Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Latest comment: 6 hours ago by RegalZ8790 in topic Color Code for ranking

WikiProject iconMotorsport NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Concern with an user's addition of controversies categories Edit

Is there anyone willing to monitor Cooke1990 (talk · contribs) additions of racing controversy categories recently? Some of them have been reverted because I don't get the controversy or it's just an event cancelled for non-controversial reasons, I told them about this in the past (in addition to telling them that not every race with fatal accident is worthy for the category), but they're still on it. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If he continues to add these categories without discussion it constitutes edit warring/disruptive editing. Personally, I just revert every instance I come across (I watch the F1 controversy category). SSSB (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IndyCar (schedule) tables Edit

Moved from personal talk site

Hi, can you please revert your edits? We should be changing the older seasons to match the new standards, not the other way around. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no reason to revert to the other color scheme. Street and road courses not the same type of track and should be differentiated. --Mark McWire (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that there was a time when IndyCar officially awarded trophies to "discipline" champions, and those were for ovals and for road courses and street circuits combined. I am well versed in the intricate details that make road courses and street circuits different. But the majority of road racing championships from Formula 1 down have calendars that have some sort of mix of both. It's not unusual for IndyCar to do so also. To the broad WP:AUDIENCE we should be writing for, there's no real need to differentiate the types of twisty tracks since we also don't differentiate the superspeedways from the short tracks. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a different opinion than you on this point. We also differentiate between road courses and street courses in the templates and race track list articles (List of IndyCar Series racetracks, List of Champ Car circuits), there is even a dedicated article on street courses. And even during the TV broadcast, the commentators point out the differences between the two types of track and the exceptionally difficult races that street courses entail and that this is a special challenge for the drivers. So it makes sense to differentiate this type of tracks in the schedule section of the season articles. I like to debate whether the choice of color is appropriate now or whether we should change the style of the tables. But in principle I stand by it. @GhostOfDanGurney:--Mark McWire (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes, in principle you are right and we should also separate superspeedways from short ovals. But the definition of what a short oval is differs between racing series. NASCAR considers all ovals under a mile to be "short tracks" and classifies the 1-mile ovals as "intermediate tracks." IndyCar also includes the 1-mile ovals as "short track" because historically they have almost never raced on shorter tracks, with the exceptions of Sanair, Richmond, and Iowa. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mark McWire: I've been working mostly every day this summer, but only half-days so I do apologize for not replying sooner, though I have read this several times since you posted. You make great points overall and a rather convincing argument. I do still think that for the seasons that feature "discipline" championships (much as I think that was a dumb idea overall), we should still only have the two categories. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, it should also be mentioned that NASCAR and IndyCar also disagree on the definition of a "superspeedway". NASCAR only sees Daytona and Talladega as true superspeedways and Pocono, Michigan, Fontana and Indy as a separate category, closer to intermediate. In contrast, IndyCar defines all oval racetracks longer than 2 miles as a superspeedway. There is only one definition in which NASCAR, IndyCar, Formula 1 and most other motorsports series are quite unified: The separation between (natural terrain) road course and (temporary) street course (on public roads). Formula 1 databases even goes so far as to call out-of-town public road courses such as Pescara, Reims, Rouen and the old Spa-Francorchamp circuit "street course". We could now argue about where it makes sense to draw the line between both. Personally, I would suggest that all race tracks that were built explicitly for motorsport events, such as the Nürburgring, are "road courses" and all tracks that use public roads in whole or in part that are otherwise used for everydays traffic are street courses. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should draw the line at all. The sport doesn’t treat street circuits and permanent purpose-built circuits differently for the championships so neither should we in these season articles. Doing so is undue. The visual differentation with ovals is worthwile, at least for recent years, because the cars use different aero packages written in the rules for them. We also should not search to synthesise our own definitions.Tvx1 10:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I see things differently. Even the official IndyCar documents distinguish between the three types of racetracks. -> --Mark McWire (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that a change should be considered. However, IndyCar, on its website, recognizes that the lineage of American open-wheel (AOWR) competition far predates the IndyCar sanctioning body, or the IndyCar Series name.
GhostOfDanGurney mentioned early on in this discussion, older seasons should meet the current standards. I agree, but I also think the current (or proposed standard) needs to serve all the seasons previous. There have been board ovals, dirt ovals, hill climbs, and point-to-point races which have taken place at various times. Currently, the only standard is that ovals and non-ovals have been separated into two different categories.
In my opinion, there is not a clear need to alter the current two-category table convention, as it pertains to IndyCar/AOWR, into a three-category one. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The need arises from the fact that IndyCar itself makes this separation in its official documents. Just look at the published calendar documents. --Mark McWire (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should be giving preference to secondary sources rather than primary ones. How much of a distinction are IndyStar/Racer/Motorsport Network/The Race/Speed Sport making about it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that these IndyCar documents are also secondary sources. For me, it would be the primary source if I wrote down the calendar from the current TV program or something like that. --Mark McWire (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd go so far as to say that mixing road and street courses into one category is synthesise. This is not supported by the official depiction of the racing series. --Mark McWire (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a little research in secondary sources:

