand Prix. Who is with me here? Holdenman05 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Does it really need a whole WikiProject? I point out the cautionary tale of the A1GP and Superleague Formula projects. What specifically needs to be organized and planned out for this series? Is there a specific MOS for this series that differs from other series covered by WP:MOTOR? The359 (Talk) 10:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, a taskforce then - and grow it into a WikiProject once the time is right. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that only a taskforce is required at this stage. BTW, I've fixed the infobox title, by using the "GP_Suffix" parameter. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'll start something up and we'll go from there. Holdenman05 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that only a taskforce is required at this stage. BTW, I've fixed the infobox title, by using the "GP_Suffix" parameter. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, a taskforce then - and grow it into a WikiProject once the time is right. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Red-linked articles on the list of Wikipedia:Most-wanted_articles
Hi, I am very unfamiliar with your Project's notability guidelines, but, for some reason, a few of the most commonly red-linked articles on the most recent (actually not so recent - it's from December 2013) listing of the "most wanted" articles on Wikipedia are race car drivers, motorcycle racers, and rally co-drivers (navigators?). Could someone from this Project (or one of it's sub-Projects) have a look at some of these names to see if these articles really need to be on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. DeLuca is listed as having raced with the NNJR group in the Sports Car Club of America and may be important to that group.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph DeLuca (racing driver) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Your input is welcomed and you are encouraged to join the conversation. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Taram (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport experts: Here is yet another old abandoned draft about a racer. Is this a notable driver? If so, I am willing to do some cleanup for NPOV. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there isn't enough there to establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, nothing notable. Feel free to delete. -Drdisque (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Motorsport experts: This old draft was never submitted to be included in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable driver, or should to page be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- He's notable, after the Star Mazda Championship, which is mentioned in the article, he drove in Formula Renault 2.0 NEC in 2013 and ATS Formel 3 Cup in 2014, all of which are notable series. However the draft is so bad it would essentially need to be completely rewritten though. I'm fine with deleting it but if you generally keep these things for subjects for which an article could be written, I'm OK with that too. -Drdisque (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drdisque; I have made a start at rewriting the article, but I am handicapped by knowing nothing at all about auto racing. I found some references which look okay and added them to the article, but I may have created some misinformation accidentally. I added some refs at the bottom that I didn't know what to do with.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, it is in mainspace now at Andrés Méndez. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drdisque; I have made a start at rewriting the article, but I am handicapped by knowing nothing at all about auto racing. I found some references which look okay and added them to the article, but I may have created some misinformation accidentally. I added some refs at the bottom that I didn't know what to do with.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Possible spam
Bit concerned about the editorial behavior of User:Neiltipton who has been deleting a bunch of links and replacing them with links to just one website and does not seem to be concerned with making any content edits. Bit of spamming going on. Have a look at this --Falcadore (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear motorsport experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed changes to Template:Infobox racing car
An editor has proposed some changes to Template:Infobox racing car. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox racing car#Non-F1 fields. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Legend racing deaths for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legend racing deaths is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article focuses on legendary drivers who died while racing.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend racing deaths until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Your input is welcomed and you are encouraged to join the conversation. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Royalbroil 15:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
FIM 2014 yearbook
I don't know if anybody else has come accross this publication, but I found the official FIM 2014 yearbook, available for download here to be a document full of interesting information in regards to motorcycle racing, with all official results from 2013 and official European and World Champions lists going back to 1924 in it. Thought I might share this resource with you. Calistemon (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Australian motorsport vehicles
Historically Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore vehicles in Australian Touring Car Championship and V8 Supercar articles have been added in the Manufacturer / Generational identifier / Model format, e.g. Ford EB Falcon, as this was how the articles were named.
More recently a consensus was reached to bring these in line the international standard for article names, with all articles renamed, Ford Falcon (EB) etc.
Where an issue remains, is in articles such as Playscape Racing where different formats are used with Ford Sierra RS500 and Ford EB Falcon. Likewise in 1993 Australian Touring Car Championship we have Toyota Sprinter AE86 and Ford EB Falcon. One way or the other, a consistent format should be adopted. I believe there is agreement that the parentheses, are surplus.
