Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Old NASCAR race reports

Is there anywhere to get accurate race descriptions for older NASCAR races? I'm trying to improve the article 2008 Crown Royal Presents the Dan Lowry 400, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere that covers the actual events that unfolded during the race in detail. Any help in finding reliable summaries/descriptions for older races would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Will211 |Talk 03:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Will211: Thanks for your interest! Frontstretch does a good job, I've linked the spot in their archives dealing with the race. Honestly, probably the best place to go after that is Newspapers.com, if you have an account. I've seen the race in general mentioned in a few books over the years but nothing specific. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Will211: The Wayback Machine Internet archive is also a good place for browsing old articles from sources like NASCAR.com or articles Jayski may have linked to back in the day. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability of individual race events

What are the guidelines for notability of individual race events?

Sports Car Challenge at Mid-Ohio - The 2019 edition has an individual article, while 2018 and 2020 do not. (Similar situation with Road Race Showcase at Road America)
Hyundai Monterey Sports Car Championship - ALMS race reports are kept, 2014 onwards they aren't.

Are articles not kept up with enough to warrant an individual article for each year? Or are they deemed not to be notable? SmackJam (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

They simply were not written. They did not lose notability. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Coverage is always dependent on an editor being able to write the story. Feel free to contribute some of those missing race reports SmackJam. --Falcadore (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

CUPRA

There is an IP editor on 2020 World Touring Car Cup who insists on capitalising Cupra and Lukoil even though they are not acronyms nor do the companies concerned capitalise their names other than in logos. --Falcadore (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

CUPRA is capitalized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAT#CUPRA_models and Lukoil is not capitalized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukoil Hughfeehan353 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use itself as a reference. Cupra is supposed to be an abbreviation of Cup Racing. --Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But its in WP capitalized for some reason, and the reason is that SEAT elevated CUPRA as a brand, kind of Citroen did with DS. So for instance, the new Leon isn't new "SEAT Leon Cupra xpto" but new "CUPRA Leon xpto". Many references can be found using the capitalized "CUPRA" designation. In this link although in portuguese, SEAT explains CUPRA and how it will assume all racing activities from SEAT.
Regarding LUKOIL (or LUKoil), well the company is stylized as LUKOIL (yes the company uses always capitalized), and the LUK is an acronyms of the 3 original companies cities that were merged to form LUKOIL.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It'd argue that it is a stylization, and Wikipedia does not use stylizations per MOS:TMSTYLE. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

From a very quick look, I see [1] (one of the sources on the article) and [2] use Cupra. It's a bit odd to see it used so inconsistently across Wikipedia though (like the example given above, and in SEAT Cupra#Current model range even though most of the article uses Cupra, including the current road models, the race models have CUPRA). But definitely the logo alone is not enough to say we should be using uppercase, if it was we would all be editing WIKIPEDIA. If the gap is more of a language gap (since the example about is in Portuguese) then we should go with the usage in English language sources. A7V2 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look at the WTCR website, they use CUPRA. [3] [4] In my opinion the wiki should reflect what the series itself does in regards to style on things like this. Hughfeehan353 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

But, as has been established by previous discussions over "Toyota GAZOO Racing", the entry list themselves can also use stylization for sponsorship purposes. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the capitilisation of Lukoil and Cupra is stylisation and I therefore think that MOS:TM applies (i.e. the capitilisation is not justified).
SSSB (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rpo.castro BMW uses capitalisation for MINI but wikipedia says Mini. Cupra is not even an acronym, it's an abbreviation. Like Indycar. A capitalised acronym woud be CR.

Lukoil Racing is decapitalised. --Falcadore (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

CUPRA or Cupra isn't consistely used, but be aware that before this rebranding from SEAT, there was only "Cupra". So old sources will use just "Cupra". And it's not just in portuguese. I just posted a link that explained well the situation, but the same use can be found on english like here. Regarding Lukoil, I have read 3 forms or writing: Lukoil, LUKoil and LUKOIL. For both I think the solution should be how they are registered on the competition, what is their official designation and stick to it. And I don't think it will be really meaningfull having one way or another on WP. I just wanted to provide additional information.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

AFD notice

The article 2007 Las Vegas Atlantic Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are welcome to contribute to the discussion here. MWright96 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Lore sections on NASCAR/IndyCar TV templates (and the NASCAR lore article in general)

As part of the future of NASCAR lore article, you are invited to discuss the future of the article, as well as lore sections in IndyCar and NASCAR on TV templates here. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 10:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

National flag icons to represent drivers

Which motorsport races are like the Olympics and have drivers officially representing a nation? Those are the ones that should have flag icons next to the driver's name.

Other races where, for instance, a Brazilian driver is on a French team... why would we put a flag on that situation? And which flag, Brazil or France? MOS:FLAG says the team's national flag should be shown, not the driver's national flag.

What about when a driver competes for a carmaker and not a nation? Should flags be removed in that case?

The MOS:FLAG guideline says "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and "Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates". I'm wondering whether the motorsports field needs to mount a cleanup project to reduce the unnecessary flag icons in race articles. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

In Formula One a Brazzilian driver on a French team still represents Brazil. Formula One has a consensus to display flags.
SSSB (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SSSB. A Brazilian driver has a Brazilian flag, a French team gets a French flag. Respectfully Binksternet, I'm not sure your opinion is going to get much traction here. You don't seem to know much about auto racing and you are trying to abolish a standard that everyone is very happy with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughfeehan353 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

