Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

"Losail" or "Lusail"

An earlier move request did not find compelling evidence that the "Lusail" spelling was in common usage in English, even if it may be being used officially. A quick scan of English-language sources (Autosport, BBC, Guardian, FIA, Racer, Motor Sport) seems to suggest that "Losail" is still the most common spelling. I do not see a good reason to change the spelling used in articles now. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The lack of evidence from the earlier discussion is no longer applicable. Things have changed since then. The circuit is now named Lusail. Some of the sources you cited, like the 2019 FIA circuit list, are outdated. Refusing to rename now, will only delay the inevitable. Time for Wikipedia to accept reality.Tvx1 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

All the other sources are from the past couple of days, and the fact remains that the FIA haven't updated the list of licenced circuits on their website to say "Lusail", and the vast majority of other Anglophone sources (in fact, all of the independent reliable sources I checked) still say "Losail". Wikipedia is meant to follow, not lead, and right now we are still overwhelmingly following sources that use "Losail". If that situation changes, then we should change our usage in contemporary articles. Even if that does happen, that wouldn't be justification for retroactive changes to articles covering past events when the circuit was solely or overwhelmingly known as "Losail" and not "Lusail". Accepting reality means making a survey of sources to find the WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course the new name should only be applied to events occuring after the change. But the circuit’s own article should be updated. A FIA source from three years ago is just no good to determine a 2022 name. The circuit’s name changed. Accept that.Tvx1 15:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I accept that the venue has started spelling its name differently, and I accept that the article on the venue should make note of that fact. However, I struggle to find evidence of the "Lusail" spelling being used by sources not connected to the venue. Even the official F1 website still seems to be using "Losail". We should wait and see if this different spelling starts seeing wide adoption from independent sources before jumping the gun on our general usage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The circuit's name should be irrelevant. Imola is called Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari and we call it Imola Circuit. Interlagos is called Autódromo José Carlos Pace and we call it Interlagos Circuit. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:OFFICIALNAME, and the preferred spelling in independent sources seemingly remains "Losail". User:HumanBodyPiloter5 provided seven sources and you're singling out one that might be slightly outdated. The other six still stand. MSport1005 (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The "other six" basically all copy the calendar from the same press release. And with the same ease I can a find a similar amount of independent sources using the new name ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). So your common name arguments isn't even remotely as strong as you believe it to be. And reducing Lusail International Circuit to only an official name is clearly wrong.Tvx1 11:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the recent requested move discussion, I think if you feel that the situation has changed a new RM discussion is needed to establish consensus for this. A7V2 (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving the article has not been the subject of this discussion so far.Tvx1 09:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I must respectfully ask: what is the subject of this discussion? If the subject is whether the lead sentence of Losail International Circuit should use Losail or Lusail first then the answer is of course to use Losail as that is the current title (per MOS:BOLDTITLE). A7V2 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is what name do we use throughout Wikipedia to refer to this circuit, bearing in mind that some articles deal with events which happened before the name change. That means in race articles, season calendars, report prose and so on…

This is a comment, not really a specific reply. As I said in the RM, and I still think this is the case, it looks like Losail and Lusail might be alternate names for the same place (is the pronunciation even different?). And I therefore don't think it really matters what variant we use within articles, but by all means correct if I'm wrong - I haven't read the discussion carefully. SSSB (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Lusail is a city currently under construction. Losail was a name carried by the circuit. Not the same place. But since the RM, the circuit was renamed to match the new nearby city. Tvx1 11:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The circuit has been renamed Lusail and this is clearly attested to by their official website (lcsc.qa). It seems that the name Losail is being used only by force of habit given it is a relatively minor change. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Template for touring car races?

