Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Other project talk pages: Formula One NASCAR World Rallying US Open Wheel Racing Sports Car Racing GP Motorcycle Racing British Motorsport Australian Motorsport Taskforce talk pages: History of Motorsport Touring car racing A1 Grand Prix Formula E Superleague Formula

1960 Formula Two season

I've started a draft User:A7V2/1960 Formula Two season and would like to bring it to the attention of any interested editors. For those who don't know in 1960 there was an international championship for both drivers and constructors, in part since 1960 F2 became F1 in 1961. I'm planning to more or less follow the same layout as 1960 Formula One season. For references I'll mainly be using Autocourse 1960 pt 2 and formula2.net [1]. I've chosen the name because I needed to pick a name, if others have a better idea that's fine. Anyway, if you would like to help, or provide feedback or advice, that would be appreciated. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anthoine Hubert

The Anthoine Hubert article has been nominated for ITN, either as a blurb or RD. Complaints are being received that the results sections are completely unreferenced - an issue which is preventing the article's appearance on the Main Page and which seems to affect most, if not all, driver articles. Can we sort out the referencing issues please? Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles

The consensus is that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the results section in all motorsport articles (championships, races, driver etc) is required to be fully referenced.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re the above appeal, and the subsequent tagging of the Anthoine Hubert article with {{unreferenced section}}, combined with the lack of response which has kept the article off the Main Page under RD, the issue needs to be thrashed out. I'm placing the RFC here as the main parent project for motorsports.

Should the results section in all motorsport articles (championships, races, driver etc) be required to be fully referenced or not? Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, they probably should. But doing it is going to be a bloody big job. Having said that, I have worked on articles that achieved GA status—like Volkswagen Polo R WRC and McLaren MP4-30—but the lack of sources in the results section was not an issue in either case. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The lack of results has never been a problem. I am not particularlly fussed either way I am just confused as to why its a problem only now when this project and its various child projects have hundreds of articles which are either good articles or featured articles with lots of articles appearing on the main page without the results being as extensivly referenced as is apparently required for Hubert's article. I just don't get why this is a problem only now after all these years.
SSSB (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: It is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, WP:V is failed, which means that all GAs and FAs are at risk of demotion. I know how much work goes into getting a FA, so can appreciate the resistance to change. Secondly, in this instance, it has kept the article on Anthoine Hubert off the main page. Something I disagree with, but I'm not going to throw my admin's tools away over.

I appreciate that it seems to be "the way things are done here" for many years. But as the issue has been raised, it is only right that it is fully discussed. On the plus side, results should be easy enough to verify, either through the FIA website, or various online, journal and book sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I know that. I am just expressing frustration that this has only become an issue now.
SSSB (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I have found some editors at ITN difficult to deal with. Some of them do tend to jealously guard it a bit, or at least they did when I dabbled in it.

So long as the prose detailing a driver's career is well-sourced, I think the lack of sources in summary tables is less of an issue than if the article contained unsourced summary tables alone. If most of the article is the tables, I would suggest that notability is a bigger issue than verifiability. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

During the last few years I have sent a couple of F1 season articles through the GA and even FA process. During that the lack of sources for the results tables we had back then did came up as an issue. It was an easy enough fix and have tried to ensure that at the latest a source is attached to the table by the end of the championships.Tvx1 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe we should put the source below like in F1 season articles (calendar, entry list)? The tables are usually quite wide already. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that would work. What is wrong with each entry carrying a reference? Is it aesthetics? Otherwise, an extra column at the right could carry all references relevant to that line, but that is probably not the best way to do things. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem which each result carring its own reference is that it doesn't (usually) need to there are sources which document all the results for the entire season or a drivers entire career, therefore only one ref would be needed. As Corvus tristis points out the tables are already very wide. I would add an extra row for the source below the results for each year (like this), but that is a discussion for later.
      SSSB (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I would prefer to have the sources at the bottom of the entire table rather than having them intertwined for every year.Tvx1 14:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The problem with that is for larger table, like for Scuderia Ferrari there would 70+ refs to have to go through. It just isn't practical for someone who wants to look at the references for one particular year.
          SSSB (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
          • This RFC does not need to cover how the references are added, simply that they should be added per WP:V. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes they should be fully referenced. There's absolutely no good reason to allow them an exception from WP:V, articles should be standalone verifiable and that includes such results tables. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Wrong venue and yes. With all due respect to the good work done by members of this project, an individual WikiProject doesn't have the mandate to overturn Wikipedia's sitewide verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Clarification or amendment of the policy belongs at WT:V. I don't think there's any ambiguity at present, because the requirement for readers to be able to check the driver's results, as listed, is not met if the section is uncited.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: - Why is this the wrong venue? This is the parent WP for all other motor sport WPs. Seemed obvious to me. Nothing wrong with publicising the RFC elsewhere if you think it justified. Not allowed to use WP:CENT. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    I say it's the wrong venue because this looks like a policy question, not a matter for an individual WikiProject to determine on its own. Sure, it's an RFC, and could be viewed by those outside the motorsport project if people follow links from other venues, but it's likely to feature heavily the views of those on the project, which whole valuable are not reflective of the wider community consensus. Ultimately, verifiability is not a policy area which the project has the authority to overturn, and I don't think an RFC here would be sufficient to enable articles with unreferenced sections to appear on the main page. Just IMHO anyway, others may disagree. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    I added a pointer at WT:V. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes they should be referenced, but there is no need for each individual result to have its own citation. Season summary citations are perfectly reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and most NASCAR tables that have been added within the last five years or so should already have them. For older ones, they shouldn't be that difficult to add thanks to sites such as Racing-Reference. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per The Rambling Man and Bcschneider53. MWright96 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There's enough statistical documentation out there (websites and books) that it shouldn't be hard to follow WP:V. Not that every cell or even every row needs a ref - but either somewhere before, at the beginning of, at the end of, or after, there should be a reference. — Ched (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do when a race is abandoned

