Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Grand Prix graphics

Maybe this is the right place to ask... I have about 200 of such graphics on my HD (covering F1 seasons 2002 to 2009) and originally wanted to upload them all:

Starting grid of 2009 Belgian Grand Prix

Final result of 2009 Belgtesting ian Grand Prix

Somebody removed my images in the articles for this year's Belgian and European GPs. So before I upload 200 images in vain... My general question is: Do you think these images are useful enough to illustrate Grand Prix articles or not and should I upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks for your opinions. Odor (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a person with specialist knowledge would be able to read them and understand. I don't understand Formula 1 much. To me, possibly an average reader without specialist knowledge, it looks like a bunch of cars with specialized paint schemes (aka livery to most of you). There is no text for me to know who is who. So the only thing that I get from these images is confused. I wouldn't upload them. I bet they would be pretty cool to a Formula One magazine/website! Royalbroil 19:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at the discussion here.--Midgrid(talk) 00:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think these are very cool, but I agree with Royalbroil when he says that for non specialists it is quite hard to see what is what. However, I think that with an accompanying text they would be really cool. WilliamF1two (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Daytona 500 pole position winners

I have been working with User:Ched Davis to improve the article to become a Featured List candidate. There is no featured content under WikiProject NASCAR right now, just one failed FA candidate. I know many other motorsport genres like F1 have contributors very experienced with featured content, so I'm hoping to get some suggestions/guidance. We spent a lot of time improving the text in the article, but I've been feeling that the article is getting more and more off-topic for a list article. I recently had a peer review, and the reviewer suggested that most of the text might be best forked into a new article about the qualifying procedure for the Daytona 500. Ched suggested that the majority of the content