Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Formula Three and British Formula 3 Championship

Users involved in the discussion to date. @QueenCake:, @Corvus tristis:

The British Formula Three Championship page has recently been moved from *Formula Three* to *F3*. This seems a reasonably important move but took place without discussion, the rationale being that the UK championship was known only as *F3* not Formula Three. The move has produced some anomalies where Formula Three (linked to the page about the racing class) and Formula 3 appear close together on the same page and others have felt that the two terms are interchangeable. Wiki uses Formula One & Formula Two as racing class page titles (as well as Formula Three) and to change an article about one (albeit important) series lacks consistency, to my mind. Eagleash (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong that incosistency started after renaming to the British Formula 3 Championship, we already had Masters of Formula 3 (created in 2006), Australian Formula 3 (created in 2007), Formula 3 Sudamericana (created in 2007), North European Zone Formula 3 Cup (created in 2009), Austria Formula 3 Cup (created in 2009), Formula 3 Euro Series (renamed in 2010), etc. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody actually made that assertion. The page move edit summary unequivocably stated that the British series 'never' used the word three in its title. Where has that information come from? I just looked through some old programmes from the 1960s & '70s. Some had 'Three', some '3' and some even 'III'. So the name seems changeable at best. Eagleash (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Update; individual season articles have been changed also. Eagleash (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody? So, it was not your words "Wiki uses Formula One & Formula Two as racing class page titles (as well as Formula Three) and to change an article about one (albeit important) series lacks consistency, to my mind."? P.S. May we should move Formula 3000/5000 pages to the Formula Three Thousand/Five Thousand then? For more consistency. :) Corvus tristis (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the title of the championship is Formula 3, why in the world would we change it to Formula Three? Consistency? We don't change the name of proper titles for consistency, and this is not a case of common title. The title of the category used in the series has no bearing on the correct title of the series. The FIA GT1 World Championship used Group GT3 cars in 2012, we don't change the title to FIA GT3 World Championship.

I'd be fairly certain that the FIA refers to the category as "Formula Three" and that the British championship is stylized as "British Formula 3" (I quite well remember the logo when Stephane Ratel took over the championship). Hence these pages have the correct titles as is. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are drawing an inference which does not exist. No comment was made as to when inconsistency started, merely that this page move seemed inconsistent with the way formulae are usually described in the major articles. You've still not said where your assertion that the term was never used came from or commented otherwise on what is a mass-change without seeking opinions or consensus, which is the way this works and the intention in starting a discussion, (to see what others think). Eagleash (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the table. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@The359: The title did include Formula Three until a very recent series of page moves which have caused some (minor) anomalies. The question is not whether it should be moved to Formula Three but to establish a consensus for the moves away from that designation. Eagleash (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has ever called Formula 3000 "Formula Three Thousand", because that's just ridiculous. Formula Three however is used often, as you can ascertain through a browse of historical sources. You'll note it's used on Wikipedia as a page title for the German Formula Three Championship, French Formula Three Championship, All-Japan Formula Three, and previously the European Formula Three Championship, before it was unilaterally changed by Corvus tristis, so there is certainly no common use of Formula 3 on here.

"Formula Three" and "Formula 3" (or perhaps Formula III) are indeed interchangeable. As Eagleash notes, over the years the race organisers have used both regularly, either due to the branding changing over the years, or perhaps more accurately simply what the person writing the programme decided to use that day. Usage in the media again varies. All major publications covering motorsport will have a style guide, which decides upon using either the number or the letter, while other books or those magazines from a more amateur era will use whatever the writer or editor decides upon. Even then, usage still varies over time; for example Autosport.com currently uses Formula 1/2/3, while an older magazine I'm looking at has Formula One/Three. This all makes it very difficult to standardise on one form on Wikipedia, or make such a bold statement that the British series never used the word three.

Without any firm sources, it's really down to us to decide upon which form to use. I do believe we need our own style guide, and my personal preference is to stick to Formula Three for all series. That is what we use for the category page Formula Three, and it better fits with the manual of style - Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on 3000, it's a number because it's greater than ten. Standard style is that one to ten are words, 11 and above are numbers. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What about GP2 Series, A1 Grand Prix, and some other classes of auto racing? They also have integers from zero to nine in its title. P.S. If you look at the current F3/F4 championships, none of them uses letters instead of the numbers. It was a long time ago when somebody used letters in the titles. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The names for those series are both 'common-names' and the official title of the series and I would think are pretty much 'universal'. It doesn't help in making the decision as to which name to use for the series under discussion. I note that some pages have been moved again to 'Three' and I have invited the user who did so, to join the discussion. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You still didn't provide any sources that "Three" was in official name of the championship for the significant time of its existence. You just support one of the version of the name from some very old programmes and outdated Autosport articles that common Wikipedia reader doesn't know, but for sure he can find the official site or one of the motorsport sites, where he will see British Formula 3, not British Formula Three. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, in Spanish the press rarely uses "Tres" or "Cuatro", so in Wikipedia we always use numbers. But I don't know about British press. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest, after looking at this discussion, that in the absence of any consensus we keep British Formula Three Championship on the current page (with the word three). I would also suggest that we do the same for all other categories and series, and only change the article name if there is agreement that the article is incorrectly named. In addition, making mass-AWB changes to links on Wikipedia in the event of an article move is completely unnecessary. We have redirects for a reason. QueenCake (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it mean that you can't provide any reliable online sources for "Three" to prove your point? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It more means that there was no evidence for a unilateral mass change, without discussion, in the first place. It is not required to "prove" the status quo, but wowuld be for moves away from it. Eagleash (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It was. You told about the importance about discussion so many times but you didn't listening any opinions different from your opinion. If it is really the status quo why it so hard for you to provide some links that will show "British Formula Three Championship" in the reliable sources? Corvus tristis (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash already provided a number of sources showing the use British Formula Three. There is no requirement that these sources have to be online; indeed that is quite impossible seeing that the championship started in 1951, and the contemporary publications far predate the invention of the world wide web. QueenCake (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Eagleash didn't at all. He didn't even name a published source. He said "I just looked through some old programmes from the 1960s & '70s.". It will be very funny if we will start to reference information in Wikipedia in this manner. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lapchart Creation

For the first two races of the 2015-16 season of Formula E their is no lap leaders section and I have no idea how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingJezza (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jac Nelleman

FYI, I've started a discussion about the correct spelling of this driver's surname at Talk:Jac Nelleman#Nelleman or Nellemann?. DH85868993 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TCR regional series

