Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Just to inform you all that I have nominated Thomas Jäger (racing driver) for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jäger (racing driver). Don't panic - he's not the German touring car/GT driver of the same name, but an Austrian who will step up from karting into Formula Renault this year. Your input into the deletion discussion is welcome. Many thanks - mspete93 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:F4 Eurocup 1.6 drivers‎ has been nominated for deletion. Is there really a need for a drivers category for a fourth (or lower)-tier junior development category of such low notability that all the text in the main article adds up to less than 100 words? Nominated per WP:OVERCAT and WP:Notability. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the article quality of a large proportion of our 2010 season articles. Many having description that lasts just single figure number of sentences, many would not need a second hand to count. I'm likewise concerned this will continue into 2011 leaving us with a very large number of poor quality articles. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Falcadore (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some references to the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series article. However, TheChrisD, says it shouldn't be sourced, and said that no other 2010 or 2011 season article has references. On WP:VERIFY, it says, "any material [..] likely to be challenged". I think there should be references for the table, and I think it is possible for the results and standings to be challenged. Any opinions on whether the tables need references or not? --Nascar1996 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be. I've known even race results (which you might think would be clear and unambiguous) be the subject of disagreement. Did Niki Lauda start the 1976 German Grand Prix or not? Why does Michael Schumacher keep his results for the 1997 Formula One season, but the Tyrrell team does not keep its results for the 1984 Formula One season (both were disqualified from the championship). Etc etc. But you should be able to do it with a single reference; I wouldn't want to see separate references for each driver's result. 4u1e (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to have 37 total references for the total (one for each race, one for standings). I don't know anywhere that would have a reference for the entire thing. In the table above that there will be even more references. Above the results there is a link to the race, which has references and race results. Now I'm questioning the references. Nascar1996 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the way you specifically added them was my main gripe, which boiled down to questioning why the tables even need references to be built into them. Going by other season articles, it seems that nowhere actually cites a source (bar 2010 F1 as I mentioned, and even then that's a single source). The way you had them as it was having the references by the Report link seemed OK, but adding them into the tables themselves seems excessive. I also refer to another line in WP:VERIFY which states "This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.". In my eyes, there's referencing stuff in general, and then there's taking it a little too far and unnecessarily referencing every single sentence in the article... I suggested it be brought up here, because if the consensus is that references should be placed in every single season article table, it would need to be done across the board, rather than just on the one specific series that you take an interest in. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

References should be cited on all articles short of saying something extremely obvious like "the sky is blue". There's controversy in NASCAR with respect to wins made by Cup drivers while racing in a Grand American car against their big brothers. See Bobby Allison. Royalbroil 23:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought it easy enough to cover all season results with a single reference. Speaking for F1, the season articles are less mature than those for races, teams or drivers (no GA or FA season articles yet) so I don't think we can say that such articles shouldn't have references just because they currently don't. 4u1e (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no references with all the information on them. You would need one for all 36 races and the point standings. Nascar1996 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A large group of GP2 Series race reports have been AFD'ed with a discussion to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Bahrain GP2 round. The reason is now some two years after this group of articles have been created, the entire article is just a filled out infobox. Not further information has been provided, and there is certainly nothing which can't be found by examing the relevant season summary reports. The comment of interested edittors is invited. --Falcadore (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

1906 French Grand Prix is a featured article candidate, here. Motorsport articles at FAC often don't get as many comments as other articles do, so I'd encourage anyone with an interest in the sport (which should be anyone reading this) to pitch in. Apterygial 06:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here and here there is no distinction between entries that didn't score and no-entries (teams/drivers that didn't race). I believe that this issue should be fixed by placing a 0 where the entry took part of the race / weekend / round and nothing or a dash when the entry missed it. The problem is that each table must be checked! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think? Is it worth it? I added it to Template:Infobox WRC driver (it's good to see silver and bronzes too, not only champions). Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible idea, with all due respect. WRC winners aren't awarded medals. They don't even award gold,silver and bronze trophies/cups/certificates etc. The recognized achievements in WRC are winning the "FIA World Championship for Drivers" and winning individual rounds of the FIA World Rally Championship - we cover these under the Championships and Rally wins fields respectively. Inventing some made up category not only seems a bit daft, but would not be citable and go totally against policy. AlexJ (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fiction - there are no such medals. If we all thought it was a good idea, we could add stats for second and third places, which do at least exist. However, I don't think it's useful to do so as the focus is always on wins. 4u1e (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but wouldn't we want to see who is second and third (as Loeb has been first for 7 years)? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not important enough to make it into an infobox. The season summaries at the end of a driver's article covers his finishing positions, that should suffice. AlexJ (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How about changing "championships" into "best results", so if a driver never won a championship it would say "3rd in 1987 and 2003". --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that done elsewhere. Pros - means there's something to put in the infobox for the vast majority of drivers who don't ever win anything. It would show whether someone was a nearly man, or a complete no-hoper. Cons - puts lesser achievements on the same level as the wins. For some drivers, it would be trivial stuff (best finish: 47th on the 1985 RAC Rally...) 4u1e (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about using sentences in the articles to describe a driver's achievements? Is it so hard to expect actual sentence construction be considered a useful skill in a Wikipedia edittor? --Falcadore (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I come from on this, although taking that argument to its limit, we wouldn't use infoboxes at all. I'm not especially keen on the proposal, but I think it's more deserving of discussion than the original version! 4u1e (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes are there for a quick glance summary of the most important elements of the article. Season/Race, Winner/Champion, etc. They have their place. But overloading them with too much irrelevant information defeats the purpose of a quick summary. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The359 makes a valid point - the top infobox should be limited to the real important things: champions and winners. Details on WDC finishes for each and every year are listed in a fairly easy to read table near the end of the article. It takes 10 seconds to scroll through this and see that driver X finished runner-up in a couple of years/never finished higher than 8th or whatever. AlexJ (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on this Argentine touring car and sports car driver has been deleted last November. After doing F3 in Europe, he raced at Argentine's top series (TC, TC2000 and Top Race), then did the International GT Open and was vicechampion there last year plus Spanish GT champion. The argument was that "merely competing in those races isn't a very strong claim to notability" (I believe otherwise) and "none of the listed series are fully professional" (that is completely false). Do we try to put it back? --NaBUru38 (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, his nickname is "Cochito", in case anyone is looking for articles on him. --NaBUru38 (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe otherwise, then please provide us with your arguement. Or, even better, start the article again and see if it passes the muster of an AFD.

