Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

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

Inappropriate redirects on 2015/2016 World Touring Car Championship[edit]

In 2015 World Touring Car Championship as in 2016 World Touring Car Championship, every article that sould the report of each event of WTCC, is a redirect to the season article (you are redirect to the page you were) like in 2016 FIA WTCC Race of France. This means in these two articles we have dozens of links that do nothing. We should delete these re-directs or keep until someone, eventually, creates the race reports?Rpo.castro (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The first four races of the 2015 championship already have a report. I would suggest to indeed remove the redirects from the remaining ones. This will result in them being redlinked in the championship article, encouraging users to make those articles. I would suggest to leave them in for 2016 as that season is still going on and the reports should be created in due time. Lastly, feel free to creates some of these reports yourself. Tvx1 21:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup required[edit]

The article on Sentul International Circuit requires a proper clean-up - I've done a basic one for now however I don't have the time (or the sources) to completely fix it at the moment. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The notability of results[edit]

I was updating results on a page which were reverted as the series they were for was deemed not notable. Are we able to change this? I mean if we have a page for the series, surely the results are therefore notable for the driver. What's the point in having some allowed tables and others not allowed tables? CDRL102 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ask yourself, which series have every result reported and commented upon in general motorsport publications? Do all of them? Some – like F1, IndyCar, WSC, WRC – have each round mentioned in multiple countries' media. I haven't checked, but I'd guess that the Ginetta Junior championship does not. That help? Pyrope 22:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you be more specific as to the page in question and what you wish to include? The notability threshold for results tables on driver articles has been set at European Formula Three for some time now; for other categories swap F3 for the equivalent level. If we included a detailed results table for every series a driver has been in, many articles would be overflowing with tables concerning low-level championships that are little more than trivia, and are not notable in the context of the driver's career. Most driver biographies contain an overview of a driver's racing career anyway, with links to the season articles, if available, where a reader can gain more information.
I would also add that there are some series with articles on Wikipedia that are simply not notable at all, and there isn't a guideline in place to point out where the notability cut-off is for motorsport championships. The fact that something has an article doesn't make it notable. QueenCake (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I had placed a table of Ginetta and Formula 4 results on Sophia Flörsch but it was removed. I originally didn't know of this policy as I thought they would have counted as notable enough since the series had pages. I think they would improve the article in my opinion. CDRL102 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think what we have at the moment is decent enough - it gives a good overview of how the driver competed in a select competition year and if they did well then it can be expanded upon in the prose. Tables listing individual results can be quite big file size and really should be reserved for major international level competitions. Phill talk Edits 12:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The information presente on an article doesn't have to meet the notability criteria. The object of the article must be notable, not the information. For example, saying driver X born in Spain, or Paris is not notable. There are plenty drivers from there, but it could and should be in the article. About how far and deep the article should go the question to be asked is not if it can or cannot but if should, and more important what that information adds? The articles is improved or the opposite. Good sense should prevail.
For this example (Sophia Flörsch) the table could be added (the article is about a driver, these are results of the driver). But for me the article gets worse instead of being improved. The information presented is enough (as stated by Phill). If anyone wants to create a fully detailed carreer table, I think it should be created a separated article Driver X race results, if it meets the notability criteria ( I see this a solution for very notable drivers with extended carreers).Rpo.castro (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a collapsible table instead? Can't avoid page sizes, but it makes the page readable and not half of it covered in tables at least? Phill talk Edits 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For now, until other series have results, would it be acceptable to re-place those results on that page, then in the future they can be removed or collapsed. CDRL102 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I question whether she is notable enough to have an article in the first place. I'm mean how significant is a fifteen year old girl who has won two races in the Ginette Junior championship? Tvx1 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
One who has set multiple records in that category? Has a fair bit of coverage, for example Top Gear had an article about her up and coming campaign into Formula One. Motorsport.com and many other racing sites have coverage on her. CDRL102 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
She's not notable on her motorsport career alone, but she meets WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage she's received. QueenCake (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I question the significance/remarkableness of Ginette Junior records. I have seen many junior sportspeople people being touted as the next World Championship in their sport (including by BBC) only to never making any impact upon becoming professional. Tvx1 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
My opinion would be that, if someone is notable enough to have an article due to their motorsport career, then their career results should be given. This should include all championships entered, though perhaps less-prominent championships could be collapsed. Alternatively, maybe we should go for say the top three rungs on that driver's career - eg for an F1 driver that would be F1, GP2, F3 (or equivalents); someone who only ever reached F3 would have results for F3, Formula Renault and Formula Ford listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The career summary is ok, but listing the detailed result of every race competed in in these minor championships is really overkill. Tvx1 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Results tables[edit]

