Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Racing car and hybrid systems[edit]

Working on an article for the (very funky) Nissan GT-R LM Nismo, and it comes to my attention that attempting to describe a car with one gasoline motor, two flywheels, and technically three gearboxes with our current infobox is difficult. I notice that someone has added additional fields to the infobox for the Spark-Renault SRT 01E to describe batteries and electrical motors, but there appears to be no way to adequately describe other hybrid systems that do not rely solely on batteries or electrical motors. We now have two World Championships utilizing hybrid technology, I think we need to sit down and think about how to describe these, especially as they come in a variety of ways (batteries, flywheels, supercapacitors, heat exchangers, etc.). "Engine" also seems to now be antiquated in describing a car as the "ICE" terminology has now taken over.

I'd also add that, although someone did add parameters for electrical systems to the template, there is currently nothing in the description on Template:Racing car to describe their function or that they even exist as parameters. The359 (Talk) 21:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The359, I am having a similar problem with McLaren MP4-30. I have been able to insert some description into the engine outline, but it's a little on the awkward side, so I fully support the idea of a separate field for a hybrid system, possibly arranged like the engine and gearbox fields, with several sub-fields that combine to make one description. That would allow for flexibility so that the infobox is open to a variety of hybrid systems. I ran the idea past DH85868993, and he seems to be on-board.
I also noticed that the infobox is missing a field for a car's braking system. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Single-event tables[edit]

I think that it's unnecessary to add a table to an article, if a driver competed just one event/round. Even if a series enough notable (GP2, DTM, Formula E, FIA WEC, etc). It can be covered just in text. For example: Nick Heidfeld's participations in Porsche Supercup and V8 Supercar. We can just write:

===Touring car racing===

In 2012, Heidfeld competed in the Porsche Supercup round at Hockenheim, finishing tenth. Also in this year, he took part in the Gold Coast 600 event of the V8 Supercar, retiring in the first race of the weekend and finishing thirteenth in the second race. Cybervoron (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree totally. Have argued that principle for a few years when Jacques Villeneuve first acquired a V8 Supercar table. This leads into two pet peeves of mine, one I won't mention because it will de-rail this debate. The other: championship results can be more effectively summarised by table like appears here, eg. Rick Kelly#Career results. Instead of a complicated table of 25 links per line with a display of every race result, it simplifies to year, series, team, result and car, with links to season articles which display each individual race result. No information is lost, it reduces duplication across multpile articles. --Falcadore (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In addition, race-by-race results of series should be reconsidered at least unless (like F1 and Indycar) individual races of the season are independently notable. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The creation of series tables has gotten a bit out of hand. Case in point, I noticed the recent addition of a table for the Porsche Carrera Cup GB. Since when does a series of that low a level warrant a race-by-race table? QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. A domestic series filled with amateurs? No. --Falcadore (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Just adding my opinion, personally I've always preferred looking at a table of results rather than reading walls of text to see a result, specifically when looking at a particular driver, all their results are there in front of you. I can understand the perhaps unnecessary one event table, but only if the driver hasn't competed in the series before or a multiple race basis like the Nick Heidfeld example, compared to say not adding to Sebastien Loeb's table when he came back for one rally this year. RewF12012 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
RewF12012, I'm absolutely understand your position, in the beginning I was probably even more radical about adding race-by-race tables. Yes, I propose exactly thing that was in the your last sentence. Cybervoron (talk)
  • Based on the current blanket removals by Cybervoron - almost always improperly described, and that they're edit-warring to some degree over - I'm coming here to voice my opinion. I think there needs to be a list of series that a table is valid for, because at the moment, people are removing things based on their own whims. Also, I think everything has to be relative to the level a driver has reached; if a notable driver hasn't competed regularly beyond a given series, then that series should have a results table. Also, I think the issue of single-race things depends entirely on the level of the series relative to the rest of their career; for Jacques Villeneuve and the V8 Supercar table, it's at a lower level than most of his career, but for some drivers, their entire set of notability comes from one or two races at a particular series. Removing the tables in these cases also creates inconsistencies across articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well either it is based on the relevancy of the results of the driver (individual on a case-by-case basis) or it should be consistent across all articles (same series are relelvant regardless of a drivers level of achievement). Please pick one User:Lukeno94. --Falcadore (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with either of those things. At the moment though, we have removals based on nothing but one person's opinion, which is rarely helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For my full listed opinion, see my userpage. However the main issue I have is that I personally don't see any problems with results tables. They're not in the way, they're not ugly, they're not hard to write (Call me crazy, but I enjoy writing them). I find that Single seaters are fairly easy to separate into what should have a table and what shouldn't i.e. the split seems to exist between Formula Renault 2.0 and below and Formula 3 and above, but other forms of motorsport such as touring cars and sportscars are a lot harder, apart from the obvious WORLD Tourers and WORLD Endurance. The simple fact remains that everyone has differing opinions on what is notable. RewF12012 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've read at lkeast three opinions there rather than one, but it is more important to explain why race-by-race tables are neccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@RewF12012 I think that you made great list and I support many parts of it. I hope that final edition of the list will become a guideline after this discussion.
@Lukeno94 Notability doesn't based on my opinion, it's based on the lack of reliable third-party sources in the articles Mostly, these championships are referenced by the official site of a championship or even referenced at all (especially Ginetta G50 Cup), while if we took almost any championship from RewF12012's list from "Yes" section we could easily find a source for them. Cybervoron (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Saying we need third-party sources for a results table to be valid is, to be blunt, bonkers. In fact, apart from the few cases where the official standings are verifiably incomplete or wrong (some of the oldest British GT Championship standings on the official website fall into this category), or where official data is not kept online, we should always favour the official sources. And if you're removing something based on a lack of source, well, you need to actually say that, and not use rationales of "not notable" or "cleanup". Unfortunately, you've again shown your lack of research, as it's pretty easy to find third-party sources for your example of the Ginetta G50 Cup's standings; this reliable third-party source gives last season's standings (the G50 Cup is now the GT4 Cup), and that was pretty easy to find. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did you find that I say "we need third-party sources for a results table"? I say "lack of reliable third-party sources in the articles". Results table is just a duplication of the season's article, so if you can't prove that article notable, the table isn't notable too. 2008 Ginetta G50 Cup season didn't contain any references at all. All ToCA Support series are pretty domestic and didn't have self notability. The driver, who raced in any of these series becomes notable only when he moves to more significant championship at least BTCC/British GT. So I don't understand why we don't have results table for a British Formula Ford Championship, that brought to us Ayrton Senna (!), Eddie Irvine, Jenson Button, but we need to have a results table for Ginetta GT4 Supercup, that has a similar significance as British Formula Ford Championship? Cybervoron (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That shows a total disregard of NMOTORSPORT. Also, the Ginetta GT Supercup is part of the ToCA package, and is just one rung below the BTCC; as such, the major drivers in that series actually get quite a lot of in-depth coverage on the TV; a lot of the British FF seasons have not been part of that package, and so haven't received the same coverage, plus British FF is quite a long way below the major series (until recently, with the advent of the aero cars with the Ecoboost engine, it was effectively below even Formula Renault!) Lack of references in another article has no relevance to any other article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ginetta GT Supercup doesn't match any of NMOTORSPORT criteria (even #7). It's covered only by the local ITV4 channel, so this series has some notability only for few local fans but not for Wikipedia. Cybervoron (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ginetta Supercup is an amateur series. We'd previously established Formula 3 as the dotted line for such things and a one-make series for a sports car which has almost no presence beyond the British Isles is well below the threshhold. BTCC is a domestic series, headline yes, but still domestic. Any support series of a domestic series has no reason for race-by-race coverage. As you say, one rung below BTCC is also one rung below notability threshhold. --Falcadore (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cybervoron; a nationwide channel is not local. ITV4 is not a local channel, it is a UK-wide channel which everyone with a TV license has access to. As such, drivers will get more TV coverage for anything part of the BTCC package than most of the higher-ranked series. Likewise, the Ginetta GT4 Supercup is not amateur; it's semi-professional at the very least. In fact, from next season, there will be a professional category (as the "amateur" Porsche Carrera Cup GB has, for that matter). But then, I should be used to people here dismissing TV coverage of championships just because they don't care about the championship... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
What's the difference? It still doesn't meet NMotorsport paragraph #7. Cybervoron (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
TV coverage does not define professionalism. It is a one-make sports car series that is part of the support program for the BTCC. Support program. Any notability it may achieve via TV package is only because it is part of the BTCC package. The Ginettas TV is not independantly notable from the BTCC. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Driver results legend template[edit]