Hi, I've tried using {{Infobox V8 Supercar race report}} for a touring car race (1988 Wellington 500), but the race 1 race 2 etc. labels just do not fit what I need. {{Infobox WTCC race report}} also isn't suitable as the 1988 edition was only part of the Asia-Pacific Touring Car Championship, not the WTCC. Is there any general touring car race report template, or am I going to have to make my own? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Request addition of FIA Drivers' Categorisation rating to driver infoboxes

I've noticed that the FIA Drivers' Categorisation medallions (e.g. File:FIA Platinum Driver.png) have been on Commons for a while but no part of Wikipedia uses them. To provide a visual aid for Wiki visitors, would it be possible to add the Drivers' Categorisation ratings to driver infoboxes in the style of a flagicon (example format, "FIA Rating: Platinum")? Multiple ratings, like dual nationality, could be included where necessary (e.g. "FIA Rating: Gold (2020-2021) <break> Platinum (2022)"). 2001:8003:3B3A:7E00:80B5:3213:44E:50EF (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As the user who uploaded the images, I agree that this would be a sensible use for them and can add information to the driver infobox template. The only problem is in regards to finding historical driver ratings, but hopefully a few enquiries with the FIA can help us on that front. MSportWiki (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Tom Pryce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Article

Hi everyone, I am working on my article. Could somebody check it and let me know how to improve or if its good enough? Thanks --Patlor643

What article? -Drdisque (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Check his contributions. He’s writing an article on himself. It’s in draftspace.Tvx1 19:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lorenzo Patrese, for those want ot help. SSSB (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion WRC2

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:World Rally Championship-2. I invite you all to give your opinion.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Templates {{Class A}}, {{Class B}}, {{Class C}}, {{Class D}}

Template:Class A & Template:Class B & Template:Class C & Template:Class D have been nominated for merging together into one template. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thanks. -- 64.229.90.28 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Major Races

Anyone noticed the infoboxes on some circuits are being loaded up with support categories? Why are Formula 4 series being used as "Major Races"? These need to be trimmed back to actual major races. --Falcadore (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I note this has gotten substantially worse and circuit articles are bloating up with duplicated lists in infobox and article body with no context provided to these lists. I suggest that User:Apeiro94 be invited to participate in this discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. 2005 United States Grand Prix

"BVM Racing" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BVM Racing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 5 § BVM Racing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Le Mans articles

Hi all, just a quick question. Should we expand the infobox for Le Mans articles? Currently the template on the top right is a very barebones one, however, I think we should include basic things such as layout, name, distance covered, overall winning team (we can do each class winner but I like to keep infoboxes short), and laps completed. What do you all think? We can keep the next/previous thing index and whatnot. Something like what we have going on for other race articles such as the Bathurst articles. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

hi there. I've been doing a lot of updates and edits on the Le Mans articles, aiming to get them into an (internally) consistent format. Personally I don't mind - I think its OK at present, being concise and small. The chapter listing on the left-hand side gives quick-links to the statistics and such details. I'm just mindful of not repeating too much information and detail, but if it keeps it quick and easy to access then thats a good thing to draw in the casual readers Philby NZ (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah nah I agree mate Philby NZ, upon further thinking I reckon we just keep name, date, circuit map, & overall winner (with laps covered). Just the basics. Sound good to you? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep that works. All good  :) Philby NZ (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Event naming conventions consensus

I have noticed that event names for events without official titles are starting to branch off in two directions; one where the circuit is put first (e.g. 2005 Hockenheim DTM round) and one where the series is put first (e.g. 2006 V8 Supercars Winton round), and that a lot of the latter have been moved to the former. Whilst a small difference, these two titles do not mean the same thing grammatically.

Therefore I ask that we keep or change events to 'series first', as the series runs the event and not the circuit – i.e., V8 Supercars runs the round at Winton, but Hockenheim does NOT run the round for DTM.

There also needs to be a cleaner yet uniform way of disambiguating between multiple rounds than the very clumsy "2021 2nd Spielberg W Series round" – whether that be putting the number at the end, using months (e.g. 2022 Gulf 12 Hours (January) vs 2022 Gulf 12 Hours (December)) or some other way.