I had big doubts about self-notability of the 2015 TCR Italian Series season, 2015 TCR USA Series season, 2015 TCR Portuguese Series season and 2015 TCR Russian Series season. They are not even the series. They are just subcategories of the Italian GT Championship, Russian Touring Car Championship, etc. And I think it will be a better decision to make a general article 2015 TCR Series seasons where we include all these "series" (like 2009 Formula Renault seasons). Corvus tristis (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Each series is either notable or they are not. If they don't meet notability requirement then AfD the articles. --Falcadore (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Lola LC87. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Members of the F1 project will recognise this as the work of a persistent IP-hopping editor well-known to the project. And that it is his second attempt to get a draft (for this car) accepted after an earlier one was rejected and subsequently deleted as it had several issues. Eagleash (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Also stumbled upon Draft:Williams FW, although I haven't checked its edit history. The issue we need to discuss is notability, all other aspects of an article can be easily approached in due time. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There was also a recent draft for Iso-Marlboro FX3B which has been accepted. Although I suspect that it ultimately will be merged into a Williams page as it lacks notability. If you have several days to spend, there are many stories of this editor's (mis)adventures. Eagleash (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rahul Raj Mayer

Hello motorsport experts. This article was declined as a draft at AfC and then copied into mainspace. Is this a notable racer?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: A little late to the party, but I'd say... WP:TOOSOON. I'll admit I'm not as familar with the spaghetti bowl of Formulas as with some other racing genres but I think F3 is the "this guy is notable due to his participation in professional sports" boundary; F4 doesn't quite make the cut. GNG is closer but I don't think he quite clears the bar there either (note also that references 1 and 5 are actually the same announcement from two different news providers). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I see that the article has been PRODded. There seems to be a fair amount of 2015 press about this fellow, but I have no idea which are reliable sources and whether any of the races are notable. I added a couple of reports that seemed relevant. If it appears that he is nearing notability levels the page could be moved back to draft until next season instead of being deleted. However, I left the PROD in place; if no one from this project removes it, we'll know that they agree with your assessment. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: A lot of times it's really hard to tell with these lower-level drivers, as while they don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 the amount of coverage they get can be hard to gauge vis-a-vis GNG, due to the multitude of minor-to-middling mentionings. However, it appears he may be competing in GP3 next year; we're not a crystal ball and all that, but given that and the fact he may squeak past GNG now I've gone ahead and removed the PROD myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable (?)

Is this person notable: Duncan Barbour? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not obviously. Should deleted as a self-promotional advertisement anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought so too, but I don't regularly work with the nuances of notability for motor sports drivers and riders. Would a WP:Motorsport editor like to nominate this subject for AfD? Please ping me if you do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've nuked it per a combination of G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyright). Somebody may want to check Bob Ives (racing driver) as it was created by the same COI editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD'ed along with Joe Ives. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Season in progress footnotes

As many/most project members would be aware, while motorsport seasons are in progress, most of our results tables carry a "Season in progress" footnote, to indicate that the points totals and championship positions displayed are not the final ones because the season is still in progress. I've always thought this footnote should be worded as "Season still in progress" (i.e. with the word "still" added). Would anyone object if I changed all the "Season in progress" footnotes to add the word "still"? I thought this would be the best time of year to do it, when the number of such footnotes is at a minimum (acknowledging that many are still there, just currently hidden - I would change those ones too, obviously). DH85868993 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That does seem like it'd make it clearer and more grammatical. I'd say to go for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll start making the changes. DH85868993 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

All done. Feel free to fix any I missed. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done on that DH, nice work. Pyrope 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Racing Reference

The Racing Reference website seems to be offline at the moment. Does anyone know if this is a permanent state of affairs (in which case we'll need to replace all the Racing Reference external links with archived versions (sigh)), or just temporary? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Working for me...? The³5₉ (Talk) 07:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It also works for me. Unfortunately it is not possible to archive links for Racing-Reference pages. So in the event the website goes permanently down, we will need to find a suitable replacement website to reference results. Z105space (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Now working for me too. Obviously some temporary glitch (perhaps at my end). Thanks for the prompt replies. DH85868993 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's up. Speed 51's Third Turn is a database similar, but it's wiki-ish properties (anyone can sign up, but there is a "head admin" who reviews things and corrects) might make it awkwards w.r.t. sticklers at WP:RSN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John Miles (racing driver)

Looks like Miles is editing his own article, apparently fixing some older vandalism. [1] I'm not particularly familiar with Miles' career, so maybe someone in the know can tidy it up, and maybe restore that reference. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, most of those adjustments tally with the information given in the Motor Sport article. I've reinstated the ref and tidied slightly. Apologies to Mr Miles that this was incorrect for quite so long! Pyrope 00:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 International V8 Supercars

There is a discussion being held at 2016 International V8 Supercars Championship as to the validity of listing departing drivers. Have mentioned here to try and broaden the scope of opinions. Impala27 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Catalonia

I've recently noticed a small number of motorsport articles relating to Catalonia have been edited to remove any reference to the Spanish state or Spanish nationality (for example, Álex Palou). Most editors here are probably aware of the current separatist movement in Catalonia, and the potential for an unilateral independence declaration by the Catalonian Parliament. As a consequence to this, there will likely be a wave of nationalistic editing over the coming months/years, and past experience from the incessant editors changing British to English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish suggests the main targets will be flags and drivers nationality.

Please keep an eye on this, as once one article changes other editors will use it as precedent to start changing others, and as a heads up to anyone who is not a regular around here, the nationality for drivers, teams and events within motor racing is defined by the FIA, and on Wikipedia we have formed a consensus to follow the FIA on nationality issues. QueenCake (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, QueenCake! Thanks for the tip. The Catalan Wikipedia articles are already so, see ca:Campionat del Món de Motociclisme de velocitat. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Image licensing issue

A new editor is having issues with licensing for an image of a racing car they are trying to upload (as I understand it they uploaded the image to Commons, but it was deleted because they only have permission for the image to be used "on Wikipedia"). If anyone is able to help, please contribute to the existing discussion at Draft talk:Brabham BT43#Hiccup with Personal Photo of completed BT43 taken by Bob Paton. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Article naming

If possible, could editors please weigh in with some knowledge and opinion on this please?

Talk:2016 ADAC TCR Germany#Renaming article

regards, --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Championship season

Before the rash of 2016 season articles begin in full swing I'd like to bring up something, and that is our imprecise methods of article naming. Many of the motorsport articles show our poor editing skills right off the bat because we can't even name articles without including tautology.

Specifically, calling all the racing articles 2015 XXXXish Championship season. For example: 2015 GP2 Series season. Does this article cover the 2015 GP2 Series or all GP2 racing in 2015, because the title says both. 2015 Formula One season is correct. It covers all Formula One in 2015. 2015 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series is correct. It covers the 2015 NASCAR truck racing championship. It doesn't cover all NASCAR trucks everywhere. But 2015 Porsche Supercup season covers the 2015 Porsche Supercup. It's doesn't cover Porsche Cup car racing everywhere it is not the whole season. The correct title is 2015 Porsche Supercup. So let's choose. 2015 GP2 Series or 2015 GP2 season. Comments? --Falcadore (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In terms of other sports where I've been involved in these discussions, the preferred outcome is as Falcadore suggests, only use season where it is necessary, ie in the case of Formula One, and not in the case of the Porsche Supercup or GP2 Series above. Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not quite what's intended, but I've never heard the GP2 season described as the "GP2 Series season". I'd say, pick "season" or "series" & drop the other, depending on what's at play, the year's racing or the whole of GP2. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite inadvertently bringing this up, I do agree with Falcadore. These season article names are a problem linguistically, and the tautology that was introduced at some unknown point in the past must be corrected. Some of these names actually sound very unnatural - try saying 2015 GP2 Series season out loud and you'll grasp the problem. This does appear to be unique to motorsport, as most sports manage to title their articles without using XXXX Championship season, or some variation thereof.

