Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR

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


WikiProject NASCAR (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

2013 ARCA images up[edit]

I finally finished uploading images of the field from the 2013 ARCA race at Road America. I didn't get a photo of one local start and park driver in his only national race. So if you write an article on someone who passed through the ARCA ranks in 2013, there's a good chance that there's already an image on him at Commons here. You can also keep in mind that I photographed the whole field at the ARCA Midwest Tour event in 2014 - including great closeup driver shots before the race and cars on the track (some found here but I can upload anything else like Ty Majeski or NASCAR drive for Diversity driver Natalie Decker who both have a good shot at the big time). Royalbroil

2012 Daytona 500 - Peer review[edit]

The article on the 2012 Daytona 500 is up for peer review which is linked here. I intend that the article reach FAC, with a view of having it be on the main page on February 27, 2017. All feedback (including constructive criticism) is appreciated.

Thoughts about a project list of sources[edit]

While I was a member of Wikiproject:Pro Wrestling, I noticed they had a section on the project's page with a list of go-to sources for their respective wrestling pages. I'm saying this because I wanted to know what everyone would think about having a section on our project page with a list of go-to sources for race reports and stuff. Here's what I mean:

Reliable sources for race reports[edit]

Entry list[edit]

Jayski.com and/or MRN.com

Practice[edit]

nascartalk.nbcsports.com and/or Motorsport.com for summaries of practice sessions.
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for practice result tables.

Qualifying[edit]

MRN.com for summary of the qualifying session.
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for qualifying results.

Race[edit]

nascartalk.nbcsports.com
usatoday.com (Jeff Gluck and Brant James)
charlotteobserver.com (That's Racin)
Motorsport.com
MRN.com
ESPN.com
racing.ap.org
Autosport.com
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for race results

I think it's a good idea for newcomers who don't know where to look for sources for race reports. I listed these because I mostly use these sources when I write the race reports. So what do y'all think of my suggestion?--Nascar king 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks about fine to me, though Racing-Reference.info is also a good source to use. I would say Catchfence.com as well, but I'm still a little iffy on it. Zappa24Mati 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks good. There are always others out there (such as Fox Sports, CBS Sports, etc.) that will occasionally provide a good quote or post-race story, but this seems like a good general template. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: I'm not familiar with how CBS reports on NASCAR since they haven't covered the sport since 2000, but I agree on Fox Sports.--Nascar king 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: http://www.cbssports.com/nascar/story/25245197/kyle-busch-races-to-3rd-win-of-year-moves-closer-to-chase

And I guess while we're at it, let's also list sources some of us would consider unreliable. While I have some that I'd consider unreliable, I'd rather we have a consensus from some of the active project members (like myself, Zappa, Ptb1997 and Bentv) before listing unreliable sources.--Nascar king 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Ptb1997 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321, Ptb1997, and ZappaOMati: Should we make a separate section for this or stick it in the standards section?--Nascar king 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess that will okay? Ptb1997 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards#List of reliable sources. I just added sources used for race reports to get it started. Feel free to add any sources for different article types like drivers, race tracks, etc.--Nascar king 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks for putting together the list. Royalbroil 11:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Sam Hornish, Jr.[edit]

Lately, a number of IPs have been adding a ridiculous amount of info (much of which is unsourced), along with other edits that go against what is normally done with NASCAR driver pages, such as at the results tables. Help to maintain the article would be greatly appreciated. Zappa24Mati 21:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ZappaOMati: Have you considered putting in a request for pending changes protection?--Nascar king 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@ZappaOMati and Nascarking: I'd suggest semi-protection of the article. I can't say I'm on Wikibreak anymore, but I will be largely unavailable for a bit. When I have the time, I'll try to work on cleaning up the article. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions for race articles.[edit]

I was reading Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_48#.22It.27s_a_great_day_for_a_ballgame_here_at_Ephemeral_Stupid_Name_Stadium....22, and it got me thinking; we really need to give these race articles (and I mean the article about the race as a whole, not individual editions) more consistent titles so that we don't have to constantly move them around every year to reflect whatever random company purchased the naming rights this year.

I'd like to propose a two-pronged approach, inspired by how ESPN and NBC seem to enjoy stripping sponsored names from events if they did not pay the network for sponsorship too.