The new GP3 regulations state that teams are free to enter four cars, but only their best three results will count. This has manifested in the results table of the 2016 season only containing selected results. I believe that this is fundamentally misleading, because it implies that one car scored all of the results. This is patently untrue, as Charles Leclerc won race one, and Alexander Albon race two.

Results tables should contain ALL results achieved by the team with a prose note pointing out that the top three results count. Unfortunately, there is a user sitting on the page reverting edits he disagrees with on sight and characterising them as vandalism because of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't implies, since the numbers were omitted, it's just your fantasy. Once again I characterised your edit as vandalism, because you deleted update of the teams' championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And as I explained to you, I do big edits in stages, given the limitations of the platform I work on, and to limit losses if I make a mistake.
Nor is it "fantasy". GP2 and GP3 have been brought into the FIA Global Pathway in much the same way as Moto2 and Moto3 are in line with MotoGP. Consequently, the articles should be consistent in their format, and that should take priority over year-on-year regulation changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this a new rule for this season?

Looking at other examples, in the 2015 British Touring Car Championship only two nominated cars score points for the manufactuer/constructor and teams championships. In the independent teams championship, the top finishing car in a team scores points. The results tables in BTCC doesn't show the other cars. Boothy m (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

2015 FIA World Endurance Championship also has a similar rule for manufacturers in LMP1 and LMGTE, with only the two highest finishing cars receiving manufacturer points. It is quite clearly explained in prose and I do not see how this is deceiving anyone. I do not believe that this new style of table is failing to be consistent. This is a table for the teams championship, not the individual cars. Removal of the individual car numbers has helped improve the chart.
However, none of these edits are vandalism and should not be viewed as such. This is an edit war, it needs to be discussed and agreement made.The359 (Talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And FIA WTCC and a lot more competitions. As stated by User:The359, we should keep like it is.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me to only list the results that count towards the constrtuctors' championship in the constructors' table. That's a pratice you should be well aquinted with from your time editing WRC articles. None of your claims regarding misleading readers or withholding information hold water. That the results of some drivers are being omitted from the article doesn't hold water, as all the drivers' result are listed in the drivers' table. That you have device limit issues is no excuse for blanket-reverting another user. If you have problems, discuss and ask help and someone will undoubtedly help out. You have been told before that it is not mandatory to do everything yourself. Tvx1 22:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1
"Makes perfect sense to me to only list the results that count towards the constrtuctors' championship in the constructors' table. That's a pratice you should be well aquinted with from your time editing WRC articles."
The WRC is completely different. First, drivers have to be nominated to score points for a team in advance of an event. And secondly, manufacturer points are calculated independently of driver points. Say for the sake of argument that you and I are nominated points scorers, and that The359 is not. In the rally, you win, The359 is second, and I come third; you get 25 points in the drivers' championship, The359 gets 18 and I get 15—but in the constructors' championship, you get 25 points, I get 18, and The359 doesn't get any because he wasn't nominated to score.
As I understand it, the GP3 system simply carries the results over from the drivers. So, again for the sake of argument, you, The359, Rpo.castro, Boothy m (and the four of you are in the sane team) and I are all drivers. You win and get 25 points, The359 is second and gets 18, Rpo.castro is third and gets 15, Boothy m comes fourth and gets 12 and I finish fifth and get 10. Since only the top three results of your team count, you don't get the 12 points Boothy m scored—but my team isn't considered to have finished fourth in the teams' championship. As far as the teams' championship is concerned, nobody finidhed fourth. That's an extremely unusual system to say the least (though admittedly, I can't stand the BTCC or endurance racing).