As to fixing this, I presume it will be a case of taking each series separately, and deciding whether or not the season articles cover the entire season of that form of racing, or just one championship. QueenCake (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is very simple and I am going to take the 2016 GP2 Series season as an example: it is an article about the "2016 season" of the "GP2 Series". Enough said I think. Vettelisthebest (talk) 5:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Except it isn't. It is the GP2 season (like Formula One season) or GP2 Series (like V8Supercars Championship). It should never be GP2 Series season anymore than it should be Formula One World Drivers' Championship season. --Falcadore (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You are acting like the words Series or Championship mean the same as "season" while it does not. It is an article about a season of the GP2 Series (for example). It does not make any sense what you are doing, but I can not stop you from doing it so if you are going to move all the pages, please make sure it is done correctly taking into account links, categories and such. Thank you in advance. Vettelisthebest (talk) 8:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Falcadore/QueenCake, I'm afraid you're mistaken. The name of the series is "GP2 Series". The same as with the "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series" or "Verizon IndyCar Series". "GP2 Series season" is both correct and WP:COMMONNAME as it refers to the "[year] season of the GP2 Series". I have reverted some of the premature moves you have made - please self-revert the others, as there is no WP:CONSENSUS for this yet, and (if we are interested in both being clear and accurate) there may not ever be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Bushranger/Vettelfan: No Championship and season are NOT interchangeable. That was never the point. You've both been sucked into the vagaries of the Formula One articles which are handled differently to almost all other racing articles. And I trust you, COMMONNAME has no part in this debate. So let me lay it out for you...

The Formula One articles are called 2016 Formula One season and 1952 Formula One season is because it covers all Formula One activities for the year. Non-championship races are included in the articles in a way that it rarely done in other categories. Formula One yearly pieces are not purely about their championship. The 1987 Australian Touring Car Championship article is not called season. It does not include anything about the most important event of the 1987 Australian touring car championship season - the 1987 James Hardie 1000 because it is not part of the championship. It is for the same cars - the Group A touring cars - but Group A is not covered by season articles for the simple reason that would be impossible. The Brittish Touring Car Championship, the Deutsche Touring Cars ancestor of DTM, All-Japan Touring Cars, European Touring Cars Championship, World Touring Car championship, French series, Italian series... all used Group A. 1987 Group A season would have been an absurd, impossible article to write! So it is broken up into individual championship and stand-alone races like Bathurst.

The 2008 GP2 Series season covers the GP2 series of 2008 but it NOT an article of the 2008 GP2 season, because the 2008 GP2 Asia Series is not included. So it doesn't cover the GP2 season of 2008 like you suggested might be the case. The 2008 GP2 Series season is broken up into the GP2 Series and the GP2 Asia Series, which is why it is totally inappropriate to call the article 2008 GP2 Series season. No GP2 Asia!

There is a basic language reason - it is in WP:PRECISE component of wikipedia's Wikipedia:Article titles policy. This is why WP:COMMONNAME plays no part because it gets in the way of precision.

Understand? --Falcadore (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in fact entirely appropriate to call it "2008 GP2 Series season". Because it is the article about...the 2008 GP2 Series season. Including the word "season" does not hint, imply, or indicate that it should or does include GP2 Asia events - that would be "2008 GP2 Asia Series season", as GP2 Asia Series =/= GP2 Series. The "GP2 season of 2008" is the GP2 Series season, the GP2 Asia Series season is entirely different. Saying that "'GP2 Series season' includes both series" is synthesising the two together into something that they are, in fact, not. The 1987 Jamies Hardie 100 is not part of the "Australian Touring Car Championship season" - for exactly the reasons you say. It is not part of the Australian Touring Car Championship. In fact if I may speak very frankly, your argument is an eloquent and definitive one against the point you are attempting to make with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If the 1987 Australian Touring Car Championship does not need season, why does GP2 Series need it? --Falcadore (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

GP2 Series is a specific championship of which GP2 are the race cars. Formula One is not, which is why it has the "season" tag. So why does say the British Touring Car Championship need "season" when Australian Touring Car Championship does not? --Falcadore (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should keep names such as "Championship season", "Cup season" and "Series season", because now names of all season articles ended with "season", thus it is logical. If we change it, then would be confusion, because names of the season articles could ended with "Championship", "Cup" , "Series" and "season". AdamKot34 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Except they don't all end in season. For example: 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. Care to erxplain that AdamKot34? --Falcadore (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there is confusion now. We should do unification - all articles ended with season or not. I propose poll as this. AdamKot34 (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No the situation is easy to understand. When the article is about a completely self-contained series or championship, you do not use season. When, like in Formula One it covers all events both championship and non-championship - THAT is when you use season. It is very simple to understand and matches a very high number of articles currently published.

It also matches WP:PRECISE perfectly. Simple and accurate. --Falcadore (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but we should not make changes without strong opinion of other users. Below is the poll. AdamKot34 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not listening to me. It depends on whether the article is about a self continaed season or not. It is not all season or no season. --Falcadore (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I'm better understand this. You have strong arguments for name change, but not only you is on Wikipedia. Other Wikipedians should also make their vote, that's why I posted the poll. AdamKot34 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not only me. This is however the original method of writing motorsport articles back when wikipedia was first starting motorsport expansion. We also had a consensus when I started making the changes. It was only after changes started to be made that people who disagreed emerged. So please don't suggest I was acting entirely on my own, it's factually incorrect. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. After I read earlier discussion, your reply and comments below, I see that other people are mostly for change, so now I have no doubts that we reached consensus that name change is right and I will do it now. AdamKot34 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

To return to the beginning of the discussion, motorsport is completely alone on Wikipedia in using "Championship/Series season". The Bushranger, Vettelisthebest and anyone else, take a look at these other sports articles: 2015–16 Football League Championship, 2015 IAAF Diamond League, 2015 European Tour, 2015–16 European Rugby Champions Cup, 2013–14 Skeleton World Cup, 2015 WTA Tour, etc. No other sport article about a yearly championship uses "season" in the article title, it's only used in circumstances like Formula One where the article covers more than just a single championship. (British Formula Three is another acceptable use, as the articles cover the BRDC/BRSCC/BARC championships and other events). By removing season we are moving towards site-wide convention. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 NFL season, 2015 Major League Baseball season, 2015-16 NHL season, 2015-16 NBA season, just for the first four off the top of my head. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