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round about what to do with results tables in the event a race is abandoned before a result is cancelled that might be of relevance to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Racing Team Nederland and John Bosch Drafts

Maikelvangorkom has made two drafts, Draft:Racing Team Nederland and Draft:John Bosch but has had no contributions for the last 7 months and the articles have been in limbo. I believe they are notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports and with some rewriting and additional references can be promoted out of Drafts so I would like to bring them to the attention of any interested editors. Bobi.1 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Both articles look quite ready and notable enough to have place in the mainspace already. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Corvus tristis, According to reviewers they lack proper references, check the Racing Team Nederland talk page for example. I do not know more reliable sportscar racing media than Daily Sportscar, Sportscar 365, Autosport, and Motorsport.com, so I cannot contribute more to the article. If it moves forward, it has to be with contributions from someone else. Bobi.1 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Motorsport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Motorsport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Motorsport until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Grandes Épreuves start

Hello, can you give me sources that claim that the Grandes Épreuves were held since 1906 and not since 1923, as shown this page. If there are no sources, it must be changed. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of confusion regarding the term "Grandes Épreuves" in more modern literature as it was actually quite common (although I'm not sure if this was official or not) for the World Championship events to be called this into the 70s...

Anyway, in response to your question the confusion is probably that prior to 1923, the ACF (French) GP was by far the most prestigious race in Europe, so in [2] and [3] is given the same background colour as the Grandes Épreuves, but you are right that they weren't called that before 1923. At the time it was often called simply "The Grand Prix". Also I've no idea why, for example, in 1922 Grand Prix season the Italian GP is listed as being a GÉ as even in the source it isn't given the blue background. A7V2 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So shouldn't the articles be modified to what the link says? He is the only one I have found where he mentions some history of GE, when he mentions his creation. --Adriel 00 (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Certainly based on the source used for these articles, and based on what I've seen elsewhere, it would appear to be right. A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I await more opinions. Thank you. --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix Formula Three support race

I'd like to increase the scope of Monaco Grand Prix Formula Three support race and maybe move the article to something like Monaco Grand Prix support races. Currently the article discusses only the 1950,1964-97,2005 F3 and 1959-63 F Junior races, but I feel it would be more appropriate for the article to also discuss other major supporting races of the Grand Prix, namely the 1936 Coupes Prince Ranier (Voiturette), 1937 sports car race, 1952 under 2L sports car race (the year the Grand Prix was run for sports cars), 1998-2004 F3000, 2005-2016 GP2 and 2017-present F2. Potentially also could mention the GP3 race 2012 and the various Formula Renault races since 2003. I don't think it would be worth discussing much about the one-make sports car races for BMW M1s, Jag XJR-15s or Porsche Supercup. So long as no-one objects I will do it soon, but I wonder what others think about the article name, or what the exact scope should be. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this would be fine, however I think the 1952 race should not be included as it was the actual Grand Prix that year and not a support race. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify that the support event in 1950/52 was called the "Prix de Monte Carlo" (in French), and was run for F3 in 1950 (with the Monaco GP run for F1) and was run for under 2L sports cars in 1952 (with the Monaco GP run for over 2L sports cars). A7V2 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, I misinterpreted that sentence. Being a support race the under 2L sports cars should definitely be included. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made the move to Monaco Grand Prix support races and will start incorporating the other information into it. A7V2 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

European Championship drivers

Hello, I am about to create a category about European Championship drivers, as mentioned in the "Final Championship standings" section of the "Grand Prix season". Should I also include drivers from the unfinished seasons of 1933, 1934 and 1939? What should the category be called?. Thank you! --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of any 1933 or 1934 championships, but I'd say definitely include 1939 since there's no doubt that the four events which did run would have counted towards the championship had the War not intervened. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:European Championship drivers can it be the name? --Adriel 00 (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Permanent driver number vs #1 for defending champion in the next season entry list

In a motorsport series where there are permanent driver numbers, but a defending champion can use no 1 (his personal choice). What number if any should be used in next season article? I personally think if we don't have a direct source that supports a specific number, we should write "TBA". Another user, Mclarenfan17 insists using the permanent driver number until proven otherwise. So it started an edit war with lots of anon users also involved.