I would say that motorsport magazines and TV stations don't care much about the type of racetrack on calendar. Only broadcast times and important key data as well as winners are important to them. --Mark McWire (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking that into consideration, why do you feel there is a need to distinguish between tracks on our tables?
Also, some years ago now, you were involved in changing many of the tables as far back as the 1977 season to have the R, O and S icons. I hope I am not committing some faux pax looking that far back, I just noticed the more recent seasons had been changed and was curious who had done it and why they stopped there. I navigated back to 1977.
I understand your desire to add the icons; I think they are a good idea as I feel that they make the tables more 'readable.' I would vote for that becoming the new standard affecting many of the more distant seasons in which entire columns are still shaded blue.
However, I am against adding an icon for street courses. I do not see a consensus is being formed for this. Adding these icons also opens up a can of worms as to what distinguishes a "street course" from a "road course." For instance, Burke Lakefront was added as a street course. Why? It never took place on streets.
Distinguishing between Ovals and Non-Ovals only can easily be applied consistently. RegalZ8790 (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Burke Lakefront Airport circuit is not a for racing purpose built road course, its simply the using of existing roads of an airport. As I understand it, this is the definition of "temporary street course". But I'm open to a change this. Between 1946 and 1964 and 1971 and 1976 there were no road courses or street courses on the season calendar, besides the Pike Peak Hill Climb in the early seasons. That's why I didn't change anything in these articles at the time. It makes no sense to insert these symbols if all race tracks are of the same type. A text comment is enough. And as I said, IndyCar, as the organizer of the series, makes the distinction between road course and street course itself in their published season calendar documents. And the reputable databases like,,,,, etc follow this. So why should we deviate here on Wikipedia and pursue our own definition? --Mark McWire (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are saying things which are not true? Race-database does NOT include a circuit type in its season calendars. Racing-reference does NOT include a circuit type in its season calendars. Motorsportstats does NOT include a circuit type in its season calendars. And I can't even find season calendars on So that leaves only IndyCar itself and champcarstats making this distinction. The vast majority of sources doesn't make this explicit distinction between road courses and street circuits, so neither should we. We don't cherry pick which source to follow. The difference between a site like and us, is that the former is catered explicitly for the specific fans of their sports, whereas we are an international encyclopedia catering to a general audience. The distinction between ovals and non-ovals is made, as far as I understand, because there actually is a difference for the cars written in the technical regulations for these types of circuits and in earlier seasons, as I understand from @GhostOfDanGurney's comments, there used to be trophies awarded to the best driver on each of these two types.
I do agree though with @RegalZ8790, that we should use a consistent system throughout all the seasons.Tvx1 11:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The track type is included on the race results or track pages. For example [1] or [2]. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] has a column with "S" (for street circuit), "R" (for road course) or "P" (for paved oval) and "D" (for dirt oval) on the calendar page. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW: If necessary, I would consent if we take a general "non-oval" category for combining road and street courses with a neutral abbreviation. But a Street course is definitely not the same as a Road course. So using the "R" for tracks like Long Beach, Detroit or Toronto would be misleading and I would not support this. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) But I strongly prefer the separation of the two in "R" and "S" like IndyCar does. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I know this discussion is pretty much dead, but I thought I could propose a middle ground. How about we keep the same color for road & street circuits, but use "R" for road courses & "S" for street courses? - HotMAN0199 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not dead, just all views have been exchanged and consensus will be difficult. Your proposed solution sounds acceptable to me. --Mark McWire (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thought I had was O/S (oval/superspeedway) and R/S (road/street) respectively. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lap records" sections in circuit articles Edit