All of which cover the entire season of their respective sports, and crucially do not use the "championship season" terminology. Given the peculiarities of American sport, with regular and post seasons and a final game, all with their own articles, the use is likely justified. Those are very much an exception however. QueenCake (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I only have one message to those who are moving the pages to remove the word season in the titles of articles: please, please, please make sure it happens to every motorsport article where the word "season" is redundant. Consistency is important on Wikipedia, so for example if the 2016 IndyCar Series season page is moved, please make sure it happens to every article with the name XXXX (year) IndyCar Series season. Thank you. Vettelisthebest (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Vettelisthebest's message, don't forget to recreate the old name as a redirect to the new name to avoid broken links all over the place. Thanks!--John, AF4JM (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John, AF4JM that happens automatically when you use the Move function. --Falcadore (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If people here actually care about the redundant/unnecessary word "season", do something with it please and don't just move a couple of pages, but move every page that should be moved. For example the "2016 IndyCar Series season" page has been moved to "2016 IndyCar Series", but the "2014 IndyCar Series season" and all the years back aren't moved (yet). Either move every page that should be moved or don't move any page at all as consistency matters. This message is especially meant for Falcadore as he brought up this issue. Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't I supposed to wait until there is consensus? How do a rebut a nonsense arguement like "it sounds jarring"? Since when has what it sounds like had a bearing? I bring up points relating to how official sources do not use the term "season" and I'm ignored. What am I supposed to do? Move everything and get banned?

If article naming has been left drifting that's because those debating its merits have cast it adrift. --Falcadore (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But if an agreement can't be reached, then the pages that were moved to a page without season behind it should be moved back, right? Vettelisthebest (talk) 0:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not gotten a reply on my question (above), which I asked almost 10(!) days ago, so I moved the pages back. I decided to do this, because not only were more than a half of the 2016 motorsport pages NOT moved that should have been moved if one thinks the word "season" is redundant, but also only 2016 pages were moved and no other seasons (with the exception of three championships). Because of a lack of important consistency, I decided to move pages back. I am sorry to those who do not agree with me. I would not have changed pages back if there was consistency. Either move every page that should be moved from every championship and every season or either do not move any page that does not need to be moved. Again I am sorry to those who do not agree with me.Vettelisthebest (talk) 4:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ending the articles

Please indicate your support/opposition/neutrality for each proposal in the sections below:

Championship/Cup/Series

• Support as said above. I've never seen "GP2 Series season" used, & I find it awkward & peculiar. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to TREKphiler: In the first sentence of this article "GP2 Series season" is used: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122521 Vettelisthebest (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Vettelisthebest. You'll notice I didn't say it's never used, only that I've never seen it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to TREKphiler: Sorry, I thought you said it as if it is never used. My bad for the misinterpretation. Vettelisthebest (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Championship/Cup/Series/season basically mean the same thing. Having "season" at the end of article titles containing Championship/Cup/Series is unnecessary. A Championship, by definition, is a series of events that are contested to decide a champion, so why would you add the word "season" to the end of it? Series can be perceived as multiple events that are similar or related. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I feel it would be much better if the word "season" was not used. Z105space (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Championship season seems to me a Pleonasm. Typing "year" world xxxx championship season on google, all the results are from wikipedia. Is wikipedia inventing designations? Thus I only see season when it's used the Acronym: example 2014 WRC season, never 2014 World Rally Championship season. He must follow the common and official designations and not inventing the wheel.Rpo.castro (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Rpo.castro: If I search "2016 World Rally Championship season" on Google, the first article is from Wikipedia indeed, but the rest of the articles on the first page are from fia.com, wrc.com and other websites. If I search "2016 World Rally Championship" on Google, again the first article is from Wikipedia and the rest are articles from different websites. I have tried this with other championships, I have searched championships with and without "season" and the first article is every time Wikipedia. So I do not know why you said that "all the results are from wikipedia".
  Second thing I wanted to say is that the main reason why "season" should be removed according to users who support this, is that it is pleonasm or tautology. But pleonasm and tautology is not WRONG, it is a figure of speech. I understand if you want things to be moved/changed/removed on Wikipedia if it is wrong, I also want that, but pleonasm and tautology are not wrong, but a figure of speech.
  Also "2016 WRC season" would not be right then either, because the C stands for Championship, so it is still pleonasm then. Vettelisthebest (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC) [edited: 18:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)]

• Support - It seems that for most championships, adding season to the end is unnecessary. For example, "2016 Blancpain Sprint Series" rather than "2016 Blancpain Sprint Series Season". There might be a few exceptions where adding season to the end might be beneficial, but for most series that end in "Championship/Cup/Series/Challenge" are fine on their own. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Vettelisthebest, I think you replied to my message by mistake. Based on your reply, it looks like you were intending to reply to Rpo.castro. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry JohnMcButts, thank you for correcting it. I have moved the message and changed the name. Vettelisthebest (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - In case it isn't clear, my position is season should only be used for exceptional cases such as Formula One. QueenCake (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to QueenCake: To keep it consistent I think it would be better (if "season" is going to be removed) to remove it everywhere. For example instead of "2016 Formula One season" it would be "2016 Formula One World Championship". Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Except I've never heard a given F1 season called that. It's always "[year] F1 season"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Something else to consider is that the F1 season summary articles before 1984 also include non-Championship races, i.e. they describe more than just the Championship. DH85868993 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There are good reasons to keep F1 articles as they are. There are not for almost every other series. Vettelisthebest, if you are so concerned about consistency, have a look at 2015 in sports and try to find one other article that uses "Championship season". Motorsport is massively out of sync with the entire project; this move will mean our articles are finally consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. QueenCake (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Championship/Cup/Series season