Ideally, the results matrix should show all of the results achieved by the team. We can simply use the blue background to show results that dud not count for points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No that would make it unnecessarily confusing. The results that don't count toward the championship have no bearing on the teams' championship. Those results are listed where they are relevant: in the drivers' table. I've we're going to list Giuliano Alesi's 22th and 16th with the "non-points finish" background, we would make it look like they are at par with the other non-points finishes which simply isn't true. Remember that even non-points finishes can have an importance in case of a tie. Tvx1 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Surely that's an argument for including all results, then, because the championship can be decided based on the results of the fourth car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No it can't. The fourth result doesn't count. Tvx1 09:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Comes down to what is the intention of the table. Is it a results table or a points table? Currently it is trying to do both and glossing over where it gets muddled up. Results are being displayed in the matrix, but only the results that score points. Or could score points. So a decision needs to be made.
a) Results table: Display all the results achieved by the teams.
b) Points table: Only display the points the team earnt regardless of how many cars scored points for the team in each race.
So which is it? Points or results? --Falcadore (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The intention of those tables is to give a detailed breakdown of who finished where in which championship and why. Even non-points results count towards the championships. Take for instance 2012 Formula One season. During that season neither Caterham, nor Marussia nor HRT scored points. Yet we list all their results in the constructors' championship because they determined their position in the championship (and as a result their share of the prize money). Their best finishes determined their championship position and those finishes were an 11th for Caterham, a 12th for Marussia and a 15th for HRT. The same principle applies for the GP3 series. We list all the results that count for the championship. From this year the teams can enter up to four cars for a race with their fourth results in the races not counting for the teams' championship. That's why we shouldn't list them in the teams' championship table. They don't count and listing them in an identical way as the results which count is confusing and even wrong. These results are currently listed in the drivers' table which is the only place they actually count. Tvx1 19:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No its not. The detailed breakdown is already given. In drivers' championship every result is listed. In manufactures' championship, the classification is given by the 2 best results. Adding results that dont count for nothing its just rubbish. In Formula One bla bla. In Formula One theose results were listed because they count. 2 drivers, 2 results.
You got engaged in a edit war due to this. And after the subject being brought to the comunity, there is no one agreeing with you but you just don't listen.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? If you had you would have noticed that I have the same opinion as you and that I actually did point out that Formula One is different from GP3. Did you even bother to look who wrote the comment and compare that with the identities of the actual users who were edit-warring? If you had you would have noticed that I am neither of those users. The edit war was between Corvus tristis and Prisonermonkeys. Lastly, the GP3 series' teams' championship counts the best 3 results not 2. Tvx1 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1 provided a very good point about non-points results count, and I'm absolutely agree with him. Corvus tristis (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Still the question needs to be answered. Is the teams table a results table or a point table? The table is ranked by point isn't it? It's called Teams Championship. This suggests strongly that it is a points table and not a results table. Detailing where each car finished is not what a point table is for. --Falcadore (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Even teams that don't score points have a position in the championship. And it is determined by all results which count, so all counting results should be listed. Results that don't count shouldn't. I have already explained how the exact position of three teams without points can affect them. Concerning the current GP3 season, Campos Racing has a championship position despite not scoring points. Why should we be excluding them then? Regardless, you have a fair point that we shouldn't list detailed results per car. Just listing results that count should be sufficient. Tvx1 12:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we got on the tangent of not listing teams with no points, that makes no sense.
The point Falcadore seems to be trying to make is that we could, theoretically, have a championship table that looks like this:
Pos. Team Points
1 France ART Grand Prix 71
2 France DAMS 35
3 Italy Trident 22
4 Switzerland Jenzer Motorsport 18
5 United Kingdom Arden International 14
6 Finland Koiranen GP 6
7 Spain Campos Racing 0
These are the essentials of the championship standings, and the only elements we really need to display for readers. However, the entire point of the matrix is to show how the teams reached these standings and point totals over the course of the season. Thus we show how, in each race, the teams scored their points based on the race results. This does not however imply that all results are necessary to be shown, specifically ones that do not affect a team's points total. To me it seems simple enough that if a fourth car does not add to the team's points total in any way, the information isn't necessary to include.