I believe that for some time the large-scale addition of "lap records" tables to articles about motorsport venues has been a concern around this Wikiproject (for example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 22#Lap records sections of race track articles). These sections typically lack any clear criteria for noteworthiness, running up hard against WP:NOTDATABASE, and their sourcing raises serious concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Examples of this phenomenon can be seen at Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Lap records, Monza Circuit#Lap records, Suzuka International Racing Course#Lap records, Silverstone Circuit#Lap records, and Sebring International Raceway#Lap records, amongst many other articles. I believe an WP:RfC should be created about how we should handle coverage of lap records in these articles so guidelines can be laid down to help improve the encyclopaedia, and that it would be worthwhile discussing what form such an RfC might take beforehand. It may also be helpful to find alternative outlets to direct editors who persistently add obscure "lap records" to these tables towards. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, we should generally clarify the question of why only laps within a race and not qualifying runs count. In particular, historical race results often only contain the fastest qualifying lap, which led to pole, but not the fastest lap in the race. Applies to most NASCAR/IndyCar circuits or in general oval tracks.. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have raised these concerns several times before. My main issue has always been the WP:OR issue. Very few of these records can actually be verified as records as most circuits/websites do track the lap record for individual classes. The sources (where they are present) only verfy that the time was set and by who, but not that it was fastest. As far as I can tell most of these are added to the articles on the basis of "we couldn't find a faster time". That is my main issue. However, the database one is very valid - it isn't one I considered and would support removing 90% of these times. SSSB (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just keep one lap time record per vehicle type/race type? Should be enough. So one for Open-wheel racing, one for Sports car racing, one for Touring car racing, one for Stock car racing, one for Motorcycle racing, etc. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think my view has changed since the previous discussion. I am 100% in favour of removing any and all records which are not at the very least verifiably a lap record, and described as such (NOT that we simply can't find a faster one, as that would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). As to how to trim the sections down, I think we should not impose arbitrary restrictions as above as that's not necessarily going to give the result we want (as an example, I think we should definitely include Indycar as well as F1 in the section on Circuit of the Americas). We should probably be guided by the reliable sources. If they don't discuss a particular lap record being set, then it's not worth including. As a slight aside, for circuits which maintain their own lists of lap records we can include this as an external link, eg [3] for Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is rather that most of the sources refer to qualifying records and not to fastest race laps. In IndyCar and NASCAR, many stats and yearbooks don't record fastest race laps at all, to my regret. I am in the process of collecting the data for a private database project. Hardly a chance to get this data. However, qualifying times for pole position are relatively easy to find. --Mark McWire (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we should simply shorten it radically and only state the only one official lap record, as it should be in the InfoBox, and the official quali record for comparison. --Mark McWire (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mark McWire: Yes that's a good point regarding what a lap record actually is. The divide seems to mostly be that traditionally oval-based racing (NASCAR, Indycar, etc) care more about qualifying records than lap records (I believe this may also apply to an extent to motorcycle racing). If for ovals reliable sources mostly talk about qualifying records then perhaps we should be including them instead on some articles? As for removing everything bar the actual record, that would at least remove all the undesirable parts. Perhaps an option to have for some articles but perhaps not a blanket rule. I think HumanBodyPiloter5's idea to have a proper RfC would be a good idea to produce more ideas as for me at least all I can say is I don't like the curret status-qua, I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on what solution(s) would be best. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with oval racing is that lap times in the race say little about the quality of the cars or drivers. Because they are very strongly influenced by aerodynamic effects such as slipstream or side draft. That's why backbenchers often have the best lap times in the race because they mostly drive in the slipstream of other vehicles. That's why the validity of official lap records on ovals is rather limited. That's one reason why there are no bonus points for fastest race laps in NASCAR or IndyCar. --Mark McWire (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this fixation on laps in races for official lap records seems to be more of an FIA thing. Racing series that are not governed by the FIA usually do not see this so closely and also take lap times from qualifying runs as official track records. --Mark McWire (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be worth figuring out how many reliable sources actually care about this distinction (beyond just being a bullet point on a list of official statistics). Just because the FIA say that the official lap record must be set during the race that doesn't mean that other independent reliable sources say the same, and I strongly suspect that most people care more about qualifying records than race lap records. This also contributes to the concerns about WP:UNDUE weight and WP:NOTDATABASE. I personally think that some sort of notability threshold needs to be set for including a record in a circuit article, which would also help with concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Sources should exist that place a record into some sort of context beyond just being another row of data in a spreadsheet. I think we should be particularly stringent about these rules in cases where there isn't a clear authority on what counts as a record. At the very least with modern Formula One lap records the data set is fairly clearly limited and delineated. The same is not true for GT3 lap records, where what counts as a GT3 car may be a subject of debate (what passes scrutineering in one GT3 series might fail in another with a different sanctioning body) and there are so many series using the cars that there is a vast amount of data to wade through. Unless we have multiple independent reliable sources giving significant coverage to a lap being the fastest ever lap of a track (in a race or qualifying or whatever standard they set) by a GT3 car then we shouldn't be making such a claim on Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a case where some records are from the race and others from qualifying, then we need to make it explicily clear what session we are refering to (note that this approach also means that we could theoritically be including (private) testing and practice records, if reliable and sufficent coverage exists). I would suggest that this means a whole extra column is required where we point out the circumstances of the record (race record/quali record/overall track record etc.) I would also suggest that this is a requirement in pages where we exclusivly list times from races (as an example). It is very reasonable for someone to come from a NASCAR track and assume that the same standards apply to an F1 track - they all fall under this wikiproject, after all. SSSB (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best sources are probably yearbooks or well-known motorsport magazines that record such records in writing. I used to collect the Formula 1 and ChampCar books, but have now sold them all. Of course, the official documents of the race tracks or racing series should be used primarily as a source. Even if it's maybe WR:OR, the TV broadcasts of the races could also be used as a source if a new track record is being debated there. There are quite a few videos on Youtube of older races on the closed or revamped racetracks. --Mark McWire (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I found four examples where a qualifying time was entered into the InfoBox as a “race lap record”. --Mark McWire (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The remove those records. Also, if official lap records were not credited before a certain timeframe, we shouldn't list any for that period either. We should ensure that we avoid recentism.Tvx1 08:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, this is exactly an example of the discussion about this. At that time, the fastest laps from the qualifying run were considered the “official lap record”. I was watching a few races on YouTube and the commentators mentioned that a new lap record was set for that particular track. If you would like to delete it, please do so. I don't want to get involved and get caught up in an possible edit war. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A pair of commentators branding something a “lap record” is not the same thing as a governing body crediting an official lap record. Tvx1 11:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian and Belarusian drivers Edit