• Support. The GP2 Series season should be covered under "GP2 Series season". The belief that other series that are not the GP2 Series would be expected to be included through the inclusion of the magical word "season" doesn't hold water. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nascar1996: - Because "Series/Championship/Cup" is part of the series name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I changed my support based on this fact, even though I was already aware, and by the widespread use of season on news articles covering motorsport. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 00:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. After looking at several reliable online sources, season appears to used more often than not for most motorsport divisions that have Series/Championship/Cup in its name. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 00:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Although I have made it clear above "Ending the articles" that I support this, I am putting my name down here officially. The primary reason why I support this is the same reason as The Bushranger's: "Series/Championship/Cup" is part of the series name. The words "Series", "Championship" and "Cup" are not words to replace the word "season" or the other way around. Vettelisthebest (talk) 5:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply: Whether they are part of the name or not is not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about the term season. Can the article be correctly described without season? If yes, why have it? It adds nothing to the name. Why not put a The on the front? --Falcadore (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Reply to Falcadore: First, that it is not relevant to the discussion is your opinion. Second, I guess your main argument why "season" should be removed is because it is tautology, because that was the first thing you said under "Championship season" (if I am wrong, just tell me). But we use tautology/pleonasm all the time with names. Some examples:
      > "Naan bread" - Although "Naan" is Persian for bread, Jamie Oliver for example has recipes for "incredible naan breads".
      > "Sahara desert" - Although "Sahara" is Arabic for desert, people are not confused or find you weird or anything if you say Sahara desert.
      > "Faroe Islands" - Although "oe/ø" in "Faroe" is Danish for islands, in English it is still Faroe Islands, so you say Islands twice.
      These are just a few examples of pleonasm. If we use pleonasm with these names, why is it wrong in a case with "Championship season" or "Series season"? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The entire point of this discussion, which you are refusing to get, is that you can not correctly describe it without "season". NOBODY in motorsport says "during the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, [driver] was...". They say "during the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season, [driver] was...". The fact that this could well wind up with motorsport season articles not having consistency with other forms of sport is not an issue; motorsport is not a stick and ball sport (the current occupants of NASCAR Headquarters notwithstanding). For motorsport, "Season" is necessary. In other sports, it may not be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The entire point of this discussion, which you are refusing to get I am not refusing to get it. I am rejecting it outright. You say you can not describe it without using season. I say people do it all the time, including here on wikipedia - for over a decade. You point has not merit. You point is pointless. It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Falcadore (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
      • 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season doesn't hold up in the slightest. I have previously sent you links to demonstrate that the truth is the opposite of what you have just stated. The word "season" is rarely if ever used in the World Rally Championship.
      • If you look it up 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup season is used far more than 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season, and that is the crux of the argument. Season is used frequently. Series is used frequently. Series season is used quite rarely. --Falcadore (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: are you trying to say that its more common to read/listen "Driver X is the 2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup series season Champion/winner" instead of "2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup series champion"? And is the season as part of the name here?Rpo.castro (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying what is the point of season? 2016 Hypothetical Car Championship describes an article perfectly. How is there any doubt about what the article is? 2016 Hypothetical Car Championship season is somehow a different topic? --Falcadore (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcadore: Looking at the question "2016 Hypothetical Car Championship season is somehow a different topic?" you asked above, I assume your answer would be "No" to this. If is describes the same, why go through all the days, weeks, months (maybe years) of moving all those motorsport pages if it describes the same. The whole point of Wikipedia is to describe something so readers can understand the topic and the title of an article is of course part of it, but do readers get confused, because some articles have "season" in the title and some don't? No... Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply How is that confusing? I have never, ever seen any suggestion that it might be. If as you have just agreed with that it is fundamentally and obviously the same topic how can it be a confusing element? --Falcadore (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcadore: I didn't say it's not confusing, because you said so, but I did say it's not confusing to make a point. It's not confusing, so why would you go through all the trouble to move all the motorsport season pages if it's not confusing? If it's not confusing and not wrong, why move thousands of pages? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• What??? With so much "confusing" now I'm confused and I don't understand a word.

• Reply to Falcadore: To make my reply on 21:27, 23 January 2016 clearer: I'm NOT accusing you, Falcadore, of saying "season" in the title of an article is confusing although you thought I meant that. My point is that we both agree it doesn't confuse people if some motorsport pages have "season" in the title and some pages don't and Wikipedia main goal is to have informative articles about certain subjects that are clear (and have reliable sources). But what I'm wondering is why would you go through all the trouble to move (almost) all the motorsport season pages if it's not confusing? If it's not confusing and not wrong, why move thousands of pages? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I support this for the same reasons as mentioned by The Bushranger and Vettelisthebest. CGM 20 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither

Refer explanation given to Adamkot above. Simple and effective. --Falcadore (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Now consensus is reached, thus this poll is not needed. AdamKot34 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I would really like to know why adding "season" onto the defined name of a championship is superior. Above it says that the 2015 GP2 Series season describes the "season" of GP2 Series racing. But how does 2015 GP2 Series not do that? 2015 GP2 Series is the name of the championship. It needs no additional words to describe what it is. I just don't get what purpose "season" serves. Is there anyone anywhere who is confused by an article title like "2015 GP2 Series"? --Falcadore (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it is the article on the 2015 GP2 Series season. "Season" is used in everyday useage. The lack of it is jarring, and not grammatically proper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It is the article on the 2015 GP2 Series. Season takes no part in its name. Who won the 2015 NBA? Golden State. They didn't win the NBA season, they won the NBA. Who won the Formula One World Championship? Lewis Hamilton. He didn't win the Formula One season, he won the World Championship.

GP2 Series is the GP2 Series. Season is entirely surplus to requirements.

It is the GP2... Series. The word "Series" sums up that it is the name of a championship. It does it completely without the assistance of season. The lack of it is "jarring"? Says who? Because it is not jarring. The grammar is complete without it.

Where is some evidence that "season" is neccessary?

GP2 Series is the series for GP2 racing.

Looking at the GP2 Series website - how many times do you see the phrase GP2 Series, compared to GP2 Series season? If the official website can get by the majority of the time without using the word "season", why can't we?

You "say" it is jarring. That's your entire reasoning. No evidence. Just your opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your examples don't hold up. Guess where the article on the Golden State Warriors' championship is? 2014–15 NBA season. The Seattle Seahawks' last Super Bowl year? 2014 NFL season. The Chicago Blackhawks'? 2014–15 NHL season. I could go on. (And Hamilton won the World Championship during the 2015 Formula One season.) "Season" is common useage. "During the [year] [league] season, X...." announcers say. They do not say "during the [year] [league]". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course they do. All the time. North Queensland are the NRL champions. Season makes that sentence more awkward not less. NRL season champions? Champions of the NRL season?

And you already know very well why Formula One has the season tag, because it is not a championship specific article.

Missing my point. My point was more often than not, you don't use it in plain language. As it turns out, season is not COMMONNAME because frequently it is not used.

My point all along is that when the article is named for the championship "season" is unneccessary. You've said it's jarring, that's opinion. That it's commonname, well no it isn't. 2015 GP2 Series is entirely accurate without the use of the term "season" and as a point of fact, using season is entirely dependant on sentence structure when used at all.

Show me please where 2015 GP2 Series does not convey the title accurately. Under what circumstances does not using "season" change the meaning at all. --Falcadore (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you show my where in the World Rally Championship website where "(Year) World Rally Championship season" is written? Here's the link: [2] I can save you the hassle. The never use it at all. Far from common, it's exceedingly uncommon.