In the real world, 3 formats are used interchangeably,[3][4][5] but as official bodies V8 Supercars[6][7] and the Confederation of Australian Motorsport,[8] as well as sites such as Autosport,[9] Natsoft,[10] Speedcafe[11] and Touring Car Times[12] have all adopted the Manufacturer / Model / Generational identifier format, it is proposed Wiki do likewise. V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support as nominator V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC):
- Consistency is not a relevant criteria for article text. The primary identifier has always been what it used in the home market. There was a recent change in the name of consistency in article titles to move Ford XA Falcon for example to Ford Falcon (XA), but the rules for article titles are completely different to the article contents.
- Australian market has always placed the model name immediately after the manufacturer name dating back to when Holdens, by way of example, were not refered to by a model name - eg Holden EH, not Holden Premier (and by way of explanation you will never see anywhere Holden Premier EH). Additionally, it also seperates the generation identifier from an trim label. eg Holden HQ Monaro GTS.
- I would additionally note your examples are flawed. RS500 in Sierra refers to the trim, not to the model generation - which EB does. RS500 would equate to GT or GL or XR8. The Sierra does not have an equivalent to EB as it was a single generation vehicle. If Ford Sierra RS500 looks inconsistent to Ford EB Falcon, then that is because it is supposed to look different as RS500 and EB indicate completely different things. It also indicates the difference between Group A and the category that would become known as V8 Supercars. Group A was based on a specific production model and V8 Supercar was not. That is something we do not and should not ever change because of how it looks.
- I would additionally note that this is not a topic for WT:WikiProject Motorsport, because it refers to cars in a designation not exclusive to motor racing, and should be discussed at WT:WikiProject Automobiles. --Falcadore (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see a change to Manufacturer / Model / Generational identifier, as it makes more logical sense (Holden ⊃ Commodore ⊃ VF rather than Holden ⊃ VF ⊂ Commodore). However, it isn't a massive issue; either method gives the exact same information. KytabuTalk 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: At this point, User:V7867 hatted the discussion with the summary "The consensus reached after 7-day consultation period was: adopt Manufacturer / Model / Generational identifier format." User:Falcadore removed the hat. User:DH85868993 did some tidying up (including adding this note). DH85868993 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly - you are not an admin so closing a consensus is not within your purview, and secondly, if you were, there needs to be an actual consensus formed. This is categorically not a consensus when only three edittors are involved. I know you are an inexperienced edittor, but understanding what you are doing should be compulsory before performing actions like this. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
With only three editors contributing at this point - the only possible close would be one of 'no consensus to change and thus standards revert to what they have been for the last 10 years plus. It should be born in mind you are trying to establish a consensus to change from the previous standard eg Ford EF Falcon to your prefered new version; Ford Falcon EF. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Although I am not involved in editing motorsport articles, I think the usage established by Holden Commodore (VF) should be the format used. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Even though the description in that format [Holden Commodore (VF)] is not used by anyone anywhere and in fact has been invented by wikipedia? I also note that the Holden Commodore (VF) article actually refers to VF Commodore (not Commodore VF) in the body of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's about consistency, in accordance with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. All other articles use this format: e.g. Toyota Corolla (E170), Jeep Cherokee (XJ), BMW 3 Series (E90), etc. Wikipedia tends to utilise the disambiguation style using parentheses. I don't believe there is an official name as such for the VF or any other model. Thus, in light of this, it is my view that we defer to the standards set elsewhere in the WP:CARS sphere, standards that in turn derive from the norms of the Wikipedia project in general.