In most races, when the drivers championship its the most important classification, like in F1, the flags of the drivers are waved at the podium ceremony, and both national anthems - for the winning driver and the winning team, are played. Besides, and sticking with F1 since its the most mediatic and iconic competition, the nationality of a driver is very important for the fans. With few exceptions, like Ferrari, fans will follow the drivers of their nation, like it happened with Senna, as it happens now with Lewis Hamilton (with Britons supporting him although he runs for a german make) or with Mad Max. We can see lots of their flags during the races, and when a driver is racing at his own country and feels and thanks for the support and cheering, so this tells how important the drivers nationality is.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Coming here from a message at MOS:FLAGS, and while I can respect the logic that teams at races like F1 will be represented their nation, I'm seeing far too many arbitrary uses of flag icons. I pull up Formula One, for example, and see flag icons by the tyre suppliers in the infobox (why??) and I question the need for the constructor's champsion flag (since the brand is not representing their country), as well the list of Grand Prix. There are some logical places, but not as many as there are currently used right now, and this needs to be culled down significantly. --Masem (t) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that tyre suppliers should not have flags. They simply do not directly compete in a form of championship. However, constructor≠brand and constructors do compete in a world championship just as much as drivers do. They equally need a licence from a national governing body recognizing them as official representatives to compete. And just like for drivers, their national flags are waved and national anthem played upon winning a race. Thus we decided that the use flags is warranted for them.T v x1 11:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides what user:Tvx1 said, the use of flags on the GP list adds the information of the race's location, especially those new without the nations on the GP name, since there isn't a column with that information, and its easy to see how many races had each country. So, the use of flags in those cases adds relevant information.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Then just add a column with the location name. It is not that hard. --Masem (t) 22:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. And a good example is this year's F1 championship with double-header events held at the same track, with different Grand Prix names. This is a very well established mechanism used through many hundreds, if not thousands, of Wiki-articles that link motorsport events, circuits, drivers, manufacturers, teams, designers, engineers, car models etc etc. Their tables are all interconnected and to propose removing flags from all those is totally impractical. When there are so few people, doing so much valuable work with new information and articles, going back to redo pre-existing articles is a gross waste of time and energy on such a non-issue for this community, that can be far better spent. Philby NZ (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument that the problem is extensive is not one that ever convinces me. If we ignore the problem and add to it, it gets bigger with time. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument primarily is that F1 (and, to a lesser but still notable extent, IndyCar) drivers are strongly associated with their countries and most rundowns include nationality notes (and often flags). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I you cannot be convinced that the problem is extensive, they why are you complaining to us that the problem is extensive??T v x1 08:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any problem at all or any violation of any WP guideline, since there is a reason to use the flags in most of the cases appointed (the tires being on case of mis-use and easy to fix).Rpo.castro (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

MotoGP recognizes competitors as representatives of their national motorcycling governing body such as the Auto-Cycle Union for British competitors and the American Motorcyclist Association for American competitors.Orsoni (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

All cars, drivers overalls, team paraphernalia, post race podium presentations feature flags and national anthems. Drivers are frequently described by all kinds of media as being of a nation and are licensed via national sporting authorities who are allied with the Olympic movement either via the FIA (officially recognised since 2011) or via their home nation ASN. --Falcadore (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear OP, this subject has been thoroughly considered throughout the past century of motorsport and in the nearly 14 years since WP:MS has been created. Consensus has thoroughly been reached and your POV is unlikely to gain much traction. -Drdisque (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have ever watched an international level motorsport event you will most likely know that drivers are considered by both the organisers and essentially all reliable sources to be representatives of "their" "country" through the "national" sporting authority which issues their licences to compete and are presented as such throughout the event. Whether or not they should be is a purely ideological question which is outside of Wikipedia's scope. I could cite anarchist philosophers all day long arguing that every article on a nation state should be deleted on the grounds that countries aren't real and are just figments of the imagination, but I would be overwhelmingly told that that is in contradiction of WP:NPOV. This argument which keeps periodically playing out is just a smaller version of that same thing. So long as the sport itself continues to use flags so prominently it would be an inaccurate reflection of reality to remove the flags. The flags also often make results tables within articles more legible to dyslexic readers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References in the Grands Prix section

A very simple question: Do references need to be provided in the Grands Prix table?

There is a dispute in the 2020 MotoGP World Championship article. As the article was nominated to the ITN, I thought we must make sure all contents, including the Grands Prix section, are sourced. This is a very simple practice of WP:V. Babymissfortune, however, claimed that because the 2020 Formula One World Championship — which is currently in the ITN — does not have any references in that section, they are unnecessary for the MotoGP article neither. This is actually WP:OSE, isn't it？Any thoughts?

P.S. Any comments in terms of MotoGP 2020's ITN candidate would be very appreciated, as the entry is close to stale. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In the F1 case my guess would be that the references throughout the rest of the article back it all up anyway so adding it to the GP table is less relevant, although it may be worth seeing what the articles for 1982 and 2015 do since those are featured articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2015 F1 article cites sources on the GP table. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Formula E season renaming

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:2020–21 Formula E Championship about "2020–21 Formula E Championship" should or not be renamed "2020–21 Formula E World Championship".Rpo.castro (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on racing circuits

Currently a lot of articles on racing circuits outside of the Anglosphere use their WP:OFFICIAL name in the native language of whichever country they're from. It may be worthwhile to start looking through these articles and establishing whether the titles used are actually WP:COMMONNAME and whether any of these titles violate WP:ENGLISH. In some cases (such as the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez in Mexico City) the current title is likely either the best title available or is close to the best title available. In other cases it seems hard to justify continuing using the current title given that the title is neither the WP:COMMONNAME or in WP:ENGLISH. (ie. Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari should probably be moved to Imola Circuit) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And you will also get the situtation where a sponsor has their name attached to a sporting venue "officially" for a few years, only for it to be changed when a new Major Sponsor comes on board. I guess there is Common Name, Traditional/Historic Name and Official Name to consider Philby NZ (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Both of the issues raised are things which have been discussed a bit lately but not much comes of it except a move or two, and often few participate in these discussions. (Eg see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Names used to refer to circuits. and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR#ARCA races at Toledo). I think in all of these we should be using the common name, which generally isn't going to be some unwieldy long non-English name as is the case of Imola. But I think the issue raised by Philby NZ is a greater one, not just for the races with continuously changing names, but for the dubious ties between these races (one particular offender here is Los Angeles Times Grand Prix which I outlined the issues with in a much too long post to the Sportscar racing project quite some time ago). I explained this in the NASCAR project talkpage linked above, but to summarise I think unless there are reliable sources tying some races together under a single name (presumably the current name), then the only kind of articles we should be having of this type are for races of a particular championship/class at a particular track/location, in which case the title should be generic. A7V2 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good question and good discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Names used to refer to circuits. too. After thinking a bit about it, I think the best option is to stick to WP:COMMONNAME, which sometimes might be against WP:ENGLISH and even not be clear which is common name like Paul Ricard/Castelet. For the examples given, I have no doubt that Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez is the better designation for it. As for Imola Circuit or the Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari, I would clearly go for the first one. It is used very frequently, I remember when speaking about Ayrton Senna death, most if not all refer to Imola not Autodromo. Even quick search about this year GP lots of media use Imola. For other cases might be harder to find a common name.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

With the Imola example I actually started a requested move at Talk:Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari#Requested move 1 December 2020 because that example seems especially obvious as an example of the article title not being WP:COMMONNAME.

Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez is of course a good contrasting example. Although the circuit is commonly referred to in context just as "Mexico City" or "the Mexico City circuit", neither of those is a suitable title for an article on the track, since Mexico City is one of the world's largest cities and there are surely many other things within it which could be described as a "circuit".

