Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Active discussions

Other project talk pages:

Taskforce talk pages:

Junior series resultsEdit

Guys, for the past years we had a consensus to remove all the result tables for the series below Euro F3 level because of the lack of notability. User:Sparkle1 is fan of Arthur Leclerc, wants to give as much coverage as possible and to form a new consensus, but he probably doesn't know how to start discussions and only knows the revert button. Is the consensus active or probably we really should include F4 series? Honestly, I don't have any opinion on inclusion and certainly don't need edit war, I just try to respect the consensus, while Sparkle1 doesn't. IMHO, at least it will be good for the inclusion of the results of Formula Renault Eurocup and Formula Regional European Championship which use F3 chassis because Euro F3 no longer exists.Corvus tristis (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I shall happily participate in this conversation but would far prefer the insensitive and nonsensical accusations to be made on a talk page and not here, that is just attacking the motive of my editing. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The changes that you are proposing would affect more than just one article, so you are obligated to form consensus here. Probably for you will be better to explain your position on the results coverage and maybe community will support you. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"obliged to form" that may well be the case in your eyes, and may well be the standard way of carrying on. It is though much more collegiate and polite to talk I the tone taken on someones talk page and not publicly on a wikiproject. I think that's enough of complaining about rudeness and motive questioning. Always assume good faith and always talk to the person before leaping to conclusions. Never assume others know what you think they should, ought or must know. Everyone has a different experience level and knowledge level. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue with results tables of "lower" championships, I have even previously added some before being told of notability. The thing with these lower championships is that the majority of drivers don't have or aren't deemed notable enough for pages just yet. That being said, when/if they progress to a championship which gets tables and they get a page then sure add in these results tables. One more point to consider is you mention Formula Renault Eurocup which, unlike Formula Regional (which is basically the new name for the older Regional F3 championships), is a series that has been around for many years so would we do tables for only when the series uses the F3 chassis and not it's previous chassis or do we go back and do tables for all the previous Eurocup series drivers? RewF12012 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The ladder to F1 is always changing with the addition and supressing of competitions, and this leads that a certain competition was extremely relevant in a season and can become irrelevant, non-notable after. For example, in early 2000's there were 2 main path to F1: Formula 3 Euro Series and World Series by Nissan/Renault (that the F Renault Eurocup is a descendant). They were relevant because they were right below the F3000/GP2 (now Formula 2). And right below this there were several regional competitions. With GP3 introduction (and even more with FIA Formula 3 new life) and with each constructors driver's academy, all the competitions below got less and less notable. Wikipedia is and encyclopedia. When we think of an encyclopedia we think about reading long articles, but looking at most sport articles we get ton's of articles that are just a collection of tables. So instead of adding more and more tables with the position of each race in every single year, why the notable results for the lower championships are not written in text instead of more boring tables? "Driver x competed in competition Xpto between 2018 and 2020, achieving 2 wins, 4 podiums in 18 races". Or a description season by season. IMO its a lot better then getting more and more colorful tables. WP is not just a stats report.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Three points: All of wikipedia is public, including all talk pages. There is no privacy on Wikipedia and you should not assume otherwise.
You should not assume that simple statements of fact is rudeness. Wikipedia has always preferred objectivity to subjectivity and many policies and guidelines are based around this.
If you find Wikipedia's guidelines about notability too restrictive perhaps you should focus editting of drivers who fall short onto Fandom Wikis. For example Motor Racing Wiki --Falcadore (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain I understand the issue here (apologies for being an idiot if that's the case!): Arthur Leclerc is presumably notable (if he's not then the page ought to be deleted). All notability rules and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability (sports), only relate to whether or not an article should exist. If he had only competed in the 2018 French F4 Championship and 2019 ADAC Formula 4 Championship then he would not be notable, but notability refers only to articles, not to content within articles, so that cannot be the reason to remove the tables. Note that those same tables in dispute on Leclerc's article appear in the two season articles above. If there is a consensus to not include these results tables in driver articles for series below a certain "level" (and of course with motorsport that "level" may be difficult but not impossible to define), then it ought to be based on something relevant to content, rather than "notability". A7V2 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Which is why we have a more concise career summary table rather than lengthy and opaque race-by-race tables. The information is not unreported. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: But then that argument can be used to justify the removal of these tables for all championships for all drivers (including in Formula 1), an idea I'm not particularly opposed to, but given that just about every driver has several of these tables I doubt there would be much support for their removal. A7V2 (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
My point is, a drivers career at lower levels is not lost if it does not have those lengthy race-by-race coverage tables. The long and more complicated table is not the only table option available. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation precedent for a racing facility?Edit