• The article is 2020 World Rally Championship and we had some discussion here.
• The defending champion Ott Tänak used #8 so far. Last champion Sebastien Ogier did use #1.

Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This had never occurred to me. Given that it is certain that it will be either 1 or (in this case) 8, I think a reasonable thing to do would be to put 8 with a footnote that says something along the lines of as the defending champion driver X can chose to enter the season with the number 1, at least in Formula One (not sure about other series) this is the stance reliable sources take.
SSSB (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Formula 1, Supercars and MotoGP all use a "permanent numbers" system (or slight variation thereof). In each of those articles, editors assume that the reigning champion will continue to use their permanent number until a source emerges stating otherwise. I see no reason why WRC articles should not be the same. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: Well, I tried adding a footnote, but Mclarenfan17 still reverted it. Is it because in a totally different series Hamilton did not take no.1? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Strictly speaking WP:CRYSTAL would apply should you not mention that a driver can use 2 numbers. @Pelmeen10: but I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to raise WP:LETITGO either because who uses which number is minor and only really relevant if your watching/looking at pictures. Otherwise you simply don't need to know. Besides should a driver use 1 the article would be updated as soon as a season entry list comes out, long before the season actually starts. In short I'm indifferent.
SSSB (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Strictly speaking WP:CRYSTAL would apply should you not mention that a driver can use 2 numbers"

But that undermines the sources given in the article.

"Is it because in a totally different series Hamilton did not take no.1?"

No, it's because you didn't get a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But that undermines the sources given in the article, no it doesn't, the source states:#1 reserved for the World Rally champion (and that source talks the 2019 season, not 2020). And even if it didn't state that #1 is reserved you can find a source which does because we all know its true. To quote your own edit summary "Can" does not mean "will", Tanak can choose to use 8 next season, or he can choose to use 1.
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed undermine the source because it means he might not be #8 despite what the sources say. The source says he is #8, but the note says he might not be. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the simply truth though, as he might indeed choose to use number 1. That is a literal truth.Tvx1 09:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"he might indeed choose to use number 1"

I've highlighted the problem word for you. He might. You have no way of knowing if he will, which means you're speculating—which I find odd because you are usually deeply opposed to speculating. And, predictably, you only show up in a WRC-related discussion to oppose me. I thought you had learned your lesson there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, equally he might use number 8. You have no way of knowing if he will chose 1 or 8, therefore only stating 8 or only statting 1 is speculating, the only way to avoid speculating would be to mention that he could use either.
SSSB (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: the article contains a source that says #8 is his number for the duration of his career. While he can use #1 as the champion, the #8 will still be his. Your entire argument undoes the certainty of the source because of unsupported uncertainty. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But the uncertainty is supported, #1 reserved for the World Rally champion, Tanak is the World Rally Champion. that says #8 is his number for the duration of his career, no it doesn't. It states that drivers are allowed permenant numbers and it states that Tanak's number is 8. It doesn't state that Tanak isn't allowed to use the #1 reserved for the World Rally champion. Therefore the article states that Tanak (as reigning World Champion) is allowed to race with either 1 or his permenant number (8).
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet, we can also produce sources that he is allowed to choose using number 1 at present. No one is removing number 8 or suggesting doing so. Including the note just makes the situation factually correct as it is quite literally the blatant truth. It is NOT certain that he WILL use #8 in 2020. He HAS a choice, which we can prove.Tvx1 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you say on the subject of the WRC has any credibility given your history with the articles. You might as well save your breath. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Too bad it isn't your judgment to make. Attacking the contributors isn't going to help you in any way in this discussion. Seems like I have plenty of credibility with the other participants here.Tvx1 20:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You have a documented history of only participating in WRC discussions for the purpose of opposing me. It's no surprise that, after disappearing for a few weeks, you only re-surfaced in a WRC discussion when I posted in a Formula 1 discussion. You're very transparent. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: So you're rejecting someone's opinion because they disagree with you now and have also disagreed with you in the past? Whilst failing to argue against Tvx1's latest, perfectly valid, point. I think the reason that Tvx1 is taking part in this discussion is likely to be because they watch this page rather than because they're stalking you. The fact that this discussion has downturned into you handing out personal attacks would indicate to me that you have no rebuttal, is that the correct assumption to make?
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

At worst the source contradicts itsself stating that #1 reserved for the World Rally champion and that Tanak will use 8. As Tvx1 just pointed out its the truth so if it bothers you that much find a source, or don't becuase none of the other driver numbers are sourced.
SSSB (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations], I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that.Tvx1 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)