MSportWiki (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Philby NZ, X750, Falcadore, GhostOfDanGurney, SSSB, Tvx1, 5225C, A7V2, HumanBodyPiloter5, and DH85868993: Pinging recently-active users to participate due to section inactivity. MSportWiki (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah nah mate sounds sweet as to me both points X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. SSSB (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. To me for most cases having the circuit first seems better grammatically, eg 2022 Le Castellet Formula 2 round (the current title) sounds better than the alternative, "2022 Formula 2 Le Castellet round". I suppose it depends how you think about it, whether "Le Castellet" or "Formula 2" is the adjective. A7V2 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not what sounds better, it's what is correct. English grammar follows Subject + Verb + Object + Adverb Of Place + Adverb Of Time. Formula 2 (the subject) comes before Le Castellet (in this instance the adverb of place, as it's where the event takes place). MSportWiki (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No??? These article titles aren't sentences, they're standalone compound nouns. There isn't really a subject, and there definitely isn't a verb or an object. Neither "2022 Le Castellet Formula 2 round" or "2022 Formula 2 Le Castellet round" is more correct than the other, it just comes down to personal preference regarding style. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, it simply makes more sense to put the constant (who holds the event) before the variable (where the event is held). A uniform title order is required; Wikipedia is a globally-used information service and the presentation of information should reflect that, not look like a privately-run Excel spreadsheet that names things willy-nilly. MSportWiki (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Does it? I think most people would expect the variable to serve as the modifying adjective in that case, and the variable is the primary thing which distinguishes one article's title from other related articles. Regardless, we aren't calling articles "Round of Formula 2 at Le Castellet in 2022", so grammar has very little to do with it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect to multiple rounds at the same track in the same year, they should likely be merged together, as I would say for sure in the W Series Red Bull Ring example. I don't have a preference for "X Y Round" or "Y X Round"; I do think it should be left to the editors of those series' articles to decide one or the other, though. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood something here. They're not talking about two (or more) races taking place at the same track during the same weekend (like in case of F2 and F3), but about separate events that simply occurred at the same track, which happened mostly in 2020 and 2021 due to the global pandemic. I don't think merging the latter is a good choice. Tvx1 18:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I fully understand that. We would obviously need to add something along the lines of "During the 2021 X championship, two rounds were held at Y track, on [date 1] and [date 2]." If that's still disagreeable, then I would prefer to disambiguate with parenthesis and oppose the use of "2nd Y X round" as a convention. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Might I remind you that Wikipedia has clear policies on article titles? We don't invent these ourselves, we simply reflect what titles our readers are most commonly confronted with in the mainstream sources. We don't force a false consistency for the sake of it.Tvx1 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but at the same time, how many sources call the 2005 Hockenheim DTM round by that name? Most sources are written with the context of time, and omit the year. The series is evident by the website, or title: (i.e. an article title will come in the form of "DTM: [driver] dominates at Hockenhiem".) So I would argue that none of these article titles are common name, just WP:PRECISEly named by using year, series and location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is to create a consistent titling platform for events that were never given official titles but are considered notable enough to have their own article.

For those needing a more visual example, imagine a tree. Using 2005 DTM as the example, the championship article (2005 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, shortened to DTM for conciseness) is the trunk and the separate event articles (Hockenheim, Lausitz, Spa, etc.) are the branches. The more significant (i.e. constant) part of the tree comes first, so why should the branch come before the trunk in the title? MSportWiki (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy really works here, and can be (mis)-applied to just about anything (even trees: the fact that it is a tree is most important but it is "pine tree", "oak tree" etc). As an alternative, and perhaps better in line with the naming policy, when there is no obvious choice from reliable sources we could go for an "extreme" discriptive title, eg "2005 DTM round at Hockeheim" etc, as I think this is grammatically better than either option so far, though perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing. This also lends itself to GhostOfDanGurney's above proposal since it could be eg "2020 Formula 2 rounds at (the?) Red Bull Ring". A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The type of tree is the championship - "pine tree" for Formula 2, "oak tree" for DTM, etc.; the championships are all trees, and without the core tree there wouldn't be a branch (i.e. an event). The other requirement we have to meet is conciseness - "2020 Formula 2 round at Spielberg/the Red Bull Ring" is not as concise as "2020 Formula 2 Spielberg/Red Bull Ring round"; I'd prefer to use location over circuit as "Spielberg" sounds more neutral than "Red Bull Ring", as does "Le Castellet" over "Paul Ricard" for example. We have short description templates that can contain extra information and the circuit name usually appears in the opening line of articles as well.