Now, to Prisonermonkeys' point of a fourth car affecting the championship in that their finishing position can hinder an opposing team, I do not believe that the matrix should be used to explain how one team's results affected another team's result. In his example, he finishes fifth and gets points for fifth, as the fourth place car is "skipped" in the points payout. However his team's result is fifth, treating it as "not fourth" is great and all, but I don't believe that is the point of the matrix. Again, we are explaining how team's earned their points total, and "not fourth" is not it. The team finished in fifth, how they specifically got there is something better represented in the race report. We are trying to be helpful to casual readers, but we don't need to include every possible piece of information. Representing the fourth place car among a team's results is simply playing a game of "what if" that shouldn't exist. If a team's best result is fifth then it's fifth, adding another team's car that finished in fourth doesn't provide any more information about the first team's championship points total.
As an aside, the championship standings that Tvx1 linked to list ART at 73 points, our article has them at 71, so someone might want to check up on that. The359 (Talk) 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I get that but I think Falcadore's point is flawed. I we apply the same principle to the current drivers table we get the following.
Pos. Driver Points
1 Monaco Charles Leclerc 27
2 Thailand Alexander Albon 23
3 United Kingdom Jake Hughes 23
4 Italy Antonio Fuoco 22
5 Colombia Óscar Tunjo 18
6 Japan Nirei Fukuzumi 15
7 United Kingdom Jake Dennis 14
8 Switzerland Kevin Jörg 12
9 Netherlands Nyck de Vries 8
10 Russia Matevos Isaakyan 4
11 Switzerland Ralph Boschung 1
12 United States Santino Ferrucci 0
13 Poland Artur Janosz 0
14 United Kingdom Matt Parry 0
15 Slovakia Richard Gonda 0
16 Colombia Tatiana Calderón 0
17 Spain Álex Palou 0
18 Thailand Sandy Stuvik 0
19 France Giuliano Alesi 0
20 Russia Konstantin Tereshchenko 0
21 United Kingdom Jack Aitken 0
22 Malaysia Akash Nandy 0
23 Netherlands Steijn Schothorst 0
24 India Mahaveer Raghunathan 0
Pos. Driver Points
Now how are we going to explain that Alexander Albon and Jake Hughes are ranked second and third despite both of them being tied on points and the order of every one below 11th place, none of whom have scored point so far, in this table? That's why we have the individual race result in the tables. To show why and how ties are broken. The same principle applies to the team's championship when one or more teams are tied on points. That's why we should list all the results that count (best 3 from each race for each team) towards the teams' championship and that's why I think Falcadore's point is an unnecessary overreaction to a minor problem. Tvx1 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you may not understand what Falcadore is saying. I do not believe Falcadore is arguing to remove the matrix, he is simply discussing the purpose of the matrix. It is to display how the team earned their points, not to display all race results for the team. My table example was simply to illustrate the order of relevance of information in the chart. The drivers standings play no part in this, every driver is eligible for points in every race and there is no discussion about changing the drivers championship tables. The discussion is over what is relevant information in the teams championship.
As for tie breakers, the possibility of a fourth driver for a team being used as a tie breaker in such a way is so remote that it shouldn't even be considered. The odds of two teams of three drivers each having the exact same results is astronomical. The359 (Talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey The359, I have been looking into this discrepancy you have mentioned. It seems that ART's fourth result (worth two points) has been counted towards the the team's championship after all. This makes me wonder wether this claim that only the three best results count is true in the first place. Tvx1 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be worth a wait and see. I have had problems with FIA championship PDFs and tables having errors in the past. This season thus far a non-championship WEC team was listed in the teams championship after the first round, then correctly removed from the standings after the second round. The359 (Talk) 16:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait and see is often the best approach indeed. I will point out however that the GP3 site isn't maintained by the FIA. There is nothing on GP3 (or GP2) on FIA's own site. Tvx1 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware, I'm just using it as an example as most people hold the FIA's documents in high regard. I also find that there can be discrepancies between those that maintain series websites and the sanctioning bodies and timekeepers, so it might be best to check on any timekeeper files to see if they match the website's points total. The359 (Talk) 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Spring Vintage Weekend at Road America, group 9[edit]