It should be noted however that he was only co-champion in Spanish GT. He only ever ran 1 even in International GT. And his F3 experience was in 1999. In over 10 years of Tourismo Carrera and TC2000 before finally reentering the European scene, what has he done that is notable? The³5₉ (Talk) 08:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Although his minor acheivements could have saved it from deletion, I don't see it as crucial that he gets an article. I think the fact that the competed in British F3 would be enough to save it if it were nominated for deletion again, seeing as plenty of drivers are getting articles creating currently for similar or less significant acheivements. His Spanish GT win was only in the Super GT class and not overall, so it's hard to justify notability on that by saying he was a national champion. - mspete93 11:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lopez won half the races overall. He was champion in the primary class (GT2 cars), but because of overall points mathematics, he missed the title to his teammate (who was 2nd in the Super GT class). One could argue that racing in the Spanish GT Championship, whether you're champion or not, is enough for notability, but then again there are articles on NASCAR regional drivers. He was third at the 1999 Masters of Formula 3 at Zandvoort, if it helps. His career in Argentinian touring cars has not been as stellar, though. --Pc13 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I have recently nominated a bunch of UK Pickup Truck Racers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Dobbs. The article originator believes that some of them are notable enough to remain. I only found the articles as part of WP:URBLP which is trying to rid Wikipedia of unreferenced articles on living people. I know nothing about motorsport in the UK, and what is notable and what is not. If anyone is able to help in determining whether these articles are notable, and most importantly if there is sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then please contribute at the articles and the AfD. And if this sort of thing seems like your thing, then Wikipedia:WikiProject British Motorsport/Unreferenced BLPs, Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Unreferenced BLPs, Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racing/Unreferenced BLPs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Unreferenced BLPs may be of interest. The-Pope (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about young drivers getting their own articles for just driving in development series. I understand Sakon Yamamoto having one for collecting poor results in F1 and Davide Valsecchi for getting good results in GP2 but failing to step up. However, 2010 F4 Eurocup champion Stoffel Vandoorne, 2010 FR2.0 Eurocup champion Kevin Korjus and Porsche Supercup drivers like René Rast and Christian Engelhart aren't relevant at all. The "Have driven in a fully professional series" criteria written here should be made much more restricting. Event finishing third in a major F3 championship shouldn't mean the driver is relevant either. What's your point of view? --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, and how would you define "professional", and how would you know if a driver is or not? There are certain series, such as F1, GP2, FR3.5, Superleague, IndyCar, WTCC, DTM, WRC, NASCAR etc, where all drivers are notable enough to have pages, and I think if they are high achievers in other series then they are perfectly valid cases to own articles. It can be quite ambiguous and even with guidelines for article inclusion in place, I can still see exceptions to those arising and we shouldn't worry about it too much unduly, just so long as articles contain enough sensible information to qualify them as articles of interest. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This subject has been brought up a couple of times recently, with attempts to establish some better form of notability guidelines, seeing as the existing ones were far too centered around North American racing (look towards the top of this talk page and you will see one of these such discussions). We came up with some suggestions for criteria, but they were never implemented anywhere (so far as I know). I think we managed to clamp down on (and yes I'm looking at you Officially Mr X!) the perculiar need for all drivers in Euroseries 3000 to have an article (pre-Auto GP increased coverage), as though just because the old A1GP cars were used this made the drivers notable! - mspete93 20:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the previous discussions on this, so with a clean mind I don't see any drivers currently competing in the lowest tiers of series' notable. Using your examples of the Formula Renault drivers, these championships are low down on the scale, with little if any coverage in even racing circles. Most drivers do not progress beyond this level, and the racing records for these series can be included if and when the driver competes at a higher level. The immediate feeder series for all top level championships are notable enough for inclusion, it is at F3 level (and equivalents) that the bar for inclusion should be set.

I suggest that for the drivers competing in the major Formula 3 championships, race winners at the least should be included. Any drivers making one-off appearances or competing in a season with no real results should not be - these guys are not going anywhere and are not really more notable than you or me. In between, I'm leaning towards no. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pyrope made a detailed list of notability standard's in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Sports Notability debate above on this page, which received broad approval from the WikiProject (at least no disapporval :) ) but was not written up as a replacement set of criteria for the WP:ATHLETE criteria that User:NaBUru38 aludes too as like many debates they just lose momentum over time. Personally I find the current criteria at WP:ATHLETE unrepresentative of the sport and unusable in practice. Perhaps we might make any last fine tuning of USer:Pyrope's suggestions and implement immediately? Invite the various sub-Projects, F1, Nascar, American Open Wheel, WRC, Motorcycle racing for comment. --Falcadore (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The big problem is the notion of "fully profesional" series being based on prize money. The prize money goes to the teams, not the drivers. The drivers are more what we would consider minor leaguers, or major-junior atheletes. Ok, they get their expenses paid, but they are being developed as future prospects by sponsors in the hope that some make F1 etc. Probably the best guide is to look at the content of the articles. If all you can say is "driver x is a racing driver in series y" there isn't enough for an article. I would say the idea of using F3 as a guide for a cutoff is good. Successful drivers in top F3 (or GP3 which seems set to replace it) series should have articles, but not every also-ran. Drivers in some series, like FR3.5, will pretty much all be notable based on success in F3. A few lower series, like FR2.0, probably don't confer notability on drivers, but maybe should have articles for various seasons. Series for old machinery probably don't even deserve articles for individual seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRT24 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. Recently, an editor and his IP sock has decided to start replacing the WTCC results tables of many drivers (e.g. Fredy Barth, Alain Menu, and many more). As this editor is notoriously poor at discussing major changes I thought I'd bring it here. It would seem to me that these changes are not for the better. The tables they produce are overly large and cluttered, with the race 1 and race 2 digits detracting from the race position digits. They do bring WTCC into line with other series such as GP2, but that would seem to me to propose the question "why not change GP2" rather than mess with the WTCC style. Anyone any thoughts? Pyrope 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do prefer the smaller version, not only is it compact, it is easier to look at with those huge blocks of colours reduced in size. Superior presentation. No hesitation to suggest reverting to previous. --Falcadore (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, agree with you both. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

M.greenly (talk · contribs) has been replacing the names of Stefan Rosina and Tim Harvey with that of Danial Ore in 2009 Porsche Supercup season and 2009 Porsche Carrera Cup Great Britain. He's been reverted on that, but he also created Danial Ore and Porsche Sports Cup (duplicating most info from 2009 Porsche Supercup season, but once more with Danial Ore replacing Stefan Rosina's correct third place). Now, Ore seems to have taken place in a few KONI Challenge races, but he claims on his website he was third in the Porsche Sports Cup Europe in 2009, but of course, he wasn't. I tried looking for a "Porsche Sports Cup", and found a German-based series with the same name, except it's not the Carrera Cup but a second division series for older racing cars or for standard cars, and can't find any evidence of a Danial Ore. In that regard, I have no idea what "Porsche Sports Cup" he might be referring to. So, I feel these pages should probably be speedied as a hoax. Any other opinions? --Pc13 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another small oddity: on Porsche Sports Cup, Ore is listed as American, but this reference from Danial Ore has a photo that shows him as British. Something's definitely not adding up here. At any rate, I'm not sure his results pass WP:N.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All that stuff about ALMS and Porsche Supercup for 2011 would make him notable, but only if it were true. I can't find anything to back it up. - mspete93 22:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a profile of a Danial Ore that competed in the V8 Commodore Cup, and it mentions that he "has been in the category for seven years". Maybe the Wikipedia Danial Ore is a composite of several different Danial Ores? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A list with little explanation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 Best V8 Supercars Driver Ever, for those interested in participation. --Falcadore (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Danial Ore is from Manchester England born and raised in the United States. He flies the British Flag because of his background. The Porsche Sportcup is Porsche's version of the Volkswagon TDI cup here in America.PorscheSportsCupAs far as the rest of the comments and not being able to find things. A there are a few people bad mouthing Danial for no reason. I say this because I know first hand that he has done nothing to them. This will be Danial's first year in the ALMS so no, there will not be anything in this series about him until his first race at Limerock in July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surething521 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And your reference for a driver named Danial Ore being signed to an American Le Mans Series team is...where?