- In the body of the article, I see no issues with stating the name in a multitude of different styles: "VF Commodore", "Commodore VF", "Commodore", "VF", "VF series", etc. It would be unwieldy and repetitive to refer to VF constantly as "Holden Commodore (VF)" all throughout the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not advocating a change the articles name, nor is V7867. I think perhaps you need to re-read the discussion. This is specifically about V7867 desire to alter the use of "Holden VF Commodore" in article content to "Holden Commodore VF" despite near universal use of "Holden VF Commodore" format in wikipedia articles to date, and the complete lack of usage in older vehicles, for example, Holden Premier EH has never been used to my knowledge anywhere. --Falcadore (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- In the body of the article, I see no issues with stating the name in a multitude of different styles: "VF Commodore", "Commodore VF", "Commodore", "VF", "VF series", etc. It would be unwieldy and repetitive to refer to VF constantly as "Holden Commodore (VF)" all throughout the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I am prepared to park it until the end of November, a month should be ample time enough for any interested editor to comment. V7867 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- It should also perhaps be noted that the central placement of the generational code avoids confusion with model codes. For example, Holden VN Commodore SS and Holden Commodore VN SS. SS (short for Super Sport traditionally) it a trim indicator for the V8 version of the standard six cylinder Holden Commodore. Trim identifiers have always been placed at the end, generation identifiers as you point out have been placed interchangeably. Now to the uninitiated, VN SS looks like a trim indicator. Seperating the two makes for a logical indication that they are two seperate codes where placing them together does not. :Fundamentally, Holden Commodore VN SS is incorrect as the model is effectively "Commodore SS", much in the same way as Calais is refered to without the usage of Commodore (ie Commodore Calais) even though indisputably the Holden Calais is a Commodore. Holden VN Commodore SS is good, as is Holden Commodore SS (VN) even though it's usage is far from common. --Falcadore (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
New article
I noticed the recent creation of Driver career-ending crashes, which may be of interest to project members. DH85868993 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...Of interest to nominate for deletion? Defining a career-ending crash is opening up a whole can of worms, and why exactly do we need to list it? The359 (Talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feeling either way about whether or not the article should exist. That's why I mentioned it here; in case others do. DH85868993 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Motorsport articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I just finished expanding the article and just realized that he may fall into this project as well. Weissenberger was killed at the Nürburgring in 1950 during the 15th Eifelrennen. I hope someone here has more details on his racing career. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox racing driver
FYI, I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_racing_driver#Current_series_year regarding the automatic prepending of the current year to the "current series" heading. DH85868993 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
expert needed for AfD, possible hoax.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panoz PZ09 --Gaff (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Photos of possibly fake cars in Commons
Hello, Lukeno94 has nominated for deletion a large number of photos of race cars in the Museum Sinsheim, because apparently the cars are fake. Can you check the cars and determine if they are authentic or replicas? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've given a rationale here. Some of them are close and require a closer look... but some are incredibly blatant in being fake. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Single-event tables
I think that it's unnecessary to add a table to an article, if a driver competed just one event/round. Even if a series enough notable (GP2, DTM, Formula E, FIA WEC, etc). It can be covered just in text. For example: Nick Heidfeld's participations in Porsche Supercup and V8 Supercar. We can just write:
===Touring car racing===
In 2012, Heidfeld competed in the Porsche Supercup round at Hockenheim, finishing tenth. Also in this year, he took part in the Gold Coast 600 event of the V8 Supercar, retiring in the first race of the weekend and finishing thirteenth in the second race. Cybervoron (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree totally. Have argued that principle for a few years when Jacques Villeneuve first acquired a V8 Supercar table. This leads into two pet peeves of mine, one I won't mention because it will de-rail this debate. The other: championship results can be more effectively summarised by table like appears here, eg. Rick Kelly#Career results. Instead of a complicated table of 25 links per line with a display of every race result, it simplifies to year, series, team, result and car, with links to season articles which display each individual race result. No information is lost, it reduces duplication across multpile articles. --Falcadore (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, race-by-race results of series should be reconsidered at least unless (like F1 and Indycar) individual races of the season are independently notable. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The creation of series tables has gotten a bit out of hand. Case in point, I noticed the recent addition of a table for the Porsche Carrera Cup GB. Since when does a series of that low a level warrant a race-by-race table? QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't. A domestic series filled with amateurs? No. --Falcadore (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just adding my opinion, personally I've always preferred looking at a table of results rather than reading walls of text to see a result, specifically when looking at a particular driver, all their results are there in front of you. I can understand the perhaps unnecessary one event table, but only if the driver hasn't competed in the series before or a multiple race basis like the Nick Heidfeld example, compared to say not adding to Sebastien Loeb's table when he came back for one rally this year. RewF12012 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- RewF12012, I'm absolutely understand your position, in the beginning I was probably even more radical about adding race-by-race tables. Yes, I propose exactly thing that was in the your last sentence. Cybervoron (talk)
- Just adding my opinion, personally I've always preferred looking at a table of results rather than reading walls of text to see a result, specifically when looking at a particular driver, all their results are there in front of you. I can understand the perhaps unnecessary one event table, but only if the driver hasn't competed in the series before or a multiple race basis like the Nick Heidfeld example, compared to say not adding to Sebastien Loeb's table when he came back for one rally this year. RewF12012 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't. A domestic series filled with amateurs? No. --Falcadore (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The creation of series tables has gotten a bit out of hand. Case in point, I noticed the recent addition of a table for the Porsche Carrera Cup GB. Since when does a series of that low a level warrant a race-by-race table? QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the current blanket removals by Cybervoron - almost always improperly described, and that they're edit-warring to some degree over - I'm coming here to voice my opinion. I think there needs to be a list of series that a table is valid for, because at the moment, people are removing things based on their own whims. Also, I think everything has to be relative to the level a driver has reached; if a notable driver hasn't competed regularly beyond a given series, then that series should have a results table. Also, I think the issue of single-race things depends entirely on the level of the series relative to the rest of their career; for Jacques Villeneuve and the V8 Supercar table, it's at a lower level than most of his career, but for some drivers, their entire set of notability comes from one or two races at a particular series. Removing the tables in these cases also creates inconsistencies across articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well either it is based on the relevancy of the results of the driver (individual on a case-by-case basis) or it should be consistent across all articles (same series are relelvant regardless of a drivers level of achievement). Please pick one User:Lukeno94. --Falcadore (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with either of those things. At the moment though, we have removals based on nothing but one person's opinion, which is rarely helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- For my full listed opinion, see my userpage. However the main issue I have is that I personally don't see any problems with results tables. They're not in the way, they're not ugly, they're not hard to write (Call me crazy, but I enjoy writing them). I find that Single seaters are fairly easy to separate into what should have a table and what shouldn't i.e. the split seems to exist between Formula Renault 2.0 and below and Formula 3 and above, but other forms of motorsport such as touring cars and sportscars are a lot harder, apart from the obvious WORLD Tourers and WORLD Endurance. The simple fact remains that everyone has differing opinions on what is notable. RewF12012 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I've read at lkeast three opinions there rather than one, but it is more important to explain why race-by-race tables are neccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @RewF12012 I think that you made great list and I support many parts of it. I hope that final edition of the list will become a guideline after this discussion.
- @Lukeno94 Notability doesn't based on my opinion, it's based on the lack of reliable third-party sources in the articles Mostly, these championships are referenced by the official site of a championship or even referenced at all (especially Ginetta G50 Cup), while if we took almost any championship from RewF12012's list from "Yes" section we could easily find a source for them. Cybervoron (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Saying we need third-party sources for a results table to be valid is, to be blunt, bonkers. In fact, apart from the few cases where the official standings are verifiably incomplete or wrong (some of the oldest British GT Championship standings on the official website fall into this category), or where official data is not kept online, we should always favour the official sources. And if you're removing something based on a lack of source, well, you need to actually say that, and not use rationales of "not notable" or "cleanup". Unfortunately, you've again shown your lack of research, as it's pretty easy to find third-party sources for your example of the Ginetta G50 Cup's standings; this reliable third-party source gives last season's standings (the G50 Cup is now the GT4 Cup), and that was pretty easy to find. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Where did you find that I say "we need third-party sources for a results table"? I say "lack of reliable third-party sources in the articles". Results table is just a duplication of the season's article, so if you can't prove that article notable, the table isn't notable too. 2008 Ginetta G50 Cup season didn't contain any references at all. All ToCA Support series are pretty domestic and didn't have self notability. The driver, who raced in any of these series becomes notable only when he moves to more significant championship at least BTCC/British GT. So I don't understand why we don't have results table for a British Formula Ford Championship, that brought to us Ayrton Senna (!), Eddie Irvine, Jenson Button, but we need to have a results table for Ginetta GT4 Supercup, that has a similar significance as British Formula Ford Championship? Cybervoron (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- That shows a total disregard of NMOTORSPORT. Also, the Ginetta GT Supercup is part of the ToCA package, and is just one rung below the BTCC; as such, the major drivers in that series actually get quite a lot of in-depth coverage on the TV; a lot of the British FF seasons have not been part of that package, and so haven't received the same coverage, plus British FF is quite a long way below the major series (until recently, with the advent of the aero cars with the Ecoboost engine, it was effectively below even Formula Renault!) Lack of references in another article has no relevance to any other article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ginetta GT Supercup doesn't match any of NMOTORSPORT criteria (even #7). It's covered only by the local ITV4 channel, so this series has some notability only for few local fans but not for Wikipedia. Cybervoron (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ginetta Supercup is an amateur series. We'd previously established Formula 3 as the dotted line for such things and a one-make series for a sports car which has almost no presence beyond the British Isles is well below the threshhold. BTCC is a domestic series, headline yes, but still domestic. Any support series of a domestic series has no reason for race-by-race coverage. As you say, one rung below BTCC is also one rung below notability threshhold. --Falcadore (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cybervoron; a nationwide channel is not local. ITV4 is not a local channel, it is a UK-wide channel which everyone with a TV license has access to. As such, drivers will get more TV coverage for anything part of the BTCC package than most of the higher-ranked series. Likewise, the Ginetta GT4 Supercup is not amateur; it's semi-professional at the very least. In fact, from next season, there will be a professional category (as the "amateur" Porsche Carrera Cup GB has, for that matter). But then, I should be used to people here dismissing TV coverage of championships just because they don't care about the championship... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- What's the difference? It still doesn't meet NMotorsport paragraph #7. Cybervoron (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- TV coverage does not define professionalism. It is a one-make sports car series that is part of the support program for the BTCC. Support program. Any notability it may achieve via TV package is only because it is part of the BTCC package. The Ginettas TV is not independantly notable from the BTCC. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ginetta Supercup is an amateur series. We'd previously established Formula 3 as the dotted line for such things and a one-make series for a sports car which has almost no presence beyond the British Isles is well below the threshhold. BTCC is a domestic series, headline yes, but still domestic. Any support series of a domestic series has no reason for race-by-race coverage. As you say, one rung below BTCC is also one rung below notability threshhold. --Falcadore (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Driver results legend template
I have proposed a slight change over at Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#Did not participate. Having seen that the last activity on the talk page there was in 2012, and that this was previously attempted at WP:F1, which garnered one entire reply which was niether for nor against the proposed change, I have reached out to you here for your comments and opinions, which would be greatly welcome. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Racing car and hybrid systems
Working on an article for the (very funky) Nissan GT-R LM Nismo, and it comes to my attention that attempting to describe a car with one gasoline motor, two flywheels, and technically three gearboxes with our current infobox is difficult. I notice that someone has added additional fields to the infobox for the Spark-Renault SRT 01E to describe batteries and electrical motors, but there appears to be no way to adequately describe other hybrid systems that do not rely solely on batteries or electrical motors. We now have two World Championships utilizing hybrid technology, I think we need to sit down and think about how to describe these, especially as they come in a variety of ways (batteries, flywheels, supercapacitors, heat exchangers, etc.). "Engine" also seems to now be antiquated in describing a car as the "ICE" terminology has now taken over.
I'd also add that, although someone did add parameters for electrical systems to the template, there is currently nothing in the description on Template:Racing car to describe their function or that they even exist as parameters. The359 (Talk) 21:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- The359, I am having a similar problem with McLaren MP4-30. I have been able to insert some description into the engine outline, but it's a little on the awkward side, so I fully support the idea of a separate field for a hybrid system, possibly arranged like the engine and gearbox fields, with several sub-fields that combine to make one description. That would allow for flexibility so that the infobox is open to a variety of hybrid systems. I ran the idea past DH85868993, and he seems to be on-board.