I attended a vintage car race and I have several unidentified cars that might be useful on Wikipedia. If interested, please let me know which article I should put the image on. I can do the uploading since I photographed them. I put 9 cars from the top class out on my flickr stream for now. Some older Formula 1 cars will come later. Can anyone identify these cars? Please put the information below each bullet. I added the model # for the cars as reported on the sanctioning body's website. RoyalbroilAlt 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some more from a different race:

  • [10] 2005 Audi - winner of 24 hours of LeMans per decal on rear wing
    • This car ran Audis last races in the ALMS for the R8 before it was replaced by the R10. It did not run Le Mans as the R10 ran Le Mans that year. The decal is honoring all of the R8s successes on its final tour. The359 (Talk) 01:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • [11] 1968 Ford GT40 Mk1 (Wow, cool car!)
    • Harry McPherson's Superformance GT40 replica. Occasionally gets listed as a 1968 car, but appears to actually be a 2009 manufactured copy of a 1969 model. Pyrope 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • [12] 1969 Lola T163 (Is this a Can Am car?)
    • Appears to be 163/20, ex. Steve Weaver ('70), '49ers ('71), and Semple Racing ('73). In the latter livery, as driven by Tony Settember at Laguna Seca. Full chassis history. Pyrope 04:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • [13] Roush Racing 1993 Ford Mustang Cobra
    • [14] Tommy Kendall's 1993 IMSA GTS car (and Daytona 24 runner-up and class winner, judging from the race number), he appears to do most of the driving in the endurance classics though that link does not state what chassis it was. Donnie Park (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • [15] 2004 Chevrolet Corvette
    • Corvette C6.R in the 2006 Le Mans livery The359 (Talk) 01:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Outline of auto racing[edit]

See Talk:Auto_racing#Draft_outline. DH85868993 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Formula Renault 2.0 Northern European Cup in 1999[edit]

Hi everybody,

I'm a French contributor and I'm working on Zsolt Baumgartner. I saw in different pages that he was champion of German Formula Renault in 1999.

But for Driver Database, it's Kari Mäenpää who was crowned champion this year.

This Finnish driver has not won one race during this season, while Baumgartner won three races. But fot Driver Database, Baumgartner hasn't got any points.. why ?

Thanks for your answers. LoupDragon42 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Zsolt Baumgartner Different person/not stated that Baumgartner was a champion
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Corvus tristis (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Weird: same source and two champions:
http://mediaguide.wsbyrenault.com/team.php?champ=26&id=10 and http://mediaguide.wsbyrenault.com/team.php?champ=26&id=24
In a web forum I read "Zsolt wasn't 2nd in German FRenault in 1999 but he was the CHAMPION despite skipping one of the 8 races!!! That's how good he was! (Just for your information Finnland's Kari Mäenpää finished 2nd with 122 points,Zsolt became champion with 124 points which is quite good if you not even take part in every races)" (http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44739&page=2). Maybe the race he didn't contest its the cause for this confusion.
Rpo.castro (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your answer. So Baumgartner is the real champion, I can continue my work without any problem. LoupDragon42 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably was the real champion, but we cannot for sure state that (not with the available information at the moment). Better state that some sources indicate Baumgartner while others Kari.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it at all possible the series had multiple tiers or classes? Knowing Formula Renault they tend to have several different types of series going on at each event. The359 (Talk) 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)