The NASCAR examples A7V2 bought up are also relevant. Many of those races change name on a yearly bases as sponsors come and go, and in some cases it's dubious how notable different race dates during the year for one series at the same track are; since many of those articles appear to be near duplicates of one another but with one listing the results for the spring race and the other listing the results for the autumn race. While the Daytona 500, Daytona 400, Coca-Cola 600, and Roval 400 are all sufficiently notable in isolation to warrant their own articles; in most cases people looking up articles on the history of a NASCAR Cup series race probably just want to know about the history of NASCAR Cup races at that track, and some sort of WP:NDESC title is likely advisable.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the fact that Daytona 400 and Roval 400 aren't even redirects is probably a sign that there's a lot of general cleanup work needed with a lot of NASCAR articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5: I did see the move discussion at Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari and placed a !vote, but I felt I should advertise it in the same sentence as advocating a position on it here (that it should be moved, that is). I think for the top level NASCAR series every race could be independently notable (probably not including the extra 2020 races which won't be held again) but for ones which don't have a stable common name (like the Coca-Cola 600 which has had mostly the same name since 1986) they should have a more generic name rather than a constantly changing sponsor. Note that with NASCAR races often if two races are held per year at a track these are considered to be separate as they are usually held at the same times of year over a long period of time. A7V2 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed_merge_of_Südschleife_into_Nürburgring

I invite you to take part in the discussion Talk:Nürburgring#Proposed merge of Südschleife into Nürburgring.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Roman Staněk

Article Roman Staněk was deleted recently (November) in an AfD. I asked for a draft version to be created and worked on it. I think FIA Formula 3 Championship drivers are considered notable and would like to know your opinion on the draft, which is different than the deleted article (I added 4 more sources and a lot of text). Should I create it or wait? Thanks. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The first (and only) sentence is rather run-on. Can those be expanded and split into a proper lede and "Racing career" section? Also more sources are needed - I'm not sure if FormulaScout is considered an RS, the third is a primary source, the last two are good but this is teetering on the edge of demonstrating GNG compliance. I agree F3 should confer notability but we live in the age of deletionism. Putting in more detail on his F4 career would also help - the fact he won in F4 goes a long way to demonstrating notability and there should be sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding practice & qualifying --> "against established practice in the motorsport articles"

Hi, I added both the practice and the qualifying dates to the Formula 2 2019 and 2020 articles but the changes were reverted with the close out comment of "Thank you for your desire to improve but is against established practice in the motorsport articles". While I can understand having rules about the layout of motorsport articles is a good idea, and I should have checked this out before making a change, I think if you are looking at this information, having the dates for the practice and qualifying sessions as well as the race(s) should really be classed as "essential if available". I was looking for these details, found they weren't available within the articles so after more research made the change.

Can this be considered as a glaring omission I would suggest.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshankland (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be worth following the way that current F1 and Indy500 race articles are written up - the qualifying times are tabulated in their own section. So, rather than giving a list of dates, under the relevant section in specific race-articles, you could put a short comment "On Friday practice...", or "The times recorded on Saturday Qualifying were..." as a way of indicating when the sessions took place. Otherwise, include it in the Regulations section of the overall series - "Qualifying was run on the Saturday before the Sunday race", or suchlike. Philby NZ (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Philby NZ. Though I would the last option proposed by Philby and putting it in the race calendar section, above the table.
SSSB (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the OP was referencing the season calendars on the year review articles. Information about when practice and qualifying took place is more appropriate for individual race articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my comment., although would only support such an action for qualifying. When practice is is distincly less important.
SSSB (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look on the 2019 and 2020 F1 articles and can't see qualifying within their own section - please correct me if I am wrong. If you direct me to a motorsport article that has the layout you would agree to, I'll add the information. Personally, I think having the info on practice and qualifying makes the articles much more concise but happy to be ruled against Pshankland (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pshankland:, 2020 Formula One World Championship doesn't have a qualiying section. Nor do I propose we add one. I can't think of a current article that has one, but, here is a visual representation of what I am proposing. The information you are requesting is in the last sentence in the first paragrapgh (I have left out the parts of the article that have no relevance to the discussion). Obviously we can change tense where appropriate. Like I said above, I don't see the need to specify when practice was but that can also be added in a similar way, nor do I see the need to specity each date exliticly in a table, given they all happen the day before the race.
SSSB (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB:, I don't think it is worth implementing this option as really doesn't add anything. Also, qualifying doesn't always happen the day before the race; only in 2019, the Japanese F1 qualifying and race were on the same day. It doesn't happen often but does happen normally due to the weather so couldn't cover it off with a single sentence. Leave as is and people will have to go elsewhere for this info. Pshankland (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go too for the second option appointed by Philby NZ. Rpo.castro (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don’t see the benefit of adding anything at all to season articles. We have the race reports to detail what happens during the GP weekends. This is just not relevant to the season articles.T v x1 01:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying that an event happened from 26–28 February in a calendar as a way of marking when sessions took place could make sense, but really in the calendar it's most useful just to say when the race itself took place. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion at WeatherTech SportsCar Championship

I have started a move discussion at WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, regarding whether it should be named "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" or "IMSA SportsCar Championship". Interested editors are welcome to take part in the discussion there. Carfan568 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extreme E

I think a season-specific article for the 2021 Extreme E Championship needs to be created. The Extreme E article is pulling double duty at the moment - it covers the series as a whole, but contains a lot of 2021-specific details. 1.144.108.58 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to wait and see how it goes. Without giving a judgement either way, a lot of the more ambitious new championships/series like this fail. At the moment there isn't really scope for separate articles as most of the information would be duplicated, and the article is certainly not too long. A split can always be made to Extreme E if/when a 2022 season is announced. That being said, 2021 Extreme E Championship could be created as a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

could be created as a redirect

Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"At the moment there isn't really scope for separate articles as most of the information would be duplicated"

A lot of that information should't be in that article to begin with. It would be like having the 2021 F1 calendar and driver table in the Formula 1 article. 1.144.108.55 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a false comparison, because Formula One has been around for awhile. Extreme E is brand new and having its first season, and at this point we can't say it won't be the only season. Once the season is over, and we have confirmation there'll be a second, then we can split out the 2021 season to its own page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And that's a standard by which no other series has been judged. Formula E, the W Series, S5000 and multiple TCR and Formula 4 series all had championship articles before their first season had been run, much less confirmation of a second season had been made public. 1.144.108.10 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because other stuff has gotten it wrong, doesn't mean we continue to be wrong. Of course, I could be wrong. If you think an article is needed, then be bold and make the redirect into an article, just make sure it's sufficient that an AfD wouldn't come up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issue has not been raised until now. Certainly not in recent history. That's despite your protestations that everything else has gotten it wrong. It's not exactly convincing when on the one hand you portray it as a serious problem, but on the other you have never done anything about it. 1.144.108.75 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that relevant? Is the approach used by other wikipedias in relation to other series relevant? I don't see how it is.

If you think an article is warranted, write it. Don't attack someone for arguing it is too early - that doesn't benefit anyone.