I vaguely remember this being discussed some time ago but cannot recall where... anyway, what did we decide to do for Russian and Belarusian drivers competing since the issues surrounding Russians in sport began? In particular I am referring to what (if any) flag should be shown? Currently on (for example) 2023 GT World Challenge Europe Endurance Cup, they are indicated with   (flagicon|white) which currently links to the main page (but see Template talk:Flagicon#White flag). I'm not sure where would be a better place to link for our circumstances (or indeed how to link the flag to somewhere else), or if there was another flag we had been using but the current situation is far from ideal. A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is possible not to link anything by (flagicon|) and leave empty space instead of the white flag.
  •   driver name
The Template:Flagg gives more possibilities (no linking and special pictures). I'm not familiar with the competition to suggest anything else.
In rallying they use ANA flags. Although officially it is FIA flag (Nikolay Gryazin). Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure it’s the ANA from athletics? I though the motorsport designation was AND for “Authorized Neutral Drivers”. Tvx1 11:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus is to use whatever flag is used in official documents for the driver in question in the competition in question. Bear in mind that there were two different periods of sanctions and reasons for them on these drivers useage of national symbols. A first one for the Russian Federation breaking the WADA’s anti-doping regulations, resulting in a ban of official representation of Russia (2021), and a second one following the invasion of Ukraine, resulting in a blanket ban of everything related to Russia and Belarus (since mid-2022).Tvx1 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I realise there were different conventions/consensuses for different periods and different championships/races. In this particular instance it's not clear how they are referred to officially. On [4] for example the flag is omitted, but it is also omitted from other drivers who aren't competing as neutral athletes/drivers. In [5] (also an entry list for the 2023 24 Hours of Spa) they have "ND" for nationality. I will for now change the white flags to be   (flagg|uxx|blank) to avoid the silly linking to main page, but given the reason the flags are included, I wonder if they should be removed altogether? A7V2 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motorsport key Edit