Is there a precedent for how to disambiguate a racing track (also known as racing circuit)? I see that the article title Meridian Speedway is already taken for a section of railroad track (surprisingly!). The NASCAR West series raced several times at the track in Meridian, Idaho (United States) and I was considering starting an article. Royalbroil 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never heard of a rail corridor being referred to as a "Speedway" before. In answer to your question, yes there are a few. Generally they are to differentiate between other race circuits. Beijing International Street Circuit (Jingkai) for example (although I notice that the other Beijing International Street Circuit is not disambiguated). There's also several tracks in Brazil that are all called Autódromo Internacional Ayrton Senna. A more useful example might be Ascot Park. I would recommend something along the lines of "Meridian Speedway (race track)" and moving the other article to "Meridian Speedway (rail corridor)". JohnMcButts (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Just call it Meridian Speedway (speedway)? In all seriousness though, probably after creating the article you could start a move discussion to determine a primary topic but for the moment I would think something like Meridian Speedway, Idaho or Meridian Speedway (Idaho) would be a suitable title to start with. Then the existing article could be moved to something like Meridian Speedway (railway/railroad) but not before the new article is created. A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility in results tablesEdit

An ongoing discussion at the Manual of Style's Accessibility page about results tables might be worth this project's attention. Although it primarily focuses on NASCAR driver tables, universal aspects like the use of small text for finishing results are among the main discussion points. ZappaMatic 20:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:French F4 Championship driversEdit

Hi. Can someone check the Category:French F4 Championship drivers? Because it is not possible to understand championships includes. The description reads: "This category contains drivers who have competed in the F4 Eurocup 1.6, Formula Renault Campus and Formul'Academy Euro Series since 1993", but it has the name of the French F4 Championship and there are some (only a few) drivers from the current F4 FIA regulation. Isn't a subcategory of Category:Formula 4 drivers. Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Is French F4 drivers really a notable category? I had thought previously that the level of F4 was insufficient notability. --Falcadore (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking to see if draft article's subject is notableEdit

I'm having trouble figuring out if Draft:Jaylyn Robotham is notable per the sports notability guideline. If it is, I will accept the draft asap. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi SL93. Unfortunately the notability guidelines in WP:NMOTORSPORT are a bit unhelpful (specifically and especially the first dot point). In Robotham's case, the draft to me at least (but I'm not expert on these matters) seems to satisfy the GNG as there is certainly some non-trivial coverage of him, especially the Auto Action article [1]. Of course this is "crystal balling" a bit (or a lot, but I have seen this argument in AFD discussions), but I think that if he is not quite notable now, he probably will be in a couple of years time given his performance so far. Sorry if this isn't particularly helpful! A7V2 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and accepted the draft per the two media companies (Speedcafe and Auto Action) that covered it. I do hear that three sources are needed at minimum otherwise, but I don't think that is always the case. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Why ask if you were just going to approve them anyway?
I would agree that he is on the cusp of GNG, but not quite there. The Toyota 86 series, although it gets some coverage as part of the Supercars package, isn't really a professional series, and Super3 is obviously a third-tier series. Also agreed that the Auto Action article is a good start, most of the other references don't really add much to his notability. If he were to win the Toyota 86 or Super3 series, or progress up to Super2, then I think he'd meet the guidelines as he'd have more press coverage. A glimpse at Super3 season articles shows the majority of those drivers lack articles, while Super2 seasons tend to have articles for their drivers. The359 (Talk) 01:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't originally my intention to approve it anyway. I didn't want complaints about there only being two media sources covering him, but now I think I shouldn't care. Anyway, I did find more coverage which I will add to the talk page for potential expansion. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Though if anyone disagrees with me on GNG being met, nominating it for deletion is always an option. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You didn't want complaints about there only being two sources, so your solution was to...approve it? Talk page is not the article page, if you have nothing to add to the article, then you haven't made your case. How about save people the trouble of having to nominate it and wait when you're already asking for outside opinions? The359 (Talk) 02:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you want from me when what’s done is done...unless you’re just looking for an argument. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


My knowledge of touring car racing is limited, so hopefully someone with knowledge of the history of the sport can shed some light on this.

I've been trying to research this for a while but have yet to come to a conclusive answer. Bigazzi Team, the notable BMW factory-supported touring car team run by Aldo Bigazzi and Gabriele Rafanelli before moving into sportscars around 1996. Sometime in the 1997-1998 off-season, something occurs and Bigazzi Team stops existing. In its place, we get Team Rafanelli run by Gabriele Rafanelli as a BMW factory-supported team and housed at the same premises at Bigazzi Team. At the same time, Paolo Bigazzi (not sure of the relation to Aldo) founds Scuderia Bigazzi as a small Alfa Romeo team in the Italian touring car ranks. Both teams claim relation to Bigazzi Team, with many news reports and history articles listing Team Rafanelli as a continuation of Bigazzi, while Scuderia Bigazzi themselves refer to Bigazzi Team as part of their history.

So, is Team Rafanelli a continuation of the Bigazzi Team under a new title and new ownership, or should the teams be considered three separate entities? To add to this confusion Gabriele Rafanelli also ran an F3000 team for 1999-2000 under the World Racing Team banner, although I assume they should be counted as part of Team Rafanelli and not a separate entity. And what in the world caused the split amongst Bigazzi and Rafanelli? The359 (Talk) 20:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Motorsport".