As for my two cents, I agree that it is too early. If we only end up having one season for this then a season article is unnecessary. If and when we get another season, we can split the article.
SSSB (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say that we should wait and see how big each respective part of the article gets. Ideally the Extreme E article would be covering more general aspects of the organising body and the series in general while a season article would just be covering the specifics of a given season, even if there was only one; but unless there is either a second season on the cards or the overarching article gets too big during the course of the first season then splitting them off doesn't make sense just yet, as for now the season and the series are largely the same thing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Larry Connor

Does anyone know about Larry Connor? Apparently he was a F2000 champ and Baja 1000 racer. His bio is missing is racing career, but since he's been an announced Axiom Space space tourist, it seems the time to update the bio. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

How we talk about the DTM on Wikipedia

I don't want to start any move/merger/etc. proposals right now as I don't feel like I either have a strong base evidence wise or a strong opinion on any of these matters, but I feel like it may be worthwhile to seek viewpoints and discussion here. Right now we have two separate DTM articles, the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters covering the series from 2000 onwards and the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft article covering the series as it existed in the 1980s and 1990s. Pretty much all of the articles covering the older iteration have few or no references, and several of the season articles are just stubs with almost no information contained within them, such as the 1988 Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft article. Of course, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and if anyone can find the time it may be possible to greatly improve those articles, although I strongly suspect that a German speaker will need to work on many of those older articles.

Beyond this however, I get onto two broader points:

1) Do reliable sources back up our treatment of the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters and Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft as separate entities?

and

2) What name should we refer to these entities by? (In particular with regards to the WP:ENGLISH policy)

Looking on the series English language website I struggle to find usage of the "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters", with the "DTM" acronym seeming to be the sole term used. This is reflected in specialist sources such as Autosport, where "DTM" is generally used without being defined, such as in this article or this article from a couple of years ago. This can also be seen in Motor Sport magazine or this article on The Race website. Older English race broadcasts on the series' official YouTube channel often seem to define the "DTM" acronym as standing for "German Touring Car Masters" and not "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters", while English broadcasts from the 1990s just seem to call it the "German Touring Car Championship".

In the non-specialist press the usage of the term "German Touring Car Championship" in one capacity or another also appears in reference to the modern series, for example in this Guardian photo highlight or in this BBC article, while this Reuters article and this Reuters piece which appeared in the Guardian defines DTM as just standing for "German Touring Cars". Similarly Autocourse refers to the current series as the "German Touring Car Championship" in headings while using the "DTM" acronym in prose.

I don't know what the answer is here, but I'd like to head other's thoughts. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: Putting the German Wikipedia article through Google Translate seems to suggest that the official name was only "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters" from 2000-2004. If someone (preferably who can read German) can verify this this would be useful. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fluent in German and I had a quick read through of the DTM article on the German language WIKI. I can confirm that it contains a claim that since 2005 DTM is no longer an abbreviation and merely a brand. However it is not supported by a reliable source.T v x1 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In The Guinness Guide to International Motor Racing (pub 1995) it is listed as "German Touring Car Championship" (with results back to 1984). In the 2019-2020 edition of Autocourse, the subheading is "German Touring Car Championship" but in the text it is referred to as "DTM" without any expanding of the acronym. The results section lists it as "German Touring Car Championship (DTM)". As far as keeping the two periods separate, I don't know, it probably doesn't matter much but I would err on merging them. As for the name, definitely an argument could be made for "German Touring Car Championship" being the most common English name, which I just now created as a redirect to Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft. A7V2 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the current iteration is rarely, if ever, referred to by the name of the current article, so it should be moved or merged I think. A7V2 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support merging the two into an article called "German Touring Car Championship" or something along those lines. Right now neither of the articles' titles are in WP:ENGLISH and I'm not sure how recognisable they really are to anyone who doesn't speak German and isn't expecting them to be at those titles. On top of that I really don't think that they're separate enough subjects to be worthy of their own articles, I don't think I've seen much coverage by sources where they're treated as different entities rather than continuations of the same thing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Another problem is that, from 2021 onward, the series is no longer a touring car championship and the name may prove to be confusing. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that DTM is the common name. I don't recall ever seeing it refered to as "German Touring Car Championship" or "Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters". In fact, looking at the first page of Google results for "German Touring Car Championship" (with the exception of some fandoms), they either exclusivly use DTM or use something like "DTM German Touring Car Championship" (like this BBC article: [5])
SSSB (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There's an argument that the 2021 version of the DTM will be more worthy of a separate article than the 1984-1996 and 2000-2020 versions are. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

From 2020 to 2021 its just a change of regulations, like it happened in the past. Same name, same organizer, same championship with different horses.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that DTM is the common name. If the articles is to be renamed, DTM must be part of it. Maybe if we think DTM is no clear enough we could use something like DTM (german touring/car championship) Rpo.castro (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

DTM Series or DTM Championship would be the best and simplest disambiguation. I would lean toward Series as Meisterschaft already means Championship. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that DTM is probably the common name. However, DTM is unlikely to be viable due to the numerous other uses. Note there are two failed move requests on Talk:Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, one to "DTM", the other to "DTM (motorsport)". If we are to merge the two, my preference would be to have the name as something like "DTM German Touring Car Championship", "DTM (German Touring Car Championship)" or the simpler "DTM Championship". I don't like "DTM series" since I don't see any usage of this term anywhere. Failing that, I'd say go with the old name, "Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft". A7V2 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support "DTM Championship". If not, keeping the actual designation.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also support merging the two to an article titled "DTM Championship", "DTM championship", "DTM Series", "DTM series", or "DTM German Touring Car Championship". I would note that while the last one is less WP:CONCISE than the other two its usage is backed up by some of the sources linked above and it is the most descriptive title. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible merger

While I think there is an argument for merging the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft and Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters articles, the one hitch that I'm running into is difficulty finding evidence of sources treating the two subjects as either different eras of the same series or as separate series. No doubt these do exist, presumably more so in German, but right now I'm struggling to find much which indicates one solution being better than the other. For example this Autosport feature says that the 2000 DTM "rose from the ashes of the ITC", which is a very subjective sounding statement. This Autosport feature says that "the DTM was reborn in 2000 after a three-year hiatus", which would suggest to me that they are continuations, but it's still far from definitive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Having more or less the same name has been the standard generally applied to races (as I've said a few times there are several race articles with highly dubious (or more likely none at all) connection in reliable sources). However this may not be the case for racing series/championships. For example, the 2001 European Le Mans Series is totally separate from the European Le Mans Series, and the World Touring Car Cup and World Touring Car Championship are also kept separate (the latter I'm sure was discussed at least briefly but it didn't come to much). Ultimately I don't think it makes a great deal of difference if they are merged or not but I would prefer if they are to be merged that there were reliable sources clearly linking the two. A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue with finding sources linking the two is just a lack of said sources (in English at least) which either draw a link or a line between the two. I would say that what sources I do see are more likely to link the two than distinguish them, but actually searching for anything tends not to turn up much. I believe I remember Motor Sport magazine talking about how BMW had had their first win in the DTM since 199x or something back when they rejoined, but I may be mistaken and can't find such a reference online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly it's more of a press release but I found this cited on 2012 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters which describes the current championship as a "revival" and mentions that BMW is going to "make its DTM comeback". See also this Autosport article using clear language that ties them together. Also note that they are somewhat tied together on Wikipedia already. From the lede of the 2012 article "was the twenty-sixth season of premier German touring car championship " (a bit poorly worded, also uncited. Similar things appear in the lede of most modern DTM seasons). They are also tied together by Template:Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters years. A7V2 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Alain Prost for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Zolder round of 1968 European Formula Two Championship