I have proposed a slight change over at Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2#Did not participate. Having seen that the last activity on the talk page there was in 2012, and that this was previously attempted at WP:F1, which garnered one entire reply which was niether for nor against the proposed change, I have reached out to you here for your comments and opinions, which would be greatly welcome. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Background colours in the result tables[edit]

Prisonermonkeys started a discussion about a very important change in the colour scheme of the background colours in the tables. This change will affect not only F1 articles, but all motorsport articles. Please, join this discussion here. Cybervoron (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Carbon fiber"[edit]

What does carbon fiber mean? We are discussing the primary topic at talk:carbon (fiber). As carbon fiber is a common racer material, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile#Requested move 28 March 2015. DH85868993 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Hirsch[edit]

Dear motorsport enthusiasts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable racer? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

2016 International V8 Supercars Championship listed at AFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 International V8 Supercars Championship has been listed at AFD for you comment. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Touring Car Championship season[edit]

What do you think about adding track maps and manafacturers' stats to the article? Cybervoron (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:JK Tyre National Level Racing Championship Drivers[edit]

I've just come across Category:JK Tyre National Level Racing Championship Drivers, because it's listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. Therefore, it needs to be taken out of itself, and put into one or more suitable parent cats - but I really don't know what to put it under. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would put it under Category:Formula BMW drivers. It's not an official BMW series, but it uses the same machinery. Technically, it's the successor series to Formula BMW Asia. --Pc13 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC - Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

Mercedes-Benz CLR has been listed on WP:FAC for about a month now with no responses, so I'm trying to get some eyes on it. I had posted the previous peer review on the sports car WikiProject, but again without any input, so I've expanded it to here. The359 (Talk) 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

There's an article up for deletion with doubts over notability – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keir Millar. Tragic case, but try to be objective. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)