A GA reviewer, Lee Vilenski, brought this point up at Talk:Mercedes-Benz CLK LM/GA1. Why should users need to click to another page to see the key? My suggestion is to make the key a horizontal table and place at at the top of race result sections. What do you guys think? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I proposed a collapsible horizontal key at the Formula One WikiProject back in 2012 (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_38#F1_results_key but there was no consensus to implement it at that time. DH85868993 (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks good. Perhaps we can gain consensus this time round. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 07:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually don't think that looks good at all. That key is just disproportionally large. It's massive. For results tables of drivers who only ever competed during one season. Just look at the keys the tennis wikiproject uses for their results timeline for a better example of doing this.Tvx1 22:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the time, the key would be collapsed, and would look like this:
Key [show]
which isn't all that different to what we currently have above most results tables:
It would only be expanded if the reader chose to expand it. The advantage being that when the reader expands the key, it's right there above the table, rather than in a separate article as it is currently. An alternative would be to have a collapsible version of the current (portrait) key, collapsed by default. The disadvantage of that compared to the horizontal version is that it's taller, so the reader would probably need to do more scrolling. DH85868993 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also open to a key based on the tennis timeline model, if there's consensus for that. DH85868993 (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side note, mobile view does work with collapsed tables. This means it will always be expanded in mobile view. I think both versions are an improvement on what we have currently (although I would suggest templating it and putting the template in articles, rather than inserting it directly). I would prefer the tennis version, though. SSSB (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SSSB: Ah, I wasn't aware of that fact about mobile view. That makes a difference. I'll do up a "tennis style" template to see what it looks like. DH85868993 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a "tennis style" version of {{Motorsport driver results legend}}:
(1) winner; (2) second place; (3) third place; (# - green background) other points finish; (# - blue background) non-points finish; (NC) not classified; (Ret) retired; (DNQ) did not qualify; (DNPQ) did not pre-qualify; (DSQ) disqualified; (DNS) did not start; (WD) withdrawn; (C) race cancelled; (DNP) did not practice; (DNA) did not arrive; (EX) excluded.
Thoughts? (Do most people understand "#" as meaning "number"? If not, we could replace "#" with "N" in the table and the word "number" in the text). DH85868993 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most people will be familiar with the concept of a hastag as representing a number, and then it will be fairly obvious that this is what it refers to when looking at the results. I guess we coukd always use {{abbr}} in some way to make it clearer still. SSSB (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think that’s much better and consise key for these sort of tables is car, team and drivers’ articles. Tvx1 11:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also use {{tooltip}} to clarify any possible confusion. Also, wish you guys all the best. I will probably not edit in the next five years.... may the dice favour your hand.... X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither {{abbr}} nor {{tooltip}} work on the mobile site.Tvx1 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tvx1: Thanks for that info. I think in the first instance we could just leave it as a plain "#" and address the issue of readers not understanding if it arises. Another point: in many instances where {{Motorsport driver results legend}} is currently linked, it's followed by "(Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap)", like this:

(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap)

I'd be tempted to include those indications in the text at the bottom of the key template, e.g.

(1) winner; (2) second place; (3) third place; (# - green background) other points finish; (# - blue background) non-points finish; (NC) not classified; (Ret) retired; (DNQ) did not qualify; (DNPQ) did not pre-qualify; (DSQ) disqualified; (DNS) did not start; (WD) withdrawn; (C) race cancelled; (DNP) did not practice; (DNA) did not arrive; (EX) excluded; (bold) pole position; (italics) fastest lap.

A few questions related to that:

  • Do you think we need "cells" in the table for these (i.e. following the "EX" cell), or is it sufficient to just list them in the text at the bottom?
  • Should the word "bold" be in bold and the word "italics" be in italics, or is plain text fine?
  • Are there any driver/team/car results tables where bold and italics are used to signify something else (in which case it would be inappropriate to specify their meanings in the key template)? I can't think of any. Note that I've explicitly excluded "championship" tables (e.g. 1967_European_Formula_Two_Championship#Drivers) because I know bold is used to indicate something different in some of those. I'm only proposing this key would be used for driver/team/car results tables, where the key is currently linked above the table.

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'EX' should be made white-on-black as exclusions fall into the same category as disqualifications. MSportWiki (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side note: what's the difference between the two? SSSB (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that an exclusion occurs before the beginning of the race (eg. for running an illegal car during qualifying) whereas a disqualification occurs once the race has begun. The most recent example of this in Formula One is Nick Heidfeld at the 2000 European Grand Prix, so far as I can tell. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I'm aware, all the results tables which feature an "EX" result currently use a white background; I'd probably prefer to make the template match the current practice in the first instance, and consider a change to a black background as a separate exercise. DH85868993 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So "excluded" means that you were "excluded" from taking part in the race because of some regulation breach? Thanks for clarifiyng. However, it should be noted that all the sources referencing Heidfeld's exclusion (that I had access to) used the terminology "disqualified" so I'm wondering if a discussion on this terminology is needed in the future. SSSB (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The steward's decision is viewable on Forix (though not on the FIA website) and says that he was excluded from the event rather than disqualified. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily, it can be used interchangeably. For example, I've noticed from my work on Turismo Carretera articles that drivers tend to be excluded after a race - take the 2023 Buenos Aires Grand Prix, where Esteban Gini is listed as 'excluded' for having overtaken multiple cars under safety car before returning to the pits (I assume to initially retire due to damage) in the final race of the weekend. MSportWiki (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A1 Grand Prix Edit