If people were badmouthing him, his name would still appear in searches. A minor, national level club series is not notable. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, That'd certainly be fitting of someone making up a racing history that isn't his, such as current participation in the 2011 Porsche Supercup (when he isn't). We shouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole until we see some references outside of his own website. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a link that no one knows anything about is bad mouthing. Everyone has a past and everyone has something in that past that they are not proud of. Why people feel the need to exploit it is just wrong. You people have no idea what he is going through. You do not know what is going on outside of the internet. We are not posting certain things because of gossipers. When the time is right it will be released. Danial will be at the Turkish Grand Prix, he just might not be driving in it. Sponsorship has to come through and we all know how they like to drag their feet. As far as the ALMS, as soon as the contract is signed the people that like to gossip in this artical will be the first to know.

Instead of speculating - add a reference. Wikipedia practice is for confirmed signings to be added after the announcment, not the otherway around. Get that official confirmation. --Falcadore (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DON'T remove other people's comments from discussions. My link to an arrest report on Danial Ore is relevant to the discussion, as a charge seems to be a pretty good indication that this entire thing is a powder keg. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(UTC) 

What you don't seem to understand is that Danial Ore's racing career so far is not notable. He's only taken place in a few Grand-Am Continental Tire races, without any competitive results. The Porsche Sports Cup you're mentioning is a second division league for amateur races in Germany. The Danial Ore that took part in the Commodore Cup is a completely different person entirely. He has yet to take part in any race in the ALMS, or the Porsche Supercup. You have yet to establish any valid reason why Danial Ore should have an article. --Pc13 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying he should have an artical yet. Once all the t's are crossed and the I's dotted then we will release notable info. I am simply defending him of false accusations. I have worked extremely hard to remove bad press for him and this chat is not helping. This whole message should be removed and I would delete it if I didn't think I would get my priviledges taken. Danial is a great driver and many would agree, but it's articals like this that are creating minor set backs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surething521 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What false accusations? That his racing history is false and that an editor has been attempting to add to this hoax by editing Wikipedia articles? These are not accusations, these are facts supported by references.

This discussion is not an article and will not be removed. You cannot attempt to control people'ms research if you plan to attempt to present it on a site such as Wikipedia. If you do not want people discussing the extremely fishy history of your buddy, then I suggest taking it up with your buddy or whoever made that crappy website, not us. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This week it's the 2010 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition. There are some amazing motorsport pictures, but there are hundreds of other great picks as well. Please join the voting! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a FYI - motorsport photos are split into two categories - 'People and human activities' and 'Vehicles' Some spectacular photos across all categories mind you, well worth a look. AlexJ (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is written like an advert that wants to encourage students to participate in this competition. And there are way too many external links about serveral teams that compete there. --217.227.111.198 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with Formula Student. There are too many links to single competitors without any relation to this article. --217.227.111.198 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd almost argue they could all be merged into Formula SAE. That article already lists the champions for all the SAE-based series, and they all use pretty much the exact same rules. Formula SAE Australasia is even worse off. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone check Paris-Madrid race? I am not a native english speaker, and I rewrote quite a bit of the article. It could do with a proofread. thanks --Jollyroger (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many knows the website. For the drivers who have lost their life in accidents quite informative. Could it also be a page where someone could do a shortcut like we have with DriverDB.

However, some very well-known drivers such as Ayrton Senna and Dale Earnhardt are not so well reported there. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some help is needed with the Superkart article. I am having problems with a particularly British-centric editor who keeps deleting referenced material from this article based on reasons which can only be taken as being personal. It has become an edit war and I am attempting now to stop prior to a 3R violation, which I strongly suspect this other editor will not respect. Can I ask for some adjudicatory assistance from the Wikiproject? --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people should take a look at this RFC which could have an impact in Motorsport articles. Bjmullan (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I know what hulk of WikiProject Sports Car Racing isn't on most people's viewing list, I'm bringing this up here as well. The FIA is resurrecting a World Sportscar Championship of sorts, so I've started a discussion about the naming and merging of multiple articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about when racing vehicles should have separate articles. It has been suggested that Ford Focus RS WRC be split/merged into Ford Focus (first generation) and Ford Focus (second generation, Europe), which is discussed here. Prolog (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, User:Colonies Chris is taking a large number of piped links and turning them into redirects without demonstrating knowledge of the accuracy of these links. By way of example - Holden Commodore SS was turned into a redirect towards Holden VE Commodore, ignoring the the 'SS' nameplate has been used on the about a dozen different Commodore model ranges rather than just the VE. Mini John Cooper Works S2000 was established as a link to Mini John Cooper Works WRC despite the article referring to a different car enitrely with no information on the S2000. --Falcadore (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that almost every article on a new season has a section listing all the driver/team moves. I don't know if this is a standard throughout the whole project, but it shouldn't be. Now, F1, Indycar etc definately should have these, no question. However, in most lower formula series, virtually every driver will have either changed teams or come from another series, and these lists become really cumbersome. For those series, important driver/team changes (ie series champ) should just be mentioned in prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRT24 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the situation like you're saying, so a firm rule probably don't make sense. It should be discussed on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look a bit nonsensical in lower formulae category which are desgined to have completely new grids every year or every other year to have 'entered's and 'leave's. They are categories that are supposed to have a high turnover, so its hardly news or newsworthy that they do.

I find the 'leaves' particularly annoying as mostly that is news that does not really belong on most series pages, and are best used to expand the narrative of each drivers page. --Falcadore (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the movements of major drivers can easily be discussed in actual text. I find the entire driver change bulleted listing to be redundant and just look downright unappealing from an encyclopedic standpoint. It's too similar to the already overused charts on many lower formula seasons. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What sort of action then should be taken? --Falcadore (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this project have a manual of style? If not, it might be useful. LRT24 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike some of the other season articles that have bullets to mark changes, I tried to put them into prose. It seemed to work good, and you can view it on 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have started going through the 2011 motorsport season articles and have been looking at article leads and found some of them, well... it is hard to not be negative. There are a large number of 2011 season articles which have a one sentence lead. I have added detail to some articles, and placed mark-up tags on others. Article leads should effectively introduce an article so a casual reader can pass by and get an impression of what the article is about. It is my belief that article leads should state the official name of the motor racing series being covered, explain what type of cars are in use (brief description of the cars, or at the very least explain whether they are sports cars, touring cars, open wheelers etc), where the races are held, the significance of the series (junior, international domestic, ladder series, very popular, professional, amateur, support category, headline act), manuifacturer involvement and who is leading the series.