I don't agree with having multiple events under the one banner, it doesn't present information factually - especially when it can be sourced using championship calendars that events are separate despite taking place at the same circuit/venue. MSportWiki (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The more significant (i.e. constant) part of the tree comes first, so why should the branch come before the trunk in the title? Well, the "more significant part here (i.e. the constant)" is DTM, not 2005. So why not go all the way and call the article DTM 2005 Hockenhiem round? Because it is unWP:NATURAL, because English doesn't work that way.

I'd prefer to use location over circuit as "Spielberg" sounds more neutral than "Red Bull Ring", as does "Le Castellet" over "Paul Ricard" that's both ridiculous and untrue. Both are equally neutral. The circuit is technically more precise (as the venue, rather than just the venue's location). But we tend to use what sounds more natural (which is why we have 2022 Spielberg Formula 2 round using the town name and 2022 Spa-Francorchamps Formula 2 round using circuit name). I think its pretty clear that the only consensus here is that we shouldn't prescribe a format. SSSB (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that most of these events do have formal titles. The 2022 F2 round in Spielberg was called the 2022 Spielberg event for instance. The French F2 round was the 2022 Le Castellet event. Likewise when there were 2 weekends at the same track, the organizers provided the names for us: the two events in 2020 in Austria were the 2020 Spielberg event and the 2020 Styrian event. Combining our title policies of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, we get a title like "2020 Spielberg Formula 2 event", though I can see the WP:NATURAL argument to use round over event. There is really no need to invent our own titles.

On a side note, I'm wondering whether all these individual event articles meet the notability threshold. Even almost every formula two event article is sourced almost exclusively to the sport's own official site. These references do fail the notability criteria of independent coverage however.Tvx1 21:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I had this thought myself when looking at 2023 Sakhir Formula 3 round. But when I did a before check, the some secondary coverage does exist: [8]. I don't think this is enough for WP:SIGCOV and you do have to wade through lots of false positivies. But if you look hard enough some sources do exist, but I couldn't find enough from my point of view. SSSB (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If we go via Wikipedia policy for article names based on what they are refered to then perhaps 2023 Formula 2 Round 1. --Falcadore (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Save that's not how they are referred to be the organizers and in official documentation. Tvx1 21:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Formula 2's website refers to round numbers as well as named locations. -- Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grand Prix of Toronto#Requested move 10 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Prix of Toronto#Requested move 10 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Liège–Rome–Liège#Requested move 12 March 2023

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting on the requested move discussion at Talk:Liège–Rome–Liège#Requested move 12 March 2023. Prova MO (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ontario Sportsman Series

Y'all may want to review the recent edits made to this article. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Other than minor formatting and WP:MOS issues (which I will fix later, if I remember too) I don't see any issues (although I have only given this weeks edits a cursory glance). SSSB (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Clear COI editing by CamKOSS2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (fka User:ONSportsmanSeries). I cleaned up the lead and tagged the article, but this is likely unsalvageable since I cannot find much in the way of sourcing and what I am finding is very shallow and WP:ROUTINE. Courtesy ping for SSSB. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2023 MotoGP World Championship

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the formatting of the championship standings tables at Talk:2023 MotoGP World Championship. Comments are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:World Rally Championship Ford nationality

More then a decade after, this topic was digged from graveyard, not only concerning Ford, but also Toyota and Hyundai. I invite you all to have a look at it and give your thought. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by articles?

Davism0703 is a prolific article creator, creating several articles for Can-Am and other Group sports cars of the 20th century. However, often these articles just come with a short introduction, and infobox, then nothing else. Is this acceptable? In some cases he's overwritten redirects such as Chaparral 2J which used to redirect to Chaparral Cars (which had a section with more detail regarding this car). He does include references, which is good, but my primary concern is whether these articles are lacking in substance. Or am I overthinking it. In comparison, I overwrote the redirect at Chaparral 2F, I believe that is an article with substance. Please share your thoughts. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Motorsport championship infobox problem

On W Series (championship), I want the inaugural season parameter to point to the article season 2019 W Series, not to Category:2019 in motorsport which is a completely illogical target. Can someone tell me how to do this? The template has no documentation, and any logical way of inputting 2019 W Series into the "inaugural season" parameter there seems to just cause errors, as it seems to be coded to try and point to a category no matter what. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that still there from 2007? Should be completely removed IMO and replaced by "inaugural2". Oh, and the "folded" is not even modifiable. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this matter? I'm proposing the removal of category links at its talk page. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see the point of linking to the category. I'd support removing "inaugural" and replacing it with "inaugural2". DH85868993 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