Type "NASCAR Nextel Cup" into a search engine and show me where on the list of suggested searches does it say "NASCAR Nextel Cup season". there is standings, schedule, results, racing, points, qualifying, series jacket (!!!) but season is nowhere to be found. --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcadore: So on Wikipedia it has to be "XXXX NASCAR Nextel Cup" instead of "XXXX NASCAR Nextel Cup season", because you get better search results when looking for "XXXX NASCAR Nextel Cup" in a search engine? Random search engines are not comparable with Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not even a search engine, which you can check here: List of search engines. Wikipedia is not on the list. Vettelisthebest (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply Firstly; why on earth would you assume I would use Wikipedia as a search engine? Jeez.
• Secondly: GHits is frequently used as a comparison tool in wikipedia debates. Why is it not now OK to do so?
• Thirdly: When in above statements it is asserted that a phrase like 2015 GP2 Series season is in common usage I am perfectly within my rights to refute it. There is more than just you in this debate. There are other editors I may choose to engage with.
• Fourthly: Improving Wikipedia's positioning in search engines is something you've brought up. Nothing to do with what I am talking about. I'm frankly surprised that's a conclusion that could be drawn. --Falcadore (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't care I really don't see any strong rationale for changing things from the way they are. In some cases it sounds awkward without "season", in some cases it sounds awkward with "season" added. -Drdisque (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So, at 28 December, a consensus was reached. Now because nobody answered to a user, he reverted the moves (because all the articles must be moved instantly..)? What is the state of the discussion?Rpo.castro (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, there is a consensus that article titles should either end with Championship (or equivalent) or season. Falcadore further proposed season is inappropriate for every article that does not cover all instances of that form of racing, as in Formula One, though I'm not sure if there was agreement on that point. QueenCake (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I support the "neither" option. It should not be all articles use season at the end or none of them use it. How the article ends should simply be determined by what it actually deals with and that applies to all sports. If it deals with just one event like e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup the common name of the event suffices. If the article deals with a particular season of events within a particle sport, season should be added to the title. Like e.g. 1975 Formula One season, which details the 1975 World Drivers Championship as well as number of non-championship F1 races held that year. This is exactly what Falcadore has been trying to point out. Tvx1 03:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simplification/Summary

So we hear that a championship or series can not be described without using the term season. The implication is that an article title without the term season is incorrect. And yet since the begginning of NASCAR in wikipedia NASCAR articles have never used the term season and function quite adequately and correctly. There has never once been a push that the should have season added to the article. There never once has been an objection. So why is it wrong now when it has been right for over a decade? If I can have an answer to that makes sense and does not refer to an opinion I will cease and desist immediately. --Falcadore (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So in summary consensus seems to support the status quo even though no justification other than personal preference has been put forward to support. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

But what consensus? If we have something is a lack of consensus since TREKphiler, Z105space, Rpo.castro (mw),Queencake and JohnMcButts are defending the removal of "season"; The Bushranger, Nascar1996 and Vettelisthebest are defending to keep "season" and Adamkot and you (Falcadore) are defending neither (whaterever it is.).Rpo.castro (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I appear to have failed if you cannot understand my arguement. --Falcadore (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Has there been any closure on this issue? By weight of numbers, there is a majority in favour of removing season where it is unnecessary. In looking for a consensus, I believe there is a general agreement in favour, and although two users have been stridently supporting the status quo, their argument that an article title must use season because the word "championship" is part of the series name has not found wider community support. There was also an argument raised that the problem is not worth the effort needed to rectify it, but neither the size of the problem nor the workload it creates are legitimate arguments on Wikipedia - it doesn't matter if you have to manually edit every single article, if a issue has been identified it must be fixed.

So what now? Myself, and I presume other editors, are not inclined to start moving pages again only to (again) watch someone suddenly object despite an apparent consensus, yet inaction or the cessation of discussion does not validate those who support the status quo. I am asking then if anyone disagrees with my interpretation, and if so whether you would like to move this to a RFC, as discussion here has clearly ended. QueenCake (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to QueenCake: You can't say "By weight of numbers, there is a majority in favour of removing season where it is unnecessary.", because on Wikipedia it's not like majority rules. Also I explained something to Falcadore a week ago (which I still haven't gotten a reply on) and I'll explain it to you too: the whole point of Wikipedia is to describe something so readers can understand the topic and the title of an article is of course part of it. Readers of motorsport articles don't get confused, although some articles have "season" in the title and some don't, it's not like readers won't understand what the article is about.

Also to sum up the problems I have with arguments of people wanting "season" to be removed:

• One of the arguments is that having "Championship season" (or Cup/Challenge/Series season) is pleonasm. I understand that people would want to see "season" to be removed if it's wrong to have pleonasm, but pleonasm isn't wrong, it's a figure of speech.
• Another argument is that having "season" in the title is unnecessary, but there are so many things in Wikipedia unnecessary. For example the tables with all winners of a season per race like this. When there is already a table with the Championship standings, a table with the winners per race is unnecessary, because in the Championship standings you can also see who won, who started from Pole position and who got the Fastest lap. Another example is the list of all 200 races won by Richard Petty in NASCAR. The "Richard Petty"-page also includes his career results in NASCAR in which you can see all races he won. I don't understand why all those winner tables or Richard Petty's 200 wins list aren't removed with the reason that it's unnecessary and why having "season" in the title of an article is something that has to be removed.
• Finding "season" in the title "awkward & peculiar" or "it would feel better without season" aren't arguments, those are tastes. If awkward, peculiar or the fact that it doesn't feel right are arguments then I'm going to edit the Wikipedia page about Pizza and write about why it's my favorite food. Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My point being that this was only your and Bushranger's view, and that while a majority does not constitute consensus by itself, a minority cannot veto a proposal either. We need consensus, but not unanimous agreement. As I said, you can take this further to gauge the opinions of the non-motorsport community, but from this discussion I see a consensus in favour. QueenCake (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to QueenCake: How is it only my and Bushranger's view? Nascar1996 and CGM 20 also support having "season" behind Championship/Cup/Series. I don't understand how you come up with the idea that I, Bushranger, Nascar1996 and CGM 20 are the minority party, because you, Falcadore, JohnMcButts and Rpo.castro want to change things for - what you consider - actual reasons (instead of just taste). It's still four against four. And you still haven't said why having "season" in the title of an article is wrong. I'm still waiting for that and if you can say why it's wrong to have "season", fine, change it. But you only find it unnecessary, but there are tons and tons of more unnecessary things on Wikipedia. Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to introduce you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgot TREKphiler and Z105space who are in favour? This discussion its just a real mess. The comments should be re-ordered in this was: a) proposal b) votes, c) comments. And needs more users, which won't happen with the discussion like this because people would prefere to hit the wall with the head instead of trying to understand the mess (which probaly is the main reason why the discussion is like it is, whit lots of spam, to demote other people to participate).Rpo.castro (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a mess because the editor who put forward the "vote" discussion didn't understand the arguements and got the question wrong. Tried to correct it - twice - but it didn't take. --Falcadore (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Rpo.castro: I didn't forgot TREKphiler and Z105space. I didn't count them, because they didn't have a single argument or reason. Vettelisthebest (talk) 2:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply Well Bushrangers reason amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I'm not sure how that counts. --Falcadore (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

When I made the assertion that there was a consensus I read through the entire discussion from the beginning, rather than just count the people who made a "vote" in the flawed poll. There have been 17 editors who have participated, and I'll apologise in advance if I've misinterpreted anyone's comments, of which I believe to see supporting comments from Falcadore, Mattlore, Trekphiler, QueenCake, AdamKot34 (who changed their opinion), Rpo.castro, JohnMcButts, Tvx1, Z105space, John, AF4JM, The359 (who didn't state a position here but did on Vettelisthebest's talk page). In addition, Corvus tristis did not comment here but has made moves in line with this opinion (example), and Drdisque was neutral, though did note that some article titles that use season sounded awkward. In addition to that, as I have repeatedly pointed out, side-wide convention is against the use of "Championship season", and its usage is unique to WP:Motorsport. Against it were The Bushranger, Vettelisthebest, Nascar1996 and CGM 20 (whom I missed the first time), though only the first two stuck around when challenged. Arguments consisting of WP:IDONTLIKEIT,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:EFFORT aren't valid, so we're left with seeing if there is any other argument as to why "season" is required in the article title. And frankly, I haven't seen one that hasn't been refuted by Falcadore.