On 1968 European Formula Two Championship it is claimed (without citation) that the Zolder race counted to this championship, but all sources I've checked suggest otherwise. If anyone can shed any light on this, please reply at Talk:1968 European Formula Two Championship#Zolder Race, otherwise I will remove mention of it from the article. A7V2 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nürburgring Langstrecken Serie#Requested move 27 March 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nürburgring Langstrecken Serie#Requested move 27 March 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Indy Lights halo

In the 2021 Indy Lights season, Indy Lights added the halo rollbar device instead of the IndyCar plexiglass windscreen. The Indy Lights article should cover that change and why it added a halo instead of a windscreen. Does anyone know the reason for the halo instead of the windshield? -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple, money. That said, added to the article. Zappa⚡Matic 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If that decision (money over plexi) is documented anywhere, that should be added to the article -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cetilar / Cetilar Racing Redirect -> Roberto Lacorte

Hello, I recently completed an article on Roberto Lacorte, the CEO of PharmaNutra, who operates the Cetilar brand. With Cetilar providing title sponsorship to Lacorte's racing endeavors, namely Cetilar Racing Villorba Corse, I wanted to get some consensus surrounding an appropriate redirect. Cetilar Racing wasn't its own entity under Villorba Corse, but now with its partnership with AF Corse, should it be considered worthy of a redirect back to Lacorte? With that, should Cetilar be worthy as well? Thanks. SmackJam (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Independent notability of separate historical overview articles regarding different race dates during a season for the same series at the same track

There are numerous examples of articles which attempt to provide an historical overview of different race dates during a season for the same series at the same track, and in many cases the independent notability of these dates is questionable and does not seem to be adequately established by the sources in the article or by the articles themselves. Merging these articles into single pages providing a historical overview of races in that series at that track rather than arbitrarily separating information about races which took place in Spring and Autumn would likely make the information far more coherent for readers to access and conform better to how independent reliable sources cover these events when discussing them in a historical context.

Examples include the Genesys 600 and Chevy 500 articles, the Desert Diamond West Valley Phoenix Grand Prix and Circle K/Fiesta Bowl 200 articles, and numerous Nascar articles. Obviously, some dates are clearly independently notable, such as the Daytona 500 and the Firecracker 400, the Coca Cola 600 and the Roval 400, or the Bristol Dirt Race and the Bristol Night Race.

The independent notability of individual races (ie. the 2021 Daytona 500 or the 1995 Bathurst ATCC round or the 1998 Lone Star 500) is a separate matter that I have no intention to address here.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In my POV, having one article for all races of same sport in same track, is better then having 2 articles just because one is held on spring and other on autumn. I being following NASCAR only since last season, but very often they present statistics like "driver X won 3 of last 5 races at this track", so they combine the races in 2 different dates. Off course special events need separate articles like Daytona 500. Other thing that is wrong in my opinion at least in american tracks, is in the article of the track having all the winners of every competition held there like Texas Motor Speedway. I think this used to happen in european tracks and those list of winners were either removed (because they are listed in GP of xxxx) or moved to a separate list (like Silverstone race winners).Rpo.castro (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Extreme E Andretti United

Is Walkinshaw Andretti United the same as the Andretti United found in Extreme E ? -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. The Walkinshaw Andretti United is an australian team, that has 3 share holders/partners: Walkinshaw (AUS), Andretti (USA) and United Autosports (UK). The latter one is a partnership just between Andretti and United Autosports and has their facilities on the Andretti FE HQ in the UK (Banbury), but United Autosport has no part in the Andretti FE.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC

Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.T v x1 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Flags in 2021 British Touring Car Championship article

An IP editor seems to be adding large number of unnecessary flags to 2021 British Touring Car Championship article. They do not seem to be otherwise communicating through edit summaries or talk pages. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Warn them. If they keep up reverting and without communication, report them to Administration Noticeboards, and might also ask for page protection if IP's keep doing that.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Karting results in biographies and other junior level formulae

An editor has added tables (claiming to) detail the karting careers of numerous drivers to their biographic articles. I have removed some of these as they were unsourced. Many of these articles have also had detailed results for low-level series like Formula 4 added, also usually without sources, and I have removed some of these as I believe the consensus is to only cover Formula 4 results in reduced detail in the career summary table. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with annual title sponsor changes

Freedom 100

The article says this race no longer exists, but the claim for it, is based on the cancellation of the 2021 race due to COVID. This seems to be weird to claim the race is no longer to be held, as both 2020 and 2021 are affected by the pandemic. Is there a source saying that this race no longer will be held? Clearly any near future possible edition of the race (ie. 2022) could still be affected by ongoing COVID pandemic, as it hasn't ended yet. This seems to be crystalballing the event into the dustbin without a firm source. -- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Formula Women

Should Formula Women (2004) and Formula Women (2021) share the same article? Are these two even related, except for the name? I will note that XFL (2001) and XFL (2020) do not share the same article, even though the championship league has the same name, and one is a revival of the other. -- 65.93.183.191 (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over commentators on Nascar race reports