I guess the thinking was that linking to the category might be helpful if there isn't an article for the inagural season. But I would prefer a red link or no link, mainly because I would consider the category tp be an WP:EGG link. SSSB (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can’t we just fix |inaugural to link to the right place?Tvx1 14:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the cat links. |inaugural and |inaugural2 now do the same thing. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Monster Jam World Finals (again)

Back in May 2022, I posted here regarding this article, which can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 23#Monster Jam World Finals. The same issue still stands, as the article continues to lengthen each year.

I have a new idea in mind, but I'm not 100% if it's the correct way to handle it, so feedback/comments would be greatly appreciated. My new idea is to have three articles: The main one, staying at Monster Jam World Finals, and then three separate articles to move the results to, maybe something like Monster Jam World Finals results (1999–2009), Monster Jam World Finals results (2010–2020), and Monster Jam World Finals results (2021–present). I would definitely prefer something much easier like an article for each event, but I'm not entirely sure if there's enough coverage/content for each article if it were to be done that way, which is why I am suggesting those three articles instead.

Again, any feedback/comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated to figure this out. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I have nominated the page for deletion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox motor race

An editor has suggested adding an additional field to Template:Infobox motor race. Interested editors may like to participate in the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox bloat?

I was wondering if it may be worth reviewing the parameters present in various motorsport-related infobox templates to see if there are any that might be worth removing. The most obviously concerning one is the "events" parameter in template:Infobox motorsport venue, which in many articles has lead to a lengthy lists of events filling up the infobox with no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, which tends to attract certain editors to add exceedingly minor events to said lists.

I also find the lap record parameters in these infoboxes to be of particular concern, since these often seem to be unsourced and the WP:BURDEN of proving that a given time is actually the all-time lap record is likely to be extremely high in most cases unless a layout is very rarely used or the time was set by a modern Formula One car. Noteworthiness also comes into play here. While Max Verstappen having the current lap record on the 2011 Grand Prix layout at the Silverstone Circuit and Alex Rins having the lap record on the 2010 MotoGP layout is probably noteworthy and verifiable, I have doubts that the same can be said for the times listed for the 2010 International layout and the 1997 National layout, which were set by (presumably amateur) drivers in non-notable Formula Libre and superkart events, and having lap records like these at the top of so many articles seems to me like WP:UNDUE weight. There are already extensive listings of lap records (which still have the same issues with verifiability and noteworthiness) at the bottom of most of these articles, where they aren't bloating what is meant to be an at-a-glance overview of the articles.

For now I am not going to propose any radical changes, particularly given it would likely mean having to make a large number of edits to a large number of articles, but I believe it is worth discussing.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support the removal of most if not all lap records from the infobox motorsport venue. Lap records should be in section of the article where you can put all the information regarding the all the different laps records, layouts, if its race or qualifying, etc. How many people will go to the Silverstone article just to get a lap record (not at British GP), and even the few that might just go to Silverstone article just to get the lap record, they can go that section and get much more information.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that lap records could be removed from these infoboxes. Perhaps just leave the lap records of the current layouts of very major events, like Formula 1 tracks, Indycar, MotoGP and perhaps NASCAR and some sportscar racing (Le Mans and Sebring come to mind). A7V2 (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A couple of comments after just skimming through this: 1) For anyone unaware, please be aware of WP:ARBINFOBOX2, in which "All discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, are designated as a contentious topic." 2) I agree that a lot of motorsports templates are overbloated. My specific gripes which I had thought about bringing up prior to this (and my point 3) pertain to the NASCAR team infoboxes which I find are overloaded with unverified sponsors and should be removed ala the number section several years ago, as well as the overloading of minor accomplishments in the driver infoboxes (I'll link the NASCAR subproject to here). 3) @RegalZ8790: raised a related issue pertaining to infoboxes to my talk page the other day and that might be worth checking out.