So yes, I see a consensus. Not an unanimous one no, but that's the way it normally works. And since no one seems willing to take up my offer to involve the wider community, I am confident we can call this discussion in favour of the change. QueenCake (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is not over yet in my opinion, because the main reason to remove "season" looks to me like it is unnecessary, (because it's pleonasm?). But still no one has told me why having "season" in the title of an article is WRONG. And I do NOT agree that Falcadore has refuted all of the arguments he is against, because The Bushranger clearly said that he thinks that "Series/Championship/Cup" is part of the series name and what does Falcadore do? He just says that Bushranger's point is pointless and it's not relevant to the discussion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). That is absolutely not how one refutes an argument. Also I had the argument that while some articles have "season" in its name and some don't and that it doesn't confuse people reading a motorsport article for the first time. The whole point of a Wikipedia article is to be clear and not confusing, right? This argument has NOT been refuted.
In my opinion Falcadore is not refuting arguments but refusing to understand them... I'm sorry I'm saying that and I do not try to offend you and it's nothing personal, but you, Falcadore, are really hammering on the fact that "season" has such a big meaning that it hints or indicates things that might confuse Wikipedia readers (at least that is what I understand from your discussion with The Bushranger about the 2008 GP2 Series season article). There are other arguments of yours that don't make sense at all, like "2015 Porsche Supercup season covers the 2015 Porsche Supercup. It doesn't cover Porsche Cup car racing everywhere it is not the whole season." I'm 99% sure you are the only Wikipedia user confusing the "Porsche Supercup" as a motorsport championship with "Porsche Cup car racing everywhere".
I think what you are refusing to understand, Falcadore, is that a championship is a championship, it is NOT about where on the planet a car from a championship is or what kind of car it is. Vettelisthebest (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Series/Championship/Cup" is part of the series name'

So what? That does not explain why the addition of "season" is important. Season is still superflous. ABC Championship still succinctly describes events without the addition of "season". --Falcadore (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcadore: For me "season" is not superfluous, Falcadore, because in motorsport pages it tells me the difference between a championship and a racing event. (And yes, I think NASCAR pages should have "season" in the title indeed then, because it's about a championhship.) For example the 2015 FIA GT World Cup and the 2015 24 Hours of Le Mans are racing events, but articles about the entire season of for example the Blancpain GT Series or the Dutch Supercar Challenge have season behind them, because it's a championship with multiple events. You can see this in other sports pages as well, like the 2016 Arena Football League season is a championship while the 2014 FIFA World Cup is about only one event. "Season" hints to a championship over a longer period. Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Vettelisthebest: repeating the same things over and over again doesn't make them truth, as Falcadore demolish your arguments more than once. I don't see anywhere why having "season" makes the article better. And writing long novels just to beat the others by tiring them?Rpo.castro (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Rpo.castro: The article is not improved either if "season" is removed... Vettelisthebest (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rpo.castro, yes quite right. This isn't parliament where you can talk out a motion, on Wikipedia we can move on even if one user attempts to keep the discussion going against clear consensus. QueenCake (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to QueenCake: I'm not trying to filibuster, I just want a freaking anwser to the question why having "season" in the title is WRONG? And if we're going to follow Falcadore's examples, other sports pages have to be moved too, right? Like 2016 Major League Baseball season should be moved, because League means the same as season according to you all, right? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The first thing in motorsport pages is (almost) always this:

2015 ... Championship/Series

Previous

2014

Next

2016

Automatically behind Championship/Series it says "season" and without manually putting in nextlink or previouslink, links appear with "XXXX Championship/Series season". Wikipedia has built this in for a reason (I assume), so I'm wondering why we don't stick to Wikipedia's "rules"? Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates can very easily be changed. The wording in a template should not be used when their wording is only dependant on the outcome of consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply For me "season" is not superfluous, Falcadore, because in motorsport pages it tells me the difference between a championship and a racing event.

That to me reads like your argument is based only on a personal preference. --Falcadore (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcadore: "For me" in this case means what comes up in my head when I see the word "season" in the title of an article and it has nothing to do with my personal preference. Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You've had answers. It creates a tautology, is inaccurate on many articles, is completely superfluous on others and an article is perfectly described using only "Championship". And virtually every other sports page already uses this (e.g. 2014-15 Premier League), only some American sports do not. This may or may not be correct, but that can always be dealt with in the future. Oh, and that's a user created template, designed after motorsport pages started down the Series season naming path. It's nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and can be easily changed at any time. QueenCake (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The template? LOL!!!

2015 ... Championship/Series
Previous:	2014	Next:	2016

This must be magic! The season disappeared!Rpo.castro (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to QueenCake and Rpo.castro: I thought it could only be changed by using "nextlink" and "previouslink" everywhere. You guys know more about editing on Wikipedia than I do (obviously hahah). Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus reached

I've made up my mind and I've decided to join those who want to see "season" to be removed from articles where it's not needed, because I felt like it was me versus everybody. So I guess consensus is reached. I suggest we first make a new discussion page where we can discuss about motorsport championships and eventually make a list of:

• Championships with "season" in the title > "Season" should be removed
• Championships with "season" in the title > "Season" should stay in the title
• Championships without "season" in the title > "Season" should stay out of the title
• Championships without "season" in the title > "Season" should be included in the title (probably not many or no series will be included in this category)

Also in the discussion we have to agree on what steps we have to take at certain pages. For example at pages that now have "season" in the title which will be removed, one of the steps is to change "{{Motorsport season" into "{{Motorsport season2".
Any thoughts of this suggestion I explained above? I think it's a good idea, because this way it will be clear and hopefully also structured (if that is a good English word for what I'm trying to say...). We could also keep a log where we each say what pages we've changed/moved. Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to list every single championship - there are a lot of them - as it is already obvious that most need to be moved (essentially everything that uses "Championship season", which is the majority of articles). It's more of question of which ones should stay. So say Formula One, obviously, British Formula Three, because the articles cover the multiple championships and non-championship races, and any other articles that don't just cover a single championship. You've also got a few oddballs like Al Grand Prix, where you might just leave it in place for lack of a better title.