In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and ensuring clarity, race articles should be titled and referred to in their main articles using either (in order of preference):

  • An official non-sponsored title that is currently in use (e.g. Daytona 500)
  • A historic, non-sponsored title that is commonly used by current reliable sources to refer to the race, even if the race has naming rights. (e.g. Brickyard 400 instead of "Crown Royal presents the Your Name Here 400 at the Brickyard", Southern 500)
  • A sponsored title that has been consistently used for a long-term period (e.g. Coca-Cola 600 or Sylvania 300)
  • If the race's titling does not match any of the above, it should take the form of (Series) at (city or venue), with the month as disambiguation if needed (i.e. "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Kansas (May)" instead of SpongeBob SquarePants 400). In the article text, different forms of this convention can be used ("NASCAR Sprint Cup event held at Kansas Speedway", "Kansas spring race", etc.)

This does not apply to articles covering a specific edition of a race, which should use the official name given.

ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

While I'm on the fence with the Brickyard 400, I think it's always been project policy that races should follow WP:OFFICIAL. I could be wrong, but my vote would be to stick with official titles outside of the Brickyard 400 (I can't give a good or bad reason for that exception) since this sport is so sponsor driven.--Nascar king 23:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an essay, and its main point is that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." The constantly changing names on some events make them ambiguous. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE. This seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. What one person sits around and "thinks about" does not make for fact. That race has not been referred to as the "Brickyard 400" for 10 out of the last 11 years. To considered it common name is becoming more and more a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, there are two issues at hand. The name of the Article, and the name that is listed in the first sentence of the article. It has been precedent in the past few years with the BY400 article to have the article name as Brickyard 400, but the bolded first sentence introduction be the "official name" (i.e., Crown Royal presents...).

  • Counterpoint 1: Daytona 500 is a poor example because it has no title sponsor.
  • Counterpoint 2: All races at one point had a "Historic" name. However, they are no longer used in any official capacity, no longer used in common form, and will only serve to confuse readers and scuttle search attempts. Furthermore these fake generic names (e.g. "Sprint Cup at Kanas") are MADE UP. Names like "Volunteer 500" "Dixie 500", "Yankee 400", "Rebel 500", "Summer 500", etc. are all historical names, yet few people will even recognize them. 'Constantly changing is relative just the same. Race sponsor names would occur at most once per year. Race title sponsorships typically last more than one year. It's an exaggeration to say they are "constantly changing."
  • Counterpoint 3: "Picking and choosing" which official title sponsors to use and which to ignore is unprofessional and is based on opinion only. What makes one more important than another will boil down to one editor's opinion, and that is not the spirit of WP policy.
  • Counterpoint 4: The ESPN policy of naming races on TV with their own made up generic names is a TV thing and not historically accurate, nor official. ESPN decided that they would only name the title sponsor if the sponsor paid them to do it. Just because ESPN calls it "Sprint Cup at Kansas" does not mean for one second the race itself is still not officially named the "Spongebob Squarepants 500". We should be concerned with writing fact as it pertains to the event itself, not how some media outlet decides to report it. When done right, the Wikipedia Redirect function works just fine to take care of the annual to semi-annual race name changes. DoctorindyTalk 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We are not here to pursue the interests of sponsors. We are here to write an encyclopedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is about writing FACTS. The FACTS are undeniable and indisputable. The race is named the "Crown Royal presents the Jeff Kyle 400 at the Brickyard". It is reported that way by the official site, the race entry list, the race tickets, and is reported as such by reliable sources in the media. You have produced nothing to support that claim the common name and official name is still "Brickyard 400." This issue has come up numerous times over the years. Your actions are arbitrary. DoctorindyTalk 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Overcategorisation[edit]

Folks, watch out for some instances of WP:OVERCAT slipping into NASCAR articles. An editor is creating and/or adding categories for individual drivers and teams and adding race and championship articles to the winning driver and team categories. This could quickly overwhelm articles with trivial intersections of data and runs up against WP:OVERCAT and perhaps more specifically WP:PERFCAT. --Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Overcat violations are getting ridiculous. Tide has been added as a Darrel Waltrip category! Please be more discriminating with categorisation. --Falcadore (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)