With A1 Grand Prix long-dead and most articles sub-standard, can anyone who has the available time (because it will take a lot more work than I have time for) please run through the full gamut of seasons/teams/events/etc. and both give them clean-ups and bring them into line with modern standards/ways of structuring articles? I would also advise that we completely close the A1GP taskforce if possible. Thanks. MSportWiki (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serial long-term abuser is back Edit

Hi, just like to point out that IP-hopping banned editor TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently back, making the same unsourced edits thry always have. They are insisting on adding nonsense about teams that have run Honda engines in the past. Examples of recent edits include: McLaren, Toro Rosso, Team Penske, Andretti Autosport. See also WP:SPI/TheriusRooney.

Any help with monitoring and fixing this disruption would be appreciated. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  12:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. I had complete missed that episode. I had repeatedly encountered this editor in the past, who had a tendency to fill the infoboxes of F1 cars with excessive, often inaccurate, details. Their utter refusal to communicate via talk pages already made me suspect what this has confirmed: they're not capable of a meaningful level of the English language. Just to let you know, they're blocked, not banned. Tvx1 13:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for correcting me! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Quenby death date Edit

Does anyone have access to a good source giving this man's death date? See the discussion on his talk page: the two IPs who are reverting to "31" have not engaged in that discussion. I am afraid of being blocked for 3RR if I continue to correct the date. My appeal for page protection was declined. PamD 11:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denis Lian Edit

(@GhostOfDanGurney, HumanBodyPiloter5, SSSB, DH85868993, X750, A7V2, and Tvx1: Pinging a few recently active users for assistance) I have received a rather incredulous message from the subject of this page after I made a significant effort to clean it up and enforce Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality. I have attempted to get the page pre-emptively protected to avoid what will inevitably become an edit war, but my requests have been turned down (as a side note, I believe that not taking action against potential problems in advance is the wrong attitude to have). Can we please be vigilant about activity on this page and come up with a longer term solution in the process? MSportWiki (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color Code for ranking Edit

I noticed that every major racing series somehow uses a different color scheme for the race results in the results overview table.

Formula 1: light green up to 10th place IndyCar: light green up to 5th place and light blue up to 10th place NASCAR: silver up to 5th place, bronze up to 10th place, light green up to 20th place

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same color schemes for all? --Mark McWire (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The points systems are different from so they have to be at some level different (btw, Indycar gives points way below 10th).
F1 follows what is usual to find in "european" motorsports like WRC (I know its a World championship but it was created in europe by europeans with euro centric vision).
I don't see any benefit to change the colour systems and force them to be more similar. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IndyCar gives points up to twelfth position currently, that’s not way below F1. I any case we use way to many different colours for IndyCars. The focus should be points, not position groups. Three colours for the podium, one for points scoring position, on for other flagged results, one for retirements. There is need to differentitiate top 5, top 10 and non-top 10. Tvx1 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small correction on the side, IndyCar (Indy Racing League) gives points up to 33rd place, as this is the maximum number of starters allowed per race. There have only been a two exceptions with more than 33 cars, the 2011 Las Vegas race with 34 and 1997 Indianapolis 500 with 35. But agree with the assessment. Three colors (gold, silver, bronze) for the podium, one color for all other ranks with points (light green or light blue), one color for all ranks without points (dark blue) and one color for all DNFs (dark purple). --Mark McWire (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes, sorry, it seems I accidentally looked at the Indy Qualifying table.Tvx1 01:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, NASCAR and IndyCar are very similar. In NASCAR there are points up to 40th place. So only 7 places more than IndyCar. At least these two series should therefore use the same color scheme. --Mark McWire (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mark McWire Before the discussion moves further, would you consider adding pipes/links for this discussion to the respective WikiProjects you are proposing changes for? It is a good faith move that ensures members of those communities who may not regularly frequent WP:Motorsport are able to contribute to a new consensus. :) RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles Edit

This was a done deal on this 2022 RFC but was again open a new rfc, being now challenged. This might affect articles from our project so I invite you to join the following rfc.Rpo.castro (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]