Any comment? Support? Criticism? --Falcadore (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You know how the motorsport venues in the United States are divided by states? I think the motorsport venues in Canada should be divided by provinces instead of the way it looks now. Tell me your thoughts. B-Machine (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In which article? --Falcadore (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport venues in the United States is divided by states. I'm suggesting Category:Motorsport venues in Canada be divided by provinces. B-Machine (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There are nowhere near enough circuits in any of the lists under that category for that level of subdivision to be neccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of this wikiproject is dying or not, but I'm requesting some comment for a large number of page moves that have been requested at: Talk:2011 Hungarian GP2 round#Requested move --Falcadore (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

hi there me name is jason,, my uncle drove for the stratfoed mob,, at haringrey and wimbledon,, and wondered if any bosy know,s where i can get some pictures

many thanks jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.55.166 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see that Auto racing had a brief and poorly attended page rename discussion in 2007. I was wondering if there was any appetite for renaming it now? The term is meaningless to me as a Brit who loves sport (I thought it must mean something about competing against oneself) but it seems it has greater currency in USEng. Is there another widely-used USEng term that works for BrEng? --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As if to prove my point (I've not heard the term) I mistakenly typed Autoracing above! --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this before, and I agree with you. My feeling would be to have it at Motor racing (or even Motorsport, the name of this project) but it has the potential to be confused with bike racing. Car racing might be clearer, but if Auto racing is the common term in the States as you suggest, fair enough. It would be good to have a wider discussion, however. Apterygial ^talk 11:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article motorsport seems to suggest some differences between the terms, but I don't know how factually correct it is. - mspete93 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Motor Racing and Motorsport are terms that are inclusive of motorcycle racing, and for that matter, powerboat and air racing. And Drifting (which is Motorsport, but not Motor Racing). Car racing is a term not in general use. --Falcadore (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore has correctly identified the distinction between "motorsport", "motor racing" and "auto racing". Dweller, would you have recognised the term if the article had been named "automobile racing" instead? If so, then that might be a worthwhile change to make. P.S. I've posted a link to this discussion at Talk:Auto racing. DH85868993 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have intuitively understood what the article referred to, even though the term "automobile" isn't really used in BrEng, it's well understood. I think it needs an AmEng name, as I'm unconvinced that BrEng has such a differentiation within motor sport. --Dweller (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename "Auto" is just a shorthand, the proper name is still "automobile racing" everywhere. LRT24 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexey Chuklin was recently deleted after I tagged it for deletion. However, the creator has now managed to get it un-deleted with this reason[1]. I really don't feel a driver with a best result of 12th in this year's Formula Renault 2.0 NEC season and no other racing history to speak of at the age of 25 is notable enough in any way. Your thoughts? - mspete93 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominate for an AfD on the basis that FR-NEC is too minor a series, and there have been plenty of Russian drivers of much greater notability. I'll support it. Or start it if you like. --Falcadore (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD has begun. --Falcadore (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to do it myself but I haven't found the time yet. - mspete93 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the current F3 Cup series be part of this article? I have always understood that the F3 Euroseries was the successor to the German F3 Championship, and that the F3 Cup was created as a minor series underneath that and thus not having the status of a national championship. According to the German wikipedia article (machine translated): Due to the agreement with the FFSA this series is written out not by the DMSB and does not receive thus also the descriptor German championship. We should either split the article or rename it simply German Formula Three. LRT24 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Might a better idea be a creation of Formula 3 in Germany which could incorporate all three series? --Falcadore (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm open to suggestions. I don't really want to go through the work of splitting into multiple pages and changing all those links. Right now I'm just trying to clean up some of the individual season articles and infoboxes. LRT24 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of a deletion discussion about a minor backmarking Russian FR NEC driver, might we conclude the discussion which made significant here and finalise into an actual policy or guideline? Are there objections to USer:Pyrope's concept? --Falcadore (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here might be to go ahead and use it anyway. We can always amend it if we need to. - mspete93 11:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know why this article should not be deleted? Need a reason. --Falcadore (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Iffy. I can understand an article on the series if it had some expansion, it's certainly a step beyond amateur status but will struggle to have any outside coverage. We certainly have articles on similar series below F3, or at least formulas below F3, and backing from the ADAC as part of their race weekends with larger series at least gives it some credibility. If anything the specific season articles are useless. Season summaries in which the majority of the drivers and teams are redlinks would fail notability to me. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's had a two sentence description for two years. I'm not convinced any attempt has been made to establish this series has any notability. --Falcadore (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Amount of content is not equal to something's notability. We all have articles we start and never really see through to a true completion. Certainly in my two minute write-up I've established some sort of notability, at least beyond what the article currently states. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation is longer than the entire article. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, notability is about the subject, not what is actually physically written in the article. There's quite a difference between a poorly written article and an unnotable subject. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While that is true, the current state of the article makes it impossible to determine its notability. That is has been poorly written for two years does provide at the very least an indication towards its level of notability. Additionally, pointing out there are other articles at a similar level of notability is not neccessarily a reason to keep it. It might also be a reason to put a notability spotlight on those articles as well. At what point should Wikipedia support poorly written articles that attract virtually no input from edittors? --Falcadore (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the way the article is currently written does make it difficult to establish notability. But you specifically asked for a reason not to delete the article here, and you've been given that extra bit beyond what the article states. Further, if you were to nominate the article for AFD, any random user could easily be able to provide the same information I've provided, and it's likely the article would pass (I'm obviously not going to guarentee that, it's merely my assumption).

That the article has not been expanded in X amount of time says nothing about its notability. 2008 Spa 24 Hours has not been properly expanded in three years, but it is still a notable event. I certainly don't like that the article I created is such a basic chart, but as I said, we always have grand plans that never come to fruition. Obviously some people prefer to stick to sandboxing and building articles until they are complete, but I tend to go head first and then fail to deliver in the end. The lack of attention this poor article has had in those three years does not speak for the subject matter though, and the notability behind the drive to create the original, albeit poor article.