Many Nascar race reports have unsourced sections saying who the Anglophone television and radio commentators for those races were. These sections seem to be a frequent subject of (often slow-motion) edit wars between contributors, who rarely seem to leave sources or even edit summaries. I'm not sure how these sections should be handled, but I do find the emphasis on the Anglophone broadcasts over broadcasts in other languages questionable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of listing things just because you can. If they are unsourced I would personally remove the lists as not having any indication of being noteworthy in an encylopedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING) However, you should do a WP:BEFORE check, and add sources if these details are reguarly covered.
SSSB (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with removal, but I don't think this is likely to stick, but at the very least it should be referenced. That said, I really don't see an issue with only putting the English language commentary since this is NASCAR we are talking about (emphasis on the N), and so if any broadcasting information is included, it would make sense for it to be the primary domestic one. Note that Template:Infobox NASCAR race report and Template:Infobox Daytona 500 both include this as a field, and other sports in the US and Australia (I didn't check much further afield, but note it is not included in, for example, the infobox on 2020 FA Cup Final but the broadcast is briefly mentioned). For example, 2020 Indianapolis 500 (so not just NASCAR in the motorsport sense), Super Bowl LIV, 2020 AFL Grand Final and 2020 NRL Grand Final all include the domestic broadcast info including commentators etc in the infobox. So probably this needs a wider discussion to see if this kind of thing is suitable for sporting events. If it was decided to remove this, perhaps a good approach would be to have a bot remove all of these for the relevant infobox templates, and then remove them from the template so as to avoid it being put back in. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't fundamentally take an issue with them, it's just that they're often unsourced and that I frequently notice editors switching the information around. As for the domestic part, I do largely agree, but I would ideally like to avoid Anglocentrism by including information about any other broadcasts that could reasonably be called domestic, which may include French Canadian (given Nascar has raced in Canada, at least pre-pandemic) or Spanish language broadcasts. Obviously I'm not an expert on North American motorsport broadcasting, so my opinion beyond the simple issue of slow-motion edit wars over unsourced material should be taken with a pinch of salt. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification of a move discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether Citroën C3 R5 and Škoda Fabia R5 should be moved to Citroën C3 Rally2 and Škoda Fabia Rally2 respectively. I invite interested editors to participate at Talk:Hyundai i20 R5#Requested move 10 July 2021. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Spielberg corner names

There are numerous maps of Spielberg on Wikimedia Commons which all seem to give completely different corner names, with most of them not providing any source for these corner names. It seems that most of these names are sponsored, which leads to the corners constantly changing names, although just as confusingly the same name often seems to jump between different corners. I suggest that we refrain from using maps of the circuit (be it in the A1-Ring or Red Bull Ring guise) with corner names labelled unless a source can be provided showing that the names given by that particular map are correct for the race or (all of) the races the article is covering. Outside of circuits with very well established corner names which are frequently used by sources (eg. Monaco or Silverstone) the inclusion of corner names in maps in articles is likely to be of limited utility compared to corner numbers anyway (with Spielberg also standing out in the "corner numbers keep changing" stakes). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we can continue to use more simple map like

; for showing the color of sectors but without using any corner names due to the inconsistency of corner names through years. Or, we can continue to use your map

; but the upper right legend is unnecessary, since the sectors and pit lane is understandable without the legend. (Apeiro94) 20:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The legend was added following complaints about the comprehensibility of circuit maps which do not provide one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles on rally cars

There are a fairly large number of articles on recent production based rally cars whose independent notability (WP:PAGEDECIDE) I find somewhat questionable. "Renault Clio Rally4" and "Renault Clio Rally5" stand out to me as examples of this, but there are several others that this can equally be discussed with. It may be sensible to merge some of these articles, either to parent articles (ie. "Renault Clio" or "Rally Pyramid") or into new articles providing a broader overview of the subject (ie. "Renault Clio in rallying" or the like). I don't think these rally cars are unnoteworthy as such, and they should definitely be mentioned in aforementioned parent articles, but whether they are independently notable enough for it to be useful to separate the information about them over distinct articles is questionable. A single article covering the two aforementioned Clios, as an example, could explain what the difference between the two versions actually is, whereas as separate articles this is decidedly unclear. Even in cases where independent notability from the base model is clear (ie. "Ford Fiesta RS WRC" and "Ford Fiesta WRC") I still don't see the benefit to having separate articles covering every different version of a car that has competed in rallying rather than having an article giving a broader overview that can more clearly explain the differences between a Group N version and a WRC version and a Super 2000 version and an R5 version and a Rally 3 version. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Championship eligibility.

Rally1 is for the World Rally Championship (highest class), known as World Rally Car today, though the technical specification is completely different.
Rally2 is for the World Rally Championship-2/3, Middle East Rally Championship and European Rally Championship, known as R5 class today.
Rally3 is for the European Rally Championship (junior category) only. (new category from 2022)
Rally4 is for the Junior World Rally Championship and other continental/regional championships, known as R2 class today.
Rally5 is for continental/regional championships, known as R1 class today.

As far as I am concerned, Rally1, Rally2 and Rally4 cars are independently notable as they receive independent coverages from the World Rally Championship (i.e. WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3, J-WRC). Accordingly, it is impractical to merge with Rally3 and Rally5 cars. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia for a general audience. Having separate articles for every variation of a rally car that competes in different classes of championships is confusing even for somebody relatively familiar with the subject. Different articles on Rally4 and Rally5 versions of a car do nothing to clarify how the Rally4 and Rally5 versions actually differ from one another. Per WP:SUMMARY it may eventually become desirable to create separate articles detailing particularly notable variants if covering them makes a general overview article unwieldy, but a coherent and fleshed out article covering all variants will generally be preferable to a disjointed set of stubs. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not like the case of creating an article and then expanding to the point where it needs to split out. All "RallyX" cars are indeed different topics. It makes zero sense to write an article Ford Fiesta in rallying which contains Ford Fiesta RS WRC, Ford Fiesta WRC, Ford Fiesta Rally2, Ford Fiesta Rally3, Ford Fiesta Rally4, Ford Fiesta Rally5 instead of independent articles as they compete in different classes of different championships of different periods of time. Just want to clearly explain the differences between models is not a proper rationale, especially given the notability of the cars that compete in the World Rally Championship, where they receive high coverage from media. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you show that they "receive high coverage in media"? Maybe Group A8/WRC/Rally1 cars do, but most of the coverage of the cars that compete in lower categories receive from reliable independent sources is either WP:ROUTINE (saying that "Driver McDriverson drove a Nash Ambassador Rally4 to third in class at Rally Lilliput") or comes in the context of discussing the broader category or the broader lineup of rally cars that a given manufacturer produces (saying that "as well as the prominent WRC and R5 Fiestas, M-Sport also produce a variety of front wheel drive versions for lower levels of competition"). This isn't a fan wiki aimed at people who already have extensive background knowledge of a subject, this is a general encyclopaedia for a general audience. I can guarantee to you that a single article providing a coherent overview of the different types of whatever model of rally cars will be more helpful to the vast majority of readers than splitting that information across multiple different pages. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Any car that enters a WRC event in any class receive high coverage from wrc.com (Yes, independent.), DirtFish, autosport and the like. They might be routine sometimes, but they do sometimes publish some in-depth articles regarding car developments/technical reads, even covering lower level cars. Speaking of routine, many sporting events are indeed routinely covered. Arguing WP:ROUTINE is not necessarily justified the case. Sure, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFANWEBSITE, but by no means we cannot write any somewhat hardcore articles. Let alone those RallyX articles do not require readers any in-depth knowledge about the subject at all. From my practice on rallying topic recent years, I can promise that a single article covering all rally cars based on the same model is anything but helpful. How on earth can you clearly write an article including Ford Fiesta WRC (World Rally Car 2011-2016, already independent notable), Ford Fiesta RS WRC (World Rally Car 2017-2021, already independent notable), Ford Fiesta R5 (R5 car, already independent notable), Ford Fiesta Rally2 (Fiesta R5's successor, already independent notable) and Ford Fiesta Rally4 (already independent notable form Junior World Rally Championship)? Same for Hyundai i20 — Hyundai i20 WRC (World Rally Car 2011-2016, already independent notable), Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC (World Rally Car 2017-2021, already independent notable), Hyundai i20 R5 (R5 car, already independent notable), Hyundai i20 N Rally1 (suspect name)(Rally1 car 2022 onwards, already independent notable) and Hyundai i20 N Rally2 (i20 R5's successor, already independent notable). How to fill the infobox? How to organize the structure? How to list all the titles and victories? How to design the result tables from WRC, ERC, ARC, etc.? How to define the notable drivers? All I can tell you is that it is impractical and is going to be a mess. I would like to kindly tell you that it is because of these aforementioned questions that makes WRC/WRC-2/WRC-3/J-WRC articles go from stick-as-one to split-out-as-four. Unnamelessness (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