- I also noticed that the infobox is missing a field for a car's braking system. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Background colours in the result tables
Prisonermonkeys started a discussion about a very important change in the colour scheme of the background colours in the tables. This change will affect not only F1 articles, but all motorsport articles. Please, join this discussion here. Cybervoron (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"Carbon fiber"
What does carbon fiber mean? We are discussing the primary topic at talk:carbon (fiber). As carbon fiber is a common racer material, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed move
It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile#Requested move 28 March 2015. DH85868993 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear motorsport enthusiasts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable racer? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
2016 International V8 Supercars Championship listed at AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 International V8 Supercars Championship has been listed at AFD for you comment. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about adding track maps and manafacturers' stats to the article? Cybervoron (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:JK Tyre National Level Racing Championship Drivers
I've just come across Category:JK Tyre National Level Racing Championship Drivers, because it's listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. Therefore, it needs to be taken out of itself, and put into one or more suitable parent cats - but I really don't know what to put it under. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would put it under Category:Formula BMW drivers. It's not an official BMW series, but it uses the same machinery. Technically, it's the successor series to Formula BMW Asia. --Pc13 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK,
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK,
FAC - Mercedes-Benz CLR
Mercedes-Benz CLR has been listed on WP:FAC for about a month now with no responses, so I'm trying to get some eyes on it. I had posted the previous peer review on the sports car WikiProject, but again without any input, so I've expanded it to here. The359 (Talk) 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
AfD
There's an article up for deletion with doubts over notability – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keir Millar. Tragic case, but try to be objective. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Colors in tables
If I could bring attention to a matter underdiscussion involving several 2015 Indycar articles which feature some usage of colored in cells in tables, for example, 2015 Firestone 600. Any opinions on the matter would be welcomed. --Falcadore (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Holy hell, those have gotten far worse than they used to be! I was against them when they were just text and a background, but this is ridiculous. We're not a spotter's guide, the colors add absolutely nothing to an article about a race. This seems to be yet another case of thinking just because we have information we must include it. The359 (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- That a pretty blatant abuse of colour. How could anyone think that was acceptable? There are quite a few more WP:COLOUR issues across Indycar/American championship articles once you start looking. Take a look at the average season article and every table seems to have something highlighted or bolded without much justification. Our American racing articles might require a systematic de-colourisation. QueenCake (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to write post winners in an article of a race edition. And rookies don't need colors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Colours look awful to me, trying to make a pretty silk purse from a sow's ear. But, standards have already plummeted with indy/nascar articles. Need an example. Check out the article 2015 Firestone 600 which Falcadore mentions above. The lead sucks, and the prose describing the race is -- um, I'd better not say it. Moriori (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Should have seen it when the subject was brought up two weeks ago. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- ? ? Link? Moriori (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I bet it was this. Oh goodness, my eyes. Zappa24Mati 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sheesh. If as much effort went in to improving text as to creating hideous colours, articles would improve exponentially. I wonder how many indy/nascar articles have reached GA status. Moriori (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's the difference between writers and table editors. You can be both. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Almost all of the articles on the 2005 until 2015 Indianapolis 500 are still littered with these colored numbers. And something needs to be done with the coloring of rookies in season articles. In the season article QueenCake linked to, Carlos Muñoz's cell being colored yellow in the result matrix makes it difficult to see his Colombian flag. Tvx1 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not use (R) after the driver, like the Teams and drivers section? That way we could do away with the color problem completely. As for the color background for car numbers, that should go as well. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be much better. I'm sure I have seen a similar approach in other sports articles. Tvx1 01:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The tables are entirely grey... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you are. You're a month late to the party, changes have been implemented. --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Figures... ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The tables are entirely grey...". Not really. Many of the articles on American Open Wheel Racing still contain excessive color. Calendars contain colors to denote the type of circuit of the event, which are difficult to distinguish even for the visually unimpaired. Teams and drivers tables and results matrices still contain colored rookies. Indy 500 articles are littered with color numbers. And so on. Tvx1 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Figures... ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you are. You're a month late to the party, changes have been implemented. --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The tables are entirely grey... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be much better. I'm sure I have seen a similar approach in other sports articles. Tvx1 01:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not use (R) after the driver, like the Teams and drivers section? That way we could do away with the color problem completely. As for the color background for car numbers, that should go as well. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Almost all of the articles on the 2005 until 2015 Indianapolis 500 are still littered with these colored numbers. And something needs to be done with the coloring of rookies in season articles. In the season article QueenCake linked to, Carlos Muñoz's cell being colored yellow in the result matrix makes it difficult to see his Colombian flag. Tvx1 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's the difference between writers and table editors. You can be both. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sheesh. If as much effort went in to improving text as to creating hideous colours, articles would improve exponentially. I wonder how many indy/nascar articles have reached GA status. Moriori (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I bet it was this. Oh goodness, my eyes. Zappa24Mati 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- ? ? Link? Moriori (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Should have seen it when the subject was brought up two weeks ago. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Colours look awful to me, trying to make a pretty silk purse from a sow's ear. But, standards have already plummeted with indy/nascar articles. Need an example. Check out the article 2015 Firestone 600 which Falcadore mentions above. The lead sucks, and the prose describing the race is -- um, I'd better not say it. Moriori (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to write post winners in an article of a race edition. And rookies don't need colors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
2017 Formula One season
FYI, 2017 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. Tvx1 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Track lengths
Bit of an odd question, but how are track lengths measured? I don't mean in regards to tape measures, but what route do they take? Do they take the racing line, the inside edge, or measure both inside and outside and take the average? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Modern tracks would come straight out of the 3D design model in the computer and would be measured along the tracks centreline, like any other road design anywhere in the world. Beyond that? Up to the track themselves. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Despite all this, the organizers are never agree when measuring the length of a track. For this reason, I have edited some Wikipedia article about oval tracks a few days ago. Here is an overview of the different measurements:
| Track | CART/CCWS | IRL/ICS | NASCAR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auto Club Speedway | 2.029 miles (3.265 km) | 2.000 miles (3.219 km) | 2.000 miles (3.219 km) |
| Twin Ring Motegi | 1.549 miles (2.493 km) | 1.52 miles (2.45 km) | 1.549 miles (2.493 km) (*exhibition event in 1998) |
| Las Vegas Motor Speedway | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) | 1.544 miles (2.485 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Kansas Speedway | - | 1.52 miles (2.45 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Chicagoland Speedway | - | 1.52 miles (2.45 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Homestead-Miami Speedway | 1.502 miles (2.417 km) | 1.485 miles (2.390 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Texas Motor Speedway | 1.482 miles (2.385 km) | 1.455 miles (2.342 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Kentucky Speedway | - | 1.480 miles (2.382 km) | 1.50 miles (2.41 km) |
| Nashville Superspeedway | - | 1.30 miles (2.09 km) | 1.333 miles (2.145 km) |
| Gateway International Raceway | 1.27 miles (2.04 km) | 1.25 miles (2.01 km) | 1.25 miles (2.01 km) |
| New Hampshire Motor Speedway | 1.00 mile (1.61 km) | 1.025 miles (1.650 km) | 1.058 miles (1.703 km) |
| The Milwaukee Mile | 1.032 miles (1.661 km) | 1.015 miles (1.633 km) | 1.000 mile (1.609 km) |
| Nazareth Speedway | 0.946 miles (1.522 km) | 0.935 miles (1.505 km) | 1.000 mile (1.609 km) |
| Iowa Speedway | - | 0.894 miles (1.439 km) | 0.875 miles (1.408 km) |
IIRC, the FIA measures tracks in meters. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course. The FIA is an international organisation headquartered in France. They are already required by (EU-)law to use the SI unit system. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Jacques Villeneuve
The naming of Jacques Villeneuve (the uncle) is under discussion, see Talk:Jacques Villeneuve (elder) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)