Also, as I said to Rpo.castro, we can just change the original template which will sort out any issues. QueenCake (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to say to those who are moving pages now that they should not forget to remove the word "season" too from the links in templates like in Template:WTCC seasons. I also wanted to let you all know that I'm busy with school now, but in a week I have a few days off, so I'll have the time to move a lot of pages. Also a question for the experts QueenCake and Rpo.castro: instead of changing "{{Motorsport season" into "{{Motorsport season2" in every article, isn't there a way to change the "{{Motorsport season"-template and remove "season" from the template? Vettelisthebest (talk) 2:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vettelisthebest:: Me a QueenCake have discussed the template issue. Probably in the end of the process the template will be changed, removing "season" from it. Meanwhile I'm changing the template in each article this way: {{Motorsport season |title= [[World Rally Championship]] |link= World Rally Championship |year = 2015 }} The "[[ ]]" in "title" keeps the connection to main article. Also in each article I change the first sentence "The 2015 WRC season is the 23 edition of wrc".Rpo.castro (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes we were planning to leave it until the end, just in case it breaks any unmoved articles. QueenCake (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Related to this discussion I have stumbled across the following articles:

• 1978 European Formula Three season  moved
• 1979 European Formula Three season  moved
• 2012 European Formula 3 season  moved
• 2013 European Formula 3 season  moved
• 2014 European Formula 3 season  moved
• 2015 European Formula 3 season  moved
• 2016 European Formula 3 season  moved

Each of these articles discussed only one of the Formula Three Championships that were held throughout Europa during those seasons. If no one objects I will change the word season into championship in the title of each of those articles, because they only deal with the European Formula 3 Championship of the year in question. Tvx1 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I Agree.Rpo.castro (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note to F3, the British GT Championship also has articles like 2015 British GT season - which surely should be changed to <year> British GT Championship? Boothy m (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, season should be changed to championship for the both of them. QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the page of the 2016 Formula 3.5 V8 season is moved to 2016 Formula 3.5 V8, because it doesn't have Series/Championship/Cup/Challenge in its name. Why do you guys think: 2016 Formula 3.5 V8 season or 2016 Formula 3.5 V8? Vettelisthebest (talk) 8:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know. User:Corvus tristis is making some nonsense moves, then edit-warring to keep them in place. Frequently using a strange interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME that defies logic. He is also refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the issue. What sort of article name is 2016 MSA Formula? --Falcadore (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

They have clearly misunderstood the consensus as meaning that "season" needs to be removed everywhere. In some cases season needed to be removed (where it was used in combination with Cup/Championship/Series), while in others, like the ones I mentioned above, it needed to be replaced with "Championship". Of course there cases as well where nothing needed to be changed as well. A number of Corvus tristis's moves need to be reverted. Tvx1 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; but then there is the edit warring. --Falcadore (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I know its tough if its starting to head towards edit warring or repeated moves but can everyone remember to update the introduction and any linked templates when they make these moves. It's the best way to ensure that moves are permanent. Mattlore (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

AFD

The following articles have been nominated for deletion:

• List of Formula One driver numbers

You are free to weigh in your opinion in the discussions. You can reach it through clicking on the above link. Regards, Tvx1 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

AFD has been close. --Falcadore (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Another AFD

Ed Bolian has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Photographing race events

Has anyone ever looked into getting a Wikimedia media pass to photograph a major race for Wikipedia / Commons? I could get photographs like these for this year's IndyCar race at Road America. I'm not following the series anymore and I don't know if I want to shell out the big money to see the race. I remember reading a page about the process and I can't find it. Royalbroil 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I tried to get a press pass for the 2014 Punta del Este ePrix, with a Wikimedia Uruguay letter, but I was replied that the submission was rejected. :(

Here's the motorsports events I've attended:

• 2008 Piriápolis Grand Prix
• 2001 Montevideo Grand Prix
• 2010 Punta del Este Grand Prix
• 2011 Mercosur Superbikes Cup
• 2014 Punta del Este Grand Prix
• 2015 Punta del Este ePrix (partial)
• 2016 Gran Premio del Uruguay 19 Capitales Histórico

Everyone is welcome to join the Commons:WikiProject Sports. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of F1 GP winners table

The current table on this article is not in the best shape, my main point being that ranking is irrelevant as someone can re-order the table to see the order of how many wins one has scored. I propose this table replace the current one. Does anyone have a problem with me changing it? Holdenman05 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better in its current format. I think the two items of information most readers will be interested in is how many wins each driver has, and where that number ranks them in the all-time list. I wouldn't object to the "driver number" column being added (although I don't think it's really necessary), but I think the position/rank column should be retained and the table should be default sorted in that order (i.e. by decreasing number of wins). P.S. I have advertised this discussion at the Formula One WikiProject and the article's talk page. DH85868993 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, new format looks better. The main thing I like is that you can see which driver was the 1st race winner and which one was the 30th race winner. It's easier and you don't need to search if you want to know who was the 50th or something race winner. You can always sort the table in order to see who has the most wins and vice-versa. It's a win-win situation for everyone. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can sort the new table in order of wins, but to find out a driver's position in the sorted table (which I think people will be interested in), you have to count the rows - it's easy for the first half-dozen or so, but when you get down to, say, René Arnoux, with 7 wins, it's quite tedious. DH85868993 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree on that, but the same can be said about the current table – you have to count if you want to know who was the 31st winner. Then a separate column, regarding the winning order (Farina – 1st, Fangio – 2nd, etc.), should be added to the old table. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like the current format to be retained, as I agree with DH, most people landing on the page will be interested in who has the most wins. I'm not really sure adding the position of the drivers first win is necessary, but if there is a consensus for it, then I will not object. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Like DH and NapHit I prefer the current table.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bonneville Speedway

Wonder if I can have some feedback on the constant reversions I am getting here: Bonneville Speedway/Talk:Bonneville Speedway --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

BRDC British Formula 4 Championship or BRDC British Formula 3 Championship discussion

Hi all

There is a move request currently in progress at Talk:BRDC British Formula 4 Championship, with a view to moving it to BRDC British Formula 3 Championship. This could do with more input from the community, so please could interested parties contribute there? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability query

Somebody from this group who knows more about kart racing may want to check whether Joel Herbert meets notability criteria; my prod from earlier today has been removed, and the article has a bit more substance to it by now. But I'm still unsure whether that brings it over the line. Schwede66 06:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also an article on his sister, Chelsea Herbert, that could be considered in tandem. Neither of them meet WP:NMOTORSPORT for competing in low-level karting, so it then falls to WP:GNG, and I cannot see any significant coverage from independent sources to warrant an article. On both articles the only sources are personal websites and Driver Database, which is not enough to establish notability. I would say both should be put up for deletion. QueenCake (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also suspicious that the subject himself has created both articles. Tvx1 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That and the number 61 on the car basically confirms he is Joel61. Boothy m (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised both articles were speedied under A7. Both would have been deleted for lack of notability had they been up at AFD, but at least the first appeared to have enough of a claim of significance to pass. I've certainly seen articles declined for deletion with much less. QueenCake (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects on 2015/2016 World Touring Car Championship

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

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)