Overall, motorsport infoboxes do need an overhaul in my opinion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at some of the pages where Template:Infobox NASCAR team is used I would support removing the "sponsors" parameter. As you say it seems to attract a large number of unverified additions, and in my opinion lacks sufficient context to be considered due weight. These sponsors should be covered in the body of the text if significant coverage from independent reliable sources exists (which it often does given losing a sponsor can result in a team going bankrupt, or gaining one can help them afford to upgrade facilities, even ignoring controversies about tobacco sponsorships), but without context given in prose simply saying "this team is sponsored by [company]" is dubiously encyclopaedic and feels to me like it falls foul of WP:NOTDATABASE. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

NOTDATADASE and WP:PROMO as well. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, HumanBodyPiloter5 and GhostOfDanGurney, and All,

I am new to using Wikipedia, so my apologies for not knowing quite how the community makes decisions.

I edit/update infoboxes primarily for IndyCar Serie competitors, as well as make contributions to historical drivers.

I have noticed that especially for current drivers, there is a tendency for people to statistics of even the lowest level series a driver has raced in, thus the infoboxes grow quite long, and often interfere with the layout of the article as a whole.

Not knowing how this community raises concerns, I reached out to Gurney, as he is a very active contributor.

My suggestion is that only a couple levels of racing per discipline need to be listed in an infobox, perhaps 3 or so if the driver won a championship.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of lap record parameter (but you can remove the unsourced ones from articles). But sponsors don't need to be listed at the infobox. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats most of them. From what I have seen, only the fastest lap from the fastest category is reliable sourced. The rest of them (with a handful of exceptions) are either WP:OR (i.e. we couldn't find a faster one, so it must be the fastest lap) or not sourced at all. SSSB (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MotoGP sprint races

There is an ongoing discussion on how to present MotoGP sprint results in the championship table here. Any additional opinion would help. Thanks. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Gian Paolo Dallara

I'm proposing that Gian Paolo Dallara be moved to Giampaolo Dallara. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Suzuki RG 500 and Suzuki RG500

Duplicate article? Mika1h (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mika1h: The hatnotes (which were added after you posed your question) indicate that Suzuki RG 500 is about the racing motorcycle and Suzuki RG500 is about the road-going production motorcycle. DH85868993 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"404 (not found)" [ERROR] message ... using a link from the {{mhof}} template

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AMhof&diff=1163757204&oldid=1004934293

-- Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

 – case closed

This {{mhof}} template "issue" got fixed so fast, it made my head spin!

It was fixed via THIS edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motorcycle_Hall_of_Fame&diff=prev&oldid=1163773315

PS: This was definitely a good example of a case where an "rv gf" ... a revert -- (see DIFF2) -- of an edit that I had submitted ... was one that I was *delighted* to see, even though I had put a certain amount of time and effort into crafting that good-faith EDIT (see DIFF1), which ... eventually got reverted.

(In fact, I even referred to that edit ("DIFF1") as "this ['temp'?] change" in the edit comment.)

THANK YOU! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Infoblock for WEC Races

Hey, I am prototyping an infoblock for WEC races. Anyone want to give it a review and probably move it over to template space? love to hear your feedback. The template is at User:Reshadp/Template:Infobox_WEC_race Reshadp (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Template:Infobox WEC race SSSB (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern with an user's addition of controversies categories

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)

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)

A1 Grand Prix

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)

"Lap records" sections in circuit articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [9] for Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Talk:Sanair Super Speedway‎
• Talk:Riverside International Raceway
• Talk:Meadowlands Grand Prix
• Talk:Texas World Speedway‎

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)

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)

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)

Russian and Belarusian drivers

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [10] for example the flag is omitted, but it is also omitted from other drivers who aren't competing as neutral athletes/drivers. In [11] (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)

John Quenby death date

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)

Motorsport key

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

(Key)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Here's a "tennis style" version of {{Motorsport driver results legend}}:

Key

1

2

3

#

#

NC

Ret

DNQ

DNPQ

DSQ

DNS

WD

C

DNP

DNA

EX

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Neither {{abbr}} nor {{tooltip}} work on the mobile site.Tvx1 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@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.

