Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR

• /Archive 1: 10 December 2004 – 12 January 2006.
• /Archive 2: 12 January 2006 - 2 June 2006.
• /Archive 3: 2 June 2006 - 5 October 2006.

Archiving

Decided to archive the talk page, as it was 57K (recommended size is 32K or smaller) That, and it was a touch too long to be useful. It is still available here, and as its template states, feel free to "revitalize" any topic, by copy/pasting here. -slowpokeiv 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Another archive here. Recury 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another archive here. Y'know, it's gotta be a good thing when the length of time covered in the Archive keeps getting shorter and shorter. -- DiegoTehMexican 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Driver Infobox Template

OK, it has been a while, and is now done. {{Infobox NASCAR driver}} now exists, but needs to be used. All should be able to be migrated with little effort, but be aware that all stats must now be series specific. (That is, Cup_Wins must be used, not Wins) -slowpokeiv 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked this on slowepokeiv's talk page, but I should ask it here too - should we develop a "joint" infobox template with WikiProject Formula One, for drivers like Juan Pablo Montoya and Tony Stewart, who have raced in F1, NASCAR, and/or IRL? -- DiegoTehMexican 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk, I disagree with the melding of the two infoboxes, for the main reason that I don't want to say that one is more important than another. (I do however think that discussion is good, and agree with bringing it up and discussing it here.) Also, the list of crossovers is relativly short. (I only know 2 or 3 drivers to have done the sunday double (Indy 500, Cocacola 600) and I think just as few who have raced F1 and NASCAR. -slowpokeiv 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with melding the infoboxes for the same reasons as Slowpokeiv. I would have posted it last night had my Wi-Fi been working better. The only infobox combination that could possibly make sense in my mind would be IROC, but I think they should remain separate. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge request on NASCAR Canadian Tire Series

Someone has requested a merge of the following four articles: NASCAR Canadian Tire Series, CASCAR, CASCAR Super Series, and NASCAR Canada. I suggest all comments be left on the talk page for NASCAR Canadian Tire Series. Would someone please point all of the merge discussions to my comment there, for my Wi-Fi internet connection is nearly dead with rain moving in. THANKS! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Erin Crocker

I read what happened to the article from the anon user. I totally agree with consensus that the anon was WAY out of line. I think that the history of the article should be permanently erased, else someone could read about the libelous non-encyclopedic material. I think that anon should get a long-term band. Nearly all anon edits are suspect in my opinion, which is why I think that registration should be mandated. I'll step off the soap box now. I think that Crocker's talk page should also be edited and permanently erased for the same reason. I wonder if this problem should be brought to the Living person's Biography problem board. They were prompt and extremely thorough with the problems with Wayne Taylor's biography! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If the anon comes back and starts attacking again, I certainly will take this to the problem board, as well as the Admin noticeboard and (again) the requests for page protection. I refuse to let this troll continually vandalize and abuse. And as for erasing history and/or the talk page, are we allowed to do that? -- DiegoTehMexican 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The erasing is done by admins depending on the severity of the libelousness. It's up to non-admins to propose it. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this was probably a less serious case than the Wayne Taylor one we were dealing with. The info being added to that article was totally untrue, unsourced and potentially libelous, whereas the info added to Crocker's page was just what was being reported elsewhere. It was pretty obvious, however, what the anon's intentions were and that they weren't very interested in making a better encyclopedia article. Blanking the talk page might be a good idea though; that's what Jimbo does to keep stuff like that from showing up in Google searches. Recury 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be deleted or anything like that. In case of another series of adding the info, it will be important to have a record of the consensus. Also, I don't agree with the statement that it was unsourced, as he did have a source that stated Mayfield's statement. That said, I don't think it should be added unless some fallout comes to her to career because of that claim. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the Wayne Taylor stuff was unsourced. I should have clarified. Recury 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy. The anon's ban has expired and he's back to claiming that his stuff is supported by court documents and an NYT article. I'm glad that the article is protected right now, or we'd be in the middle of another edit war. -- DiegoTehMexican 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, another question - what happened to the Wayne Taylor article? I don't think I was active in the WikiProject when that happened. -- DiegoTehMexican 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user was reverting to a version of the article he wrote which made a lot of allegations about him and which was written in a really petty, POV kind of way (like implying that he should have won more than he has, among other things). The history was deleted and I'm sure he was blocked. Recury 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The contributor in the Wayne Taylor article did much more than what Recury said. It was some completely untrue made up severe lies. The lies don't deserve the light of day. Nasty type stuff about his background. I received an email from Taylor's attorney, so I rewrote the entire article from scratch using only sourced information. I posted the email on Wikipedia's Biography problems section. It definitely needed the big eraser. Erin's article is not NEARLY as nasty, so I agree it could remain buried in the history.

I haven't been following this WikiProject as much over the last few months. I'm not the big fan of the current NASCAR like I was for the late 1970s to the start of the Chase for the Cup. I think that I have added much of my knowledge/background/organizational skills to the WikiProject which is why my contributions have lessened. I have been concentrating more on my state of Wisconsin, especially its improving its images. That is why I don't check here so much. I am DEFINITELY not quitting this WikiProject. Anyone can contact me with questions like those asked here, or to direct me here.

I spent a great deal of time this summer going to to local car races. I went to 29 nights at 20 tracks! You can find out details by clicking the external links on my user page. I have over 2800 images of the state of racing in Wisconsin in 2006. I have added some of my photo collection to flickr.com. I added a fair number of images to Wikipedia/WikiCommons too. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Ralph Earnhardt

I took an image of what I believe is a replica of his car. You can find it on my flickr account here. What does everyone think about using the image of the replica in his article? I have a few more images of other replicas, but the cars are smaller (and thus may not work). Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say replica is better than none, so long as it's clearly labeled as such, but actual image is better than replica. Just my .02 -slowpokeiv 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

NASCAR Regulations article proposed

The main NASCAR article is currently about 44kb long. It contains a lot of information regarding the point system, and saftey. Since these sections contain information that are nearly universal to all series, I propose that these be moved to a new article specifially for NASCAR Rules and Regulations. This would make the main article focus more on buisness and history, while leaving details about NASCAR racing to a new article where they can be expaned. The new article could also host information about tech inspection, race weekend procedures, and the colors of flags. Your feedback is appreciated. Mustang6172 08:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent way of dividing the article. The new article should point of the differences between series where there are some. Please note that there is already a Wikipedia article on the colors of racing flags that is far broader and incorrect for NASCAR called Racing flags. Royalbroil ^T : C 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, and possibly the Criticism and History could be condensed and moved as well. (I mean, come on, there's more about the criticism than the history... Not saying that we should censure, but we should add to the history, and we shouldn't do that on this page, as it's already too long.) -slowpokeiv 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)