Now I have no problem with you questioning articles on all lower formulae series throughout Wikipedia, but an attempt to establish what series have certain inherent notabilities for Wikipedia based on their level within the ladder systems has been attempted before here and no conclusion was ever reached. From what I recall the questions surrounded GP2/GP3 race articles and what levels of series deserved race reports, what levels deserved season summary articles, what series would simply suffice with just an article on the series itself, and of course at the bottom what series were not notable at all. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The page on the German wikipedia is a bit more extensive, with all the car specs and stuff, maybe somebody could add info from there. But even they don't have articles for the individual seasons, those need to go right away. I think this series got a bit of coverage for being the first to use the "formulino" car from Dallara, so the main article might be worth keeping and rating as a stub. LRT24 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a member of the de-Wikipedia-Project. The ADAC Formel Masters is a form of a successor series of the Formula BMW ADAC. You can also compare that series for example with the Formula Renault UK.

Please do not argue with articles, that does not yet exist in the de-Wikipdia. We don't have articles for every individual Champ Car season, too. We have not enough users to take care of this articles currently.

The value of redlinks is not important. You can compare that situation with articles like 2008 Formula Renault UK season or 2006 Formula BMW UK season. Now there are a lot of drivers who have articles, but in 2008 or 2006 many of them had no article. --Gamma127 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please add motogp team championship standings in your article?

Best Regards, Ronny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.207.205 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To which article? Also, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing might be a better place to ask. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Presently there are three AfDs running within Motorsport WikiProject that have received almost no attention or comment. Could editors please take a look at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Star Mazda Championship season
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Belgian GP2 round
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Dempsey Racing

Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An additional request for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Formula SimRacing World Championship which has been relisted twice now through lack of response. --Falcadore (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After coming across this, I was wondering if anybody could translate it? The machine translation I tried was scant help... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Sporti (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done. I've changed a few things but added a {{disputed}} banner to the top of the page. The article claims the car had a single win but this website lists several wins for the Mk IV in 1950 alone, in British Formula 3 events. I can't tell if those Mk IVs are T11s or T12s, but since they're basically the same design, the page might have to be renamed too. --Pc13 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The results are for F1/F2 races, source is under Sources. --Sporti (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This may need to be merged with Cooper Mark IV, which Trekphiler created not long after his request (here and at WT:F1). —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at List of motorsport championships, it appears to be deeply flawed to the point that the contents are not what the title says it is. I'm looking for comment/advice prior to slash/burn, or at the very least major modification of a change in the articles name.

Thanks in advance of any response. --Falcadore (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related, yet separate issue, what do you think is of greater importance to the general public readers, a list of categories, or a list of series? --Falcadore (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I don't see a whole lot wrong with the list. Many of the categories listed (mostly in the Formula section) don't have multiple series, and so don't have separate category and series articles. More readers are probably interested in series, but dividing them by category isn't a bad thing, in my opinion. A table format like List of Australian motor racing series would be nice, but I don't think we need the "most recent champion" or "vehicle" columns (that level of detail should be in the article). —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If the destination article is the issue then shouldn't piped link be used? The issue I have is one of definition, and it appears wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect. Piped links would be fine. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and I don't understand what's wrong with it. Perhaps you are using a different definition of the word "championship". To me it means a listing of touring series that are classified as a type of motorsport. No small or minor regional level series - just those on the national level. I like how they are broken down by their genre of motorsport (stock cars, formula, etc). Royalbroil 03:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed {{BTCC 2006}}, {{BTCC 2007}}, {{BTCC 2008}}, {{PTR 2007}}, {{PTR 2008}} and {{PTR 2009}} for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, they were all deleted (as you could probably guess by the red links). DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed that Category:2006 in Australian motorsport be merged into Category:2006 in Australian sport. Please add any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a recent change to existing categories rather than the addition of a new one, perhaps a restoration to the previous category structure on affected articles might be examined? --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport in Australia by year, Well, it's not the only one anymore, User:Djln is away creating many of these! --Falcadore (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We currently have a "Motorsport by country" category tree. Within that tree are some "continental" categories (e.g. Category:Motorsport in Africa, Category:Motorsport in Europe, etc). Are there any objections to me creating a complementary "Motorsport by continent" category tree and relocating the "continental" categories there? Noting that there are already "by continent" category trees for numerous other sports (cricket, ice hockey, basketball, handball, rugby union, rugby league and swimming).DH85868993 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I diffused a lot of Category:Motorsport in Africa into the country categories. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak about Europe/Asia/America, but there was so little in Africa, the category was handing for group them together rather than a few categories countries with only one event in it. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the edits of User:BongoMedia and User:GTOROCKS RACING TEAM (same person?) should become checked. It appears to me like his only aim is to make José Manuel Ponce (racer) become popular but he doesn't care about neutrality. I even think Ponce is not notable because his results in WRC are poor: he was 27th out of 29 finishers in 2008 Rally Mexico and 25th out of 25 finishers in 2010 Rally Mexico. But User:BongoMedia is writing about him like he is a new star. --217.227.101.27 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The same user has added King of the Hammers. I'm a bit concerned about the photos, copyright and all. --Falcadore (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely yet another PR person trying to promote their client on Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found something very interesting: [2] What was the sense of this edit? I would say the person didn't like to see so many red links because they make this race appear not important. So he linked them to sites that already exist without respecting correctness. I wouldn't tolerate this behaviour. --217.227.107.127 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All content is copied from http://www.worldrallyteam.com/ with little changes. BongoMedia seems to be the webmaster of this site. (check this YouTube channel that is supposed to promote José Manuel Ponce) --217.227.107.127 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a bunch of stuff out of both articles that seemed non-notable, but more may need to come out. I also removed the majority of the images and am going to request OTRS permission for them. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Spyder_Monkey, we developed the article entitled José Manuel Ponce, and find him notable since he is the only Mexican American that has competed in the 4 motorsports of Rock Crawling, Rock Racing, Desert Rock Racing, and Rally. As far as the WRC Mexico 2008 results are concerned we based them off these EWRC Mexico 2008 Results. One Class A8 Driver was disqualified yet it was never updated on the 2008 Rally Mexico but there does exist an article about this exclusion. Ponce finished 26th overall with no prior rally experience in a rental and he was awarded the Benardo Audibert Cup for rookie driver amongst the Mexican teams, several references and a trophy exist about this topic. The results may not be great, but no other driver has been able to accomplish 2 consecutive finishes under his circumstances. We are new at writing articles and are learning, thanx for your input. We will not post anymore new info on this person in any of the Rally Mexico articles.

Regarding, the King of the Hammers, we noticed that there was no info and developed the new site to promote this new motorsport that has evolved and become very popular all over the world. Feel free to add more info. We noticed your edits and accept them, but find that the Evolution section should be added so readers will understand the growth of this notable international race. BongoMedia (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Having has some involvement in rock crawling I would not call it very popular, or even popular, it's a fringe branch of motorsport as best. To put that statement into perspective, Formula One is a very popular form of motorsport. To suggest Rock Crawling popularity can be compared favourably to Formula One is difficult to justify, if not absurd. While it may be increasingly rapdly at the memont that is because it's starting from a very small base. I would also find it very difficult to justify Rock Crawling, Rock Racing, Desert Rock Racing, and Rally as four branches of motorsport as three are closely related. The three rock based disciplines are essentially one for the purposes of Wikipedia. --Falcadore (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I would like to thank User:217.227.107.127 for deciding for me what I should and should not tolerate. --Falcadore (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to write articles on your own clients. This is considered a biased Conflict of Interest. "We find him notable" does not mean Wikipedia finds him notable. Simply finishing a WRC rally, no matter how special the circumstances, does not garner automatic notability. The claim that "no other driver" has been able to accomplish 2 consecutive finishes under some unusual circumstances is baseless as it's a quite useless statistic that no one would keep track of in the first place.