Key

1

2

3

#

#

NC

Ret

DNQ

DNPQ

DSQ

DNS

WD

C

DNP

DNA

EX

(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)

'EX' should be made white-on-black as exclusions fall into the same category as disqualifications. MSportWiki (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As a side note: what's the difference between the two? SSSB (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles

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)

Serial long-term abuser is back

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)

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)

Thanks for correcting me! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

IndyCar (schedule) tables

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

As I said, I see things differently. Even the official IndyCar documents distinguish between the three types of racetracks. -> https://digbza2f4g9qo.cloudfront.net/-/media/Files/Current-Schedule.pdf?vs=1&d=20230216T125001Z --Mark McWire (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I did a little research in secondary sources:

• racer.com did not mention any track type at all
• indystar.com – the same
• "the-race.com" – the same
• speedsport.com – the same
• motorsport.com – the same
• autosport.com – the same
• ESPN - the same
• skysports.com - the same
• motorsport-total.com (de) – the same

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)

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)

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 https://champcarstats.com, https://www.race-database.com/, https://racing-reference.info, https://motorsportstats.com/, http://www.ultimateracinghistory.com/, 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)

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 ultimateracinghistory.com. 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 IndyCar.com 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)

The track type is included on the race results or track pages. For example [12] or [13]. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Racing-Reference.info 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)

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)

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)

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)

One thought I had was O/S (oval/superspeedway) and R/S (road/street) respectively. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I really don't get why Road and Street circuits don't have a separate icons on the calendar in wiki pages. If you go to the season schedule on their website, even that has separated Road Courses & Street Circuits. Then there's the People Ready challenge or whatever it's called. It has also separated Road and Street races.

Could even argue that Short Ovals & Speedway/Superspeedways should be separated on the calendar that we have in Wiki, however those two are only separated in the rulebooks but not in the season schedules. Mikulitsi (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We are not a copy of official sources Tvx1 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:INFONAT

Why do drivers profiles tend not to follow WP:INFONAT? I get they represent countries (as do most athletes), but if it can be inferred from their birthplace, why continue to list it? Nswix (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is per a discussion between me and Nswix over inclusion on Jessica Hawkins.

My feeling is that there's effectively established consensus to include the Nationality in Driver profiles - WP:OTHERSTUFF not withstanding if you look at active/recently active driver profiles this information is routinely included in the overwhelming majority. Humok (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is included in the infobox because drivers, especially when they compete in internationally sanctioned series, have to compete under a license from a country's motorsport association. Said nationally reflects the association they are license under. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the parameter for that should be 'country' not nationality, like it is in most other athletes infobox templates. Nswix (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Country is not a parameter in the infobox for racing drivers - perhaps it should be added.

Template:Infobox_racing_driver does indeed state INFONAT should be followed. But as a matter of course there seems to be consensus to ignore that in driver articles so the template needs to be updated perhaps in the way nationality is handled in Template:Infobox_sportsperson? Humok (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree.

And might I add, I find it odd someone who's been editing Wikipedia for a week has such a strong grasp on it's inner workings. Is this perhaps not your first account? Nswix (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

For FIA World championships, drivers compete under the country issuing their passport. Still, you cannot infer this without a source, regardless of where they were born. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Not this again please. This has already been discussed as length. WP:INFONAT does not apply to racing drivers' infoboxes because that sort of parameter is NOT what the discussion which led to WP:INFONAT being created dealt with. Template:Infobox racing driver's nationality= parameter is the equivalent of something like Template:Infobox sportsperson's representing parameter. Moreover, in a case like Jessica Hawkins the "nationality" cannot even be inferred from the birthplace because every other sports tends to have different habit on which "nations" Brits represent. Her birthplace cannot give a concluse answer by itself on whether the nationality should be British or English. So stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. Tvx1 17:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Put something in writing thats easy to find and enforce, because I'm not going to be the first, or last person to come along and start deleting nationalities. The four guys who have this page in their watchlist are not going to be the only ones who ever modify motorsports pages. Nswix (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Freddie Slater (racing driver) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freddie Slater (racing driver) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Slater (racing driver) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MSportWiki (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kacper Sztuka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kacper Sztuka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kacper Sztuka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MSportWiki (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Enzo Deligny for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enzo Deligny is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Deligny until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MSportWiki (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)