WRC cars are notable and have significant coverage. I believe most R5 (and now Rally 2) might be too, but I serious doubt that cars below Rally 2 are notable enough to have their own article. I m not very kind in having "Ford Fiesta in Rallying" since this will include a lot of different cars, regulations and some times, different eras. I think it would be better to have a chapter in Rally 3 for each R3 car, and so on. For the ones above (R5, WRC), they should be independent articles. Rpo.castro (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add Rally4 cars to the list as they receive coverage from the Junior World Championship (a support category of the World Rally Championship) like I said above. Yes, currently the category is dominated by Ford Fiesta Rally4s, but we don't know if crews are allowed to compete in other Rally4 cars yet when the new Rally Pyramid regulation is implemented next year. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Just went to check the rule. Looks like J-WRC will be merged to WRC-2/3, but WRC-3 will use Rally3 cars since 2022 (currently Rally2), meaning Rally1 for WRC(-1), Rally2 for WRC-2, Rally3 for WRC-3. Rally2 and Rally3 cars will be also used in the European Rally Championship as well as Rally4 and Rally5 cars — Rally2 for ERC(-2), Rally3 for ERC-3, Rally4 and Rally5 for ERC-4. Accordingly, the issue is should Rally4 and Rally5 cars based on the same model covered in one article? i.e. Renault Clio Rally4 and Renault Clio Rally5, Ford Fiesta Rally4 and Ford Fiesta Rally5 (but don't forget Ford Fiesta Rally4 is the dominant car in J-WRC currently). Unnamelessness (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What kind of coverage receives a Rally 3 or even rally 4 car because its just in World Championship? I believe it's most ky routine coverage and almost nothing about the car, so why having separate articles? Just to have a few lines and tables? Rpo.castro (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What kind of coverage do you expect them to be received? Such cars' coverages are always highly-related to their crews' results. Arguing WP:ROUTINE is not necessarily justified the case as many sporting events are indeed routinely covered. Other than results, the coverage actually may also include car launch, debut, performance, development, etc. You cannot accuse Rally3/4/5 cars of no proper coverages just because they are running in lower categories. According to my editing practice on rallying topic recent years, I am pretty sure that at very least Rally3 cars will receive proper coverage as it will be used by WRC-3 crews. Also for Ford Fiesta Rally4, as used in J-WRC currently. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's ROUTINE. What can you get from those brief mentions to that car to build up an article? It's routine. And, not all cars are routine covered. Some are notable, even legendary. And btw, do you have a crystal ball? You keep saying "it will, it will". Without proofs in the opposite those lower cars are not notable.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is NOT brief mentions. I have listed four sources that the topic is the car to show you that the lower cars may not routinely covered. And how on earth can that be crystal ball? We have official documents [7], [8], [9] to prove that the regulation will be implemented. If you are not familiar with the topic, you can discover it on your own, instead of prioring your Anglocentrism over others. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Reading through what sources I can find on the subject, I don't think that there is very much evidence to suggest that the Rally 3, Rally 4, or Rally 5 variants are independently notable of either the production cars they are based upon or the higher tier rally cars they share a base model with. It seems that the general idea is that a Rally 5 car is a modified road car (in a very Group A vein), a Rally 4 car is a lightly modified Rally 5 car with more spec competition-specific parts (adjustable shock absorbers, a bigger turbo, slightly wider wheels), and a Rally 3 car is an all-wheel drive version of a Rally 4 car.

I would note that there is an existing precedent with the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Toyota Celica GT-Four, and Ford Escort RS Cosworth to not have separate articles detailing the rally variants of modified production cars. As all of those Group A8 cars are substantially more notable than any of these lower-tier rally cars, I think that it's reasonable to assume that rally cars which are just modified production cars (rather than more purpose built machines like World Rally Cars) do not warrant separate articles to the cars they are based upon.

I don't think the information added about these variants lacks encyclopaedic value, but I doubt enough reliable sourcing will become available for most of these articles to ever expand upon stubs, whereas if merged into single articles the sourcing is probably available to create comprehensive overviews of these model's rally presence.

I think that with models like the Clio where there are only lower-tier variants the information should just be merged into the base model, while at the other end of the spectrum the Fiesta could probably benefit from a WP:SUMMARY overview of its rally involvement, with the World Rally Car variant only receiving a brief overview and a link to the full article on the subject.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Photos of cars in racing driver infoboxes