Wikipedia is NOT for promotion, especially when you are associated with the client. Wikipedia is about subjects were are already notability, not about attempting to increase knowledge of the subject in order to establish notability. Popularity is subjective and requires reliable, third party sources. This means articles written by Bongo Media, or those who represent or aid Jose Manuel Ponce or King of Hammers, are not legitimate in estabilishing notability. Quite honestly both articles and questionable and might warrant a discussion over deletion. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what they said. A lot of the information in both articles was indiscriminate and there were a lot of peacock terms and generally "promotional", as opposed to "informative", language. That combined with your apparent conflict of interest is concerning. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Our article has third party references, and we are a third party. 2) Reason for adding info on 2008 Rally Mexico article under the local section was because Ponce is and has been the only local driver out of the host city of Guanajuato. Would it be suffice to add the whole Class A6 teams? 3) How would this info added to the 2010 Rally Mexico article be considered notable? "The rally also ran an event/class named "Rally America" which allowed cars legal in the similarly named but unrelated Rally America series to run on the same stages as the WRC cars. The 2011 event was notable for the participation of amateur driver Ben Caswell who drove a 1991 BMW 318i he bought for $500 over Craigslist alongside co-driver Ben Slocum to 3rd place in the class, much to the amusement of the other drivers" Would it be suffice to add the whole Class A6 teams as well in this article or is that considered unnotable as well? 4) Rock crawling, rock racing, and desert racing are totally different. Each rock motorsport has their own rules and categories. These motorsports may not be as popular as Formula 1, and we would never even compare it to that since the demographics are way different. But you would be surprised on how popular the King of the Hammers race has evolved to be since 2008 when it began. Also there have been big high dollar sponsored individuals from other motorsports who have tried the King of the Hammers and failed. 5) We have decided to delete the articles, since everything we write about it not notable. BongoMedia (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What party you think you are is irrelevant as you cannot simply use yourself as a source, as you have done in both articles. Adding any or all of a lower local class is irrelevant to the scope of the article, and the participation of a local inhabitant of the rally base is trivial at best. The addition of the information on Caswell is also questionable as trivial. High sponsored individuals try and fail at every form of motorsport, that does not make the event inherently notable.

Further, you cannot delete the articles that you wrote, because you do not own these articles. Deletions need to be taken to a discussion for the public to discuss their merit on Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A PR type has just saturation bombed Formula Ford and British Formula Ford Championship with PR spam. Both now need extensive re-writes. Have a look and shake your heads. --Falcadore (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Village Pump which project members may find of interest. DH85868993 (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:1976 Grand Prix for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently made a change at 2011 Formula Renault UK season to replace the English flag with UK (Union) flag. The rational for this was a) The drivers licence is issued by the MSA UK not by a English authority. b) Mixing international flag with UK regional flags is wrong and confusing. c) The Formula Renault website uses GBR and not ENG for the drivers nationality. And after going to the British Formula Renault Championship article I can add a fourth reason which is inconsistency in the use of flags, as on this article they use the Union flag. This is not the only article that uses Home Nations instead of the Union flag and I think we need to come to some consensus it what should be done across all UK motor sport articles. Bjmullan (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This tends to be a problem with a lot of national level series, although many of these use state flags rather than the British national flags. I think NASCAR even finally got rid of the state flags, but theyre still rampant in Brazilian and British series. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think that we should remove the flags in national series, but if they must remain then it should be the Union Flag as that is the sovereign nation that is represented. Readro (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be a bore, and I feel a bit like a stuck record as it seems I point this out quite a lot, but it isn't our job to decide. How do the series in question address the issue, and how is that reported in the media? Pyrope 14:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pyrope as I've said above in the example given Renault used GBR and not ENG. In fact I think it would be difficult for anyone to come up with reliable sources to show the use of home nation flags in these type of series. Bjmullan (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That was actually my point. Pyrope 12:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that Cybervoron has removed the unnecessary flag against the circuits here, which I think makes the article look even better. Could this be the template for all UK based motor sport articles?

Hello. I would like to request a reassessment of this article. The article has been significant expanded and developed since it was rated start-class, and I believe it now merits B-class. A brief list of suggestions for improvement on the talk page would also be appreciated. Thanks. (I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Assessment#Requests for assessment, but that list appears to be horribly inactive, containing requests from years ago and requests for articles deleted at AfD months ago, so I'm coming here instead for a quicker response; being that this is a very recent event and has a bold link from ITN right now, it's important that it be improved quickly with a minimum of delay.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcgoble3 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

An AfD is running on Ash Miller. In light of Alex Chuklin and the problems we had with Ash Bettridge last year, maybe a bud to be nipped early. --Falcadore (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have woken the current Castrol Driver Rankings up since July 3. Is anyone else interesting in adding in the rankings they come in every week? Wonderwizard (talk) 12:54, September 6 2011 (UTC)

They are just a meaningless advert for Castrol. I'm amazed that Wiki gives them the amount of coverage they do. Readro (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The subject fails notability, and would probably fail an AFD. --Falcadore (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we AFD this before? I seem to recall a debate over these rankings before. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We talked about it, but did not actually do it. Nothing to stop us going ahead now. --Falcadore (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castrol Driver Rankings is now running. --Falcadore (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Castrol Driver Rankings has been nominated for deletion as unencyclopedic content. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

