Talk:The Big One (NASCAR)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject NASCAR (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject NASCAR, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to NASCAR. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. To view recent changes to the project's articles, please check out the related changes page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

question[edit]

Should Nationwide Series wrecks go here?Carn29 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed?[edit]

I have no reason to imagine someone needing a list of pileups in the history of NASCAR, why should this go in an encyclopedia? This seems like far too specific a topic to have such an in-depth article on, surely this would be better as a sub-section in an article about restrictor plate racing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheddle (talkcontribs) 04:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not too specific to be its own topic, there are plenty of other articles on narrower topics. There are many independent reliable sources on this specific topic which make the topic notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Since I protested your proposed deletion, you cannot propose deleting it again via the prod method - it needs to be a full discussion. Royalbroil 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that this article is not too specific. In fact, the subject is not simply "a bunch of stock car crashes." The subject is a specific kind of crash, one that has been for the past 20 years, singled out by independent sources, including print and television media. I do agree that the article can use some cleanup. It does suffer from some recent-ism. Doctorindy (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed as well. This page should not be deleted. I would not say that this article is of high importance in the NASCAR hierarchy, but its subject matter is absolutely ingrained in pop culture. The act that set up the "showdown" in Talladega nights was an example of the big one. Also agree that the article suffers from recentism (i like that word) guide lines for clean up? like possibly a minimum number of cars involved to cut down on the size of the list?Ehall317 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense[edit]

'Like 1973 Winston 500 in which was the first ever big one at Talladega eliminating 21 cars in a 60-car field including Wendell Scott's Career ending crash and 1979 Winston 500 in which involving 17 cars.' Is one of the least understandable sentences I have ever read... could someone who knows what the hell it's about please re-write it? Syko Conor (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Stack dump[edit]

Repository for some removed listings. Doctorindy (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1988

1989

Slang isn't specific, clear, universal, or encyclopedic[edit]

I know auto racing fans are incredibly passionate (particularly F1 & NASCAR fans). I'm an off and on fan of NASCAR racing (yeah, we exist). When I watch the races, I'm really into them.

That's where this comment is coming from. I want to read about this stuff, but there are so many slang terms used in this article that I think it interferes with clarity. Specifically, what is meant by being tagged? Isn't that just a light tap that doesn't cause a wreck? I think in this article it means something else. And what's up with the word "collected?" We're not amateur sports writers on WP. We're amateur encyclopedia writers. The object of these articles isn't to excite the fans; it's to present (and preserve) coherent and reliable information. I appreciate the attempts to use synonyms to enhance the writing, but that can have the opposite effect when the synonyms are only familiar to serious fans and sports writers.

Keep supporting the racing that you love, and keep writing about it, but remember your audience. Dcs002 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues with this article[edit]

The subject of the article "The Big One" appears to be defined in the sources provided as a multi-car wreck. There is is some controversy over using the term in marketing since multi-car wrecks involve injury and possible death. These claims are supported with references. I'm not certain this meets notability, however I can't see any issue with these two points being covered in the article.

The rest of the article, however, is unsourced and subjective. The entire "Causes" section is unsourced and POV.

After "Causes" every multi-car wreck is listed, though I can not see why. The description of every "Big One" is unnecessary and un-encyclopedic. I know this topic appeals to enthusiasts but I doubt more than a few sentences meet wikipedia standards. Lastly, the lede is not an accurate summary of sourced content because 95% of the article is unsourced.

Does anyone else have a view on this? I normally would boldly edit the article but I don't wish to commence an edit war and am writing here as a start point. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

{{YouTube|id|title}} could be used to cite the crashes (although YouTube isn't necessarily a reliable source). I do agree it needs major cleanup. United States Man (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The sources only need to verify that the term (i.e the subject of the article) is used and in what capacity. There is no need to list every major wreck. Flat Out let's discuss it
I am going to re-add the crashes list and then eliminate a bunch of the less-notable ones. I will keep a few using the NASCAR YouTube channel. United States Man (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Notability is not one person's opinion (See WP:NPOV ) The subject of the article is the term The Big One" and therefore should contain;

  • how the term came to be coined
  • a definition of the term and the criteria that a crash must meet to be termed as "The Big One"
  • what causes a "Big One" if there is a source to support that
  • controversy regarding use of the term in marketing
  • notable examples of crashes which meet the criteria for "The Big One"

To convey notability the crashes need to be sourced. Adding a long list of crashes with no clear definition of what constitutes "The Big One" and without any sources is original research, and POV. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would have read my edit summaries, you would know that I am working on it. Some of the ones you removed were sourced. I am only using NASCAR's YouTube channel at the moment. There is no point-of-view issue here. When I get done, the list will contain only crashes that can be sourced. I would appreciate you waiting until I am done and not start a senseless edit war or a senseless discussion here. United States Man (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't need a long list of crashes, just a few notable crashes that illustrate the term. You have to first define the term before you can give examples of what meets that definition. There is no need to add long overlinked commentaries to each crash that you list. Lastly, youtube is rarely a reliable source. If you want to create a list of notable crashes that are encyclopedic in tone then best to work on it away from mainspace and merge when complete. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I think this article shouldn't list all of "the big ones", unless it has high notability. (maybe if a death resulted from the accident, or the accident involved a record number of cars) – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 03:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This states that videos from an official channel/publisher (which NASCAR is) do not violate copyright rules and can be considered reliable. Now for the crashes, I was going for the more notable crashes in the 15-car and up range. I will pull several off of the YT channel and let it go at that. I should have realized myself that adding all those crashes would make the page far too long. It never crossed my mind. Thanks to Flat Out for pointing out these problems. United States Man (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
That is true, youtube can be a reliable source, but simply adding a link to youtube proves the accident happened but it doesn't support that what makes the crashes notable. If you change the section heading to "Examples" and have a few crashes sourced by youtube then I can't see any issue, but "Notable crashes" means just that and the source needs to support the reason for which the crash is notable. As it stands the youtube sources don't notable crashes. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that makes enough sense. United States Man (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Example relevance[edit]

Most of these examples are from the Nationwide Series rather than the Sprint Cup series, which is more important. I think it would be a good idea to delete some of the less relevant Nationwide examples and add in some Sprint Cup series examples. Anyone have any objections to that? GrizzlyPear (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections from me as long as the list doesn't get out of hand Flat Out let's discuss it 22:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you could get rid of the 2012 Subway Jalapeno 250 crash, but leave the others. I also would support the addition of three or four more Cup series crashes (I was originally going to add some myself but I got backed up with other things and have never gotten around to it). United States Man (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

We still don't have a source to support the definition of "The Big One." Variously the lead has said 5 or more, 6 or more, 8 or more. If we are going to be specific we need a source, otherwise multi-car wreck should be used IMO. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be "large multi-car wreck" myself. United States Man (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)