There's been a recent spate of photos of cars being added to racing driver infoboxes, sometimes with nobody even driving them, e.g. [10], [11], [12]. Do we think this is useful? Or should racing driver infoboxes only contain a photo of the actual driver themselves? DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If no suitably licenced picture of the driver outside of the car is available then a picture of them driving the car where they are at least somewhat visible might just about be suitable. A picture of a car that they drove at some point probably isn't much use for the infobox if you can't see them in the image. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that (unless the car is of high significance to the driver), the driver should at least be in the car. The Opel photo, which was just a picture of a random car he drove, isn't suffiecently relevant for me.
SSSB (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is a valid reason for the car-picture to be present it should be sitting in the main body of the article, not in the infobox - I feel that should be reserved for a clear picture of the person, and preferably just a head-shot Philby NZ (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In all of the above examples I don't see how that picture in the infobox is any improvement. Some are not even contemporary. Such pictures belong in the body at best. Infobox should be for portrait photos only.T v x1 11:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 and Philby NZ here. Definitely the infobox image is supposed to be a portrait or similar. In the case of Jim Rathmann at least, the image should go in the article, but not in the infobox. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input everyone. Where photos of cars have been put in the infobox, I'll move them into the body of the article (or delete them altogether, depending how relevant they are/if there is already a similar image in the article). DH85868993 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth, if the only photo we have of a driver is of them at the wheel during a race, I'd rather we used that in the infobox rather than having no photo. Obviously a portrait or other view of their visage is what we really want, but even a photo of them in a car helps to anchor the person's profession and place in the world, along with giving an impression of the sort of driving (single seaters vs. rally, etc.) that they are usually known for. I'd agree that a shot of a random car that they happened to drive is largely redundant, unless they are particularly associated with that car. Pyrop e 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to have none if we don’t have a picture of the person. We have no obligiation to have a picture in the infobox and thus we should include some just for the sake of it.T v x1 18:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My point was that these are not "just for the sake of it", so long as they do help to place the subject of the article into context for reader on first arriving at the page, which is the primary purpose of an infobox image. Pyrop e 11:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How to request page update?

I've been referred to the Motorsport Project by another editor after I asked for updates on a page where my Paid Editor and COI relationships prevent my making the changes myself. I proposed draft changes, and the editor implemented most of them but felt the infobox was beyond their technical skills. They instead advised me to contact this project - but I don't see an obvious way of doing it. The page is part of a taskforce, but it's a dormant one and arguably it no longer has relevance anyway. Should I simply post a new section on this talk page, or is there another channel that I have missed? Many thanks in advance. Rand0m Merryman (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rand0m Merryman: just drop a note here. Something like "Could an expirenced editor please review my contributions at Duncan Tappy." works just fine. SSSB (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Lap records sections of race track articles

I'm sure this was tangentially discussed not overly long ago, but I've noticed many of these sections seem to just keep growing. My main issue with them is that in many cases they consist entirely of original research. For example on Nürburgring, none of the "lap records" in the infobox have a citation at all, and in the "Lap Times" section, while most of the times are verified (and no doubt the others could be), what's not verified is that these are lap records. I think we need to insist on lap records being verified not just that the time was set, but that it was a lap record. (I'm also quite suspicious of considering a document specifically described as "provisional results" as a reliable source, but that's another story!). A7V2 (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As no-one has replied I have removed the unverified lap records from Mugello Circuit (and added references for the remaining ones as they were missing), and will do some more later. A7V2 (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless these times have been recognised as records in some sort of official capacity it is likely WP:UNDUE to start listing them off in tables. As A7V2 has said, these record claims are often hard to verify, as outside of a few top-level categories they generally aren't closely tracked and in many cases verifying them will likely mean citing the classifications for every single event using that category of car, which is getting to the point where the noteworthiness of the record has to be strongly questioned. It's also quite obvious that a lot of these tables invite random club racers, sim racers, and track-day goers to start adding their own highly-dubious "records" to articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There are two concerns here:
1. If the source doesn't state it is a track record, it is WP:OR and will be removed.
2. Is it WP:DUE - this is something that is best discussed on a case-by-case basis. But I would say that track records should only be inserted for major series. F1, WEC as examples. When we discuss W Series, or Formula 4, it gets more questionable.
  SSSB (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
W Series is an edge case, anything else below FIA Formula Three would seem WP:UNDUE to me so far as single-seaters are concerned. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SSSB.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I have found most of the lap records through comparing all of the races in the related series and finding the best lap for the related series and category. And, I need to record those lap records; since most of the race tracks did not any make fastest lap records for the different series. Maybe, some junior series, such as F4 lap times can be removed if you want. Apeiro94 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apeiro94: But that is original research. For major series when they only raced somewhere once, maybe we can include it but for most cases that isn't the case. Also I don't appreciate you removing sourcing I added to Bahrain International Circuit. Really though, given the article claims "The official race lap records at the Bahrain International Circuit are listed as", shouldn't we only include, well, official lap records?? And I don't think every class which ever raced somewhere needs a lap record listed even if it can be verified. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@A7V2: OK, I did not remove your sources for Bahrain International Circuit right now; but actually the WEC fastest lap records can be easily found by looking at the latest WEC race report for the circuit. And also some series raced for only once time; or all of the race reports could be easily found for some series. Maybe, I can agree for removing some junior series or some classes (such as GT3), since the lap records of GT3 class could be more controversial than the other series. Apeiro94 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you meen "you need" to record these lap records? There is no need whatsoever to list the fastest lap of "every" class whatsoever. If these aren't recognized as lap record we should not be listing them.T v x1 13:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It is actually trivia, and it could be an interesting and entertaining information for readers to understand the pace differences of different series and categories. Maybe, I can just agree for removing lap records of some national or junior series. Apeiro94 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apeiro94: neither WP:INTERESTING nor entertaining are grounds to add or leave information on Wikipedia.SSSB (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, I was recently working on a draft for an updated biography for a paid client who is a racing driver (obviously, with due care for BLP and COI rules). Before COVID, he set a number of production car lap records for major circuits, and I searched for independently verified sources confirming them. I had his social media posts of in-car video and timings, which have been accepted by various sites tracking lap records, and I also had discussion by people associated with the cars or events, but nothing beyond that. As a result, I had to leave out the section. There's no reason to doubt the veracity of these records, but they fail to meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I found nothing official from the circuits confirming the records, and no news reports that based their work on different sources. I strongly agree with the original point here - alleged records need to be doubly verified: once that the lap happened as described, and once that it actually was a record. On top of this, we need a notability threshold. If a random person took their road car to a circuit they could certainly set a lap record for (say) 37-year-old Ford Fiesta-driving teachers named Rita. No-one would seriously argue it should go in a 'lap times' section here, though. There needs to be a threshold - and it seems to me that a reasonable threshold is whether the circuit itself recognises and lists the time. That will produce inconsistencies as different circuits will list different records, but circuits are very different - what's worth recording for the Nürburgring will be different from what's worth recording for the Iowa Speedway or the Macau Grand Prix circuit. Rand0m Merryman (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sam Reklaw

Can anybody tell me if Sam Reklaw has "driven in a race in a fully professional series" as required by WP:NMOTORSPORTS? Please ping me and @Bbb23: using {{ping|GiantSnowman|Bbb23}} if you would be so kind. Giant Snowman 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Bbb23: I'm not 100% sure (I'm not 100% familiar with those series) but it doesn't look like it. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: thanks, that's what I thought as well but I'm no expert on morotsports... Giant Snowman 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested additions to Template:Motorsport season

An editor has suggested adding "Start date" and "End date" parameters to Template:Motorsport season. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mid-American Stock cars#Requested move 3 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mid-American Stock cars#Requested move 3 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)