After comments here I've agreed that this needs to be discussed. Specifically the fact that there doesn't seem to be any standardised disambiguation for biography pages of motorsports drivers. I've seen (racer), (racing), (racing driver), (NASCAR), (NASCAR driver), (driver), (racecar driver), (stock car driver), (auto racer) (Professional race car driver) - and (motocross), just for good measure. Clearly this needs to be resolved; I propose the simple disambiguation (racing driver) be adopted as standard, with perhaps (rider) for those soley in motorcycle racing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that in the US, "racing driver" is not really a term they use, so some variation depending on driver nationality may be required. I think "auto racer" is more common in the US, but I'm sure someone can correct me on that. Otherwise, yes, we really don't need so many disambiguators. Series names like NASCAR, stock car and F1 never need to be used unless there are two racing drivers with the same name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just (racing) as the default for all nationalities, to avoid WP:ENGVAR? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time this was discussed the consensus seemed to be that it would be nice to have a standard naming convention, but it might be difficult to achieve a solution that satisfies everyone, due to ENGVAR differences. DH85868993 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support racing driver or racecar driver for everything but Motorcross, where it should be rider. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As an American, I don't have a problem with "racing driver". The only tricky spot is going to be those who have done both motorcycles and cars (e.g. Jeff Ward). Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't think so. Just default to whichever activity the competitor is more notable for. --Falcadore (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Which would be discussed on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I was aware (racing driver) was the standard, that others exist most often because it was not worth going through the effort of moving pages and addressing links. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, Bushranger. It should be a noun per WP:QUALIFIER, so the verb "racing" don't work. I support "racing driver" since "auto racer" is US-centric. People in the U.S. should be able to easily understand what "racing driver" means (I'm an American). You'll note on the last discussion that I was in favor of doing nothing and I definitely changed my mind. It looks like "racing driver" was approaching consensus last time. When someone is known most for motorcycle racing of any kind (motocross, flat track, Superbike, etc.), then it should be "rider". Series names should always be removed except if used to differentiate multiple racing drivers in different series. Royalbroil 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If it has to be a noun, why not just "racer"? That would avoid any ENGVAR issues and cover both cars and motorcycles. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because John Doe (racer) could race pigeons, bicycles, snails, yachts or greyhounds etc. Moriori (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Or frogs, for that matter! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are we going to do? -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a weak consensus for (racing driver)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I say let's just get on with it. If someone complains we can stop and discuss it again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest just moving the articles, but not updating links to them, per WP:NOTBROKEN. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Along these same lines, should we see about getting the category tree at Category:Racecar drivers changed to Category:Racing drivers? (Which sounds more encyclopedic at the very least.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an ENGVAR thing - "racecar driver" is more commonly used in the US, whereas "racing driver" is more common in the UK (and Australia). DH85868993 (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly - although it would be "race car driver", I'd think, "racecar driver" would be just what the kiddies would call it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Change the category name to "racing driver" per the rationale agreed in the last section. Use what makes the most sense in the world since both make sense to US residents. However, when creating the US categories by national and then state subdivisions, then use the preferred name for the country (such as Category:American racecar drivers). Royalbroil 04:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see them all consistent; I wouldn't like to see Category:American racecar drivers as a subcategory of Category:Racing drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Now at CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up to creating an article on the 1930s racing driver Clifton Penn-Hughes, who was killed in 1939 when his de Havilland Fox Moth aircraft crashed at Lympne Airport, Kent? Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Kurtengelmann (talk · contribs) is adding links to the website myf5000.com (external links), where he appears to be the webmaster. I'm wondering if this is some official website, one that is a Reliable Source, or if the website should be removed. I don't know much about the series or the website. Kurt has done some good contributions so I want to not push him away. Royalbroil 04:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no F5000 series except in historics, so it can't be official. Per WP:DUCK, I'd say it's a webmaster trying to spam. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Engelmann is the webmaster/author/whathaveyou (per the home page). It has some good source material that I've used as a reference in the past, but may not always be suitable as an external link. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, please delete all links and references to the site myf5000.com Kurt Engelmann, owner of Myf5000.com For your information, I'm not trying to spam anybody, I take that as a personal insult!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtengelmann (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attack you personally which is why I left a message on your talk page that I wrote instead of some templated response. I see that a bunch of articles use the website as a reference which I have left alone. In basic terms, the external links section of article pretty much should only include official links about the topic. The "yes" reasons for including any link in the external links section is very small (see WP:ELYES). Royalbroil 04:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been adding flagicons to "sporting position" succession boxes of various racing driver articles, like this. Is this desirable? DH85868993 (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hell no. --Falcadore (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be a resounding nope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Think they're all deleted now. --Falcadore (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone ever heared that term? I search it and I only find it as a trademark-ish word rather than something coming from a dictionary. --NaBUru38 (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is more used by the producers of the equipment rather than the participants, as a participant or spectator is not very likely to say "I like powersports" because the sports themselves are very different and it's unlikely a person would compete in multiple ones. However, the equipment is very similar in the sports (ie they use similar helmets and chest protectors and companies like Yamaha and Bombardier produce vehicles for multiple of the categories of powersports). It's not really a trademark. More an "industry term". -Drdisque (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, lots of equipment dealers in that industry like using the term. Royalbroil 15:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely used by industry; "MotoSport" is another similar phrase. I'm not sure it's worthy of an article though. LRT24 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's chainsaw sports and stuff like that isn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Something for Glossary of motorsport terms perhaps? --Falcadore (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not really motorsport, at least in the sense that it's not necessarily for a competition. It's the term that companies that make/sell jet ski, all-terrain vehicles, etc. use for what the produce. I haven't heard the term used for chainsaws. Royalbroil 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, an editor has proposed renaming Category:Motor racing historians to Category:Historians of motorsport. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the CfD page. DH85868993 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, {{Firestone Indy Lights Series teams}} has been nominated for deletion as unused. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. -Drdisque (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on WikiProject A1GPs talk page about the series' future along with the future of the project. I'm not sure if its proper to have the discussion there or here. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently a bunch of categories have been created to categorise drivers by race team they drove for - i.e. Category:JR Motorsports drivers, Category:Yates Racing drivers, etc. A major E for Effort here, but I'm wondering if this isn't something that should be covered in the race teams' articles instead of categories? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How is that any different from say... Category:Williams Formula One drivers, long established in Formula One categories? --Falcadore (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hence my question. I'd argue that the F1 cat might well be WP:OC too, but I wanted more opinions. I've been wrong before after all. Once. Maybe. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that categories by team is overcat, even for Formula 1. If a driver raced for McLaren, Ganassi or Schnitzer, that can be reflected in a page in or close to those articles (e.g. Ganassi has the list inside the article). Also, I think that many categories in Category:Racecar drivers by series are also redundant, especially feeders like F3. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the teams, but disagree on the series. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, folks! Today I did the article in Spanish, but am too exhausted with this FBI paranoia and Internet slowdown in South America. Can anyone please expand the article? You can check it in Spanish, German and French. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A heads-up that Category:American racing drivers is slowly being dispersed diffused into state-based subcategories. I just thought I'd notify the project in case anyone thought it was a bad thing and wanted to stop it before it had progressed too far. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - it's just too large. I've done some from Wisconsin that I knew off the top of my head. Royalbroil 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a good idea at all. With fifty states it is going to be useless to try and find anyone. It assumes a level of familiarity with the subject that is not really present. --Falcadore (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore. It assumes too much familiarity to be useful to the casual reader. I'm a NASCAR fan, and there are very few drivers that I know what state they're from. Not a good idea. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I approve of it, but it could be hard to find for some readers. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind articles being placed in the "state" categories, but I'd prefer it to be in addition to them being in Category:American racing drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason to break down into smaller categories is WP:DIFFUSE. There were 1400 articles in the main category and that's just too many. Articles shouldn't be in both a state and national category because otherwise it defeats the point of diffusing. How often are readers searching for every American driver (no matter which series) anyhow? Royalbroil 04:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one doing most of the diffusing work, and I agree that having the by-state and American cats on the article would defeat the purpose of the by-state cats. The national cat is too large - it was over 1600 articles when I started work. In addition, note that it was already tagged with {{parentcat}}, directing that This is a container category. Due to its scope, it should contain only subcategories.. This is the same as was done to Category:Jet aircraft awhile back - taking a too-large, too-broad category and turning it into a container cat for more precise, reasonably-sized categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My argument is not with the act of diffusing, but the criteria. State based suggests a level of subject familiarity not present in casual readers (Wikipedia's target audience). Nor is it I believe a defning characteristic, which according to WP:Categorization is how it should be split. Jet aircraft can easily be split by defining characteristics like military, civillian, fighter, passenger, freight, all of which are defining charactertistics. State of birth is not.

There are a variatey of mechanisms already available within wikipedia that can make large categories easier to navigate.

That having been said - has an attempt been made to diffuse Category:Living people? --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Er...state of birth not being a defining characteristic is news to me. Seeing as how most states are larger than a fair number of countries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what is meant by defining characteristic? Size of the state has no bearing on that issue. --Falcadore (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

True; I'm a bit sleepy so it's hard to put my thoughts into words on the keyboard. Basically everything in America is done by-state, pretty much. (and now I sleep. Or play Terraria. It's the same thing right?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a US-only website, EN-wikipedia caters for anyone who reads english. Is it will known that Scott Speed is Californian outside of NASCAR circles? Is Masten Gregory famed as being a Missourian? Was Eddie Lawson famed as an American World Champion or a Californian World Champion? While I understand that NASCAR drivers are regularly refered by state basis (I note the categories are not defined by birth which may not even be connected to nationality, for example David Brabham, or by such potentially transitory nature as residency as drivers move to be close to their teams) but this a category which does not contain just domestically active drivers. For some of those driver the state they were born in is not a defining characteristic.

Is Donny Schatz more famous for being from North Dakota or for being a multiple championship winning international Outlaw Sprintcar racer? Surely a much better method of subdivision is by what these racing drivers are actually famous for - the type of racing cars they drive. Considering it is racing driver that is what separates them from other American citizens in the first place, perhaps that is how they should be further subdivided? --Falcadore (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Drivers are already categorised by series. And yes, Wikipedia is not a US-only website, but "reverse WP:BIAS" is an issue as well, and there is no reason why the by-state categrisation that is used for most, if not all, other groups of Americans is not used for racing drivers as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Domestically focussed subject vs internationally focussed subject is a reason. So that's one. You need more? --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

and contrary to your above statement, Category:American racing drivers contains no subdivision by series. Where is the category for American Indycar drivers, or American NASCAR drivers? --Falcadore (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That was not my statment. Drivers are categorised by series at Category:NASCAR drivers, Category:Champ Car drivers, etc - that was my statment. I do not believe that drivers should be categorised by Category:Country Series, they should have independent country/state and series categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger - there are too many articles that should be divided by country and separately by series. With the country being too large, it needs to be divided by the next logical subdivision which is state. There are too many series for Category:Country Series to be effective. If your purpose of categories is to find drivers, then the solution is to make list articles. Royalbroil 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that it is logical. Subdivision by state is a geographical issue, even governmental issue. But it does not have any bearing on driver nationality (American racing drivers) or motorsport organisation (American racing drivers). You might as well separate Tennis players by whether they are born in the morning or the afternoon. It is common, yes, and sometimes within the scope of the subject it is logical to do so, but can you find for me in Wikipedia one instance where USA states play an organised role in notable US motor racing? Division by series is not only along the lines of notability of the subject it is also easier to search. Please do not take your confusion of the separate subject of Nationality and Geography and claim it to be logical. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It does have a bearing on nationality when the nationality has over 1600 entries in its category and, in the place where the drivers come from, we don't usually distinguish them as "American" but as "from California" "from New York" "from Alabama" etc - i.e. WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It very much doesn't. Nationality is described (reasearched from dictionaries) as being of a nation (state? no) or of a race of people (state? again no) So no it does not. Also having read Common name there is nothing there remotely on the subject, and why would there be, we are not debating anyone's name. --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't do this in other Wikipedias. But with 1,400 articles, I'm fine if you start Category:Californian racing drivers. But I'd disagree completely if you add Category:Stock car drivers from South Carolina or Category:IndyCar drivers from New Hampshire. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're coming from, Falcadore, so would you please explain more. I'm curious how you would deal with the original query. Hopefully we can reach a compromise. Do you disagree with the concept of diffusing the category with over 1500 racing drivers? If not, then how else would you have the categories be subdivided? Royalbroil 05:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The original query? The first question I can find in the debate is one of yours, How often are readers searching for every American driver (no matter which series) anyhow?

Categories are a search assisting tool. Racing drivers from California is a curious search as the term racing drivers is very broad and grouping drivers from NASCAR, Formula One, Indycar and in a case like Eddie Lawson, MotoGP together is not a very likely search option.

Someone coming in to Wikipedia looking for a racing driver is more likely to know something about their career, because their racing career after all drives their notability, compared to statehood which does not. My alternative breakdown suggestion is to break up drivers along lines of notability.

To put it more simply then, is Tony Stewart better known as a NASCAR driver, or as someone from Indians. Wikipedia's own article seems to indicate that Indiana does not play any part of his notability, it is not mentioned in the article lead at all.

The answer to that question drives by suggestion of sub-categorisation. The alternatives presented by others seems to be but that's the way we do it. --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Falcadore took the next step and started a CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 17#Racing_drivers_from_State. Please comment there. Royalbroil 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree at all that American racing drivers should be subdivided. I just believe that by state is the wrong way to do it. In the refered to CfD debate I oferred the suggestion for an alternative subdivision. The alternative is derived by the subjects defining notability, per WP:CATEGORIZATION. --Falcadore (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Execept that being from a specific state is defining for Americans - which is what the categories categorise. And to answer the above: yes, Tony Stewart is well-known and definied as being from Indiana. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedias own Tony Stewart article does not support that it is defining at all. Notable sure but notable is a long way short of defining. If it was a defining charteristic it would not have been overlooked. That is what defining means. So while you may think so, the evidence is contrary. --Falcadore (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Except - given that Wikipedia is not a reliable source - that could very well be the fault of the article and not the facts, yes? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

An easy accusation to make. It's quite an old article and reasonably stable and long with plenty of contributors. As reigning NASCAR champion he's not in the slightest bit obscure. Coming from Indiana is certainly notable but it's not part of his core notability. Coming from Indiana would mean nothing without being a hugely successful racing driver. --Falcadore (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

CfD closed, existing state-split structure to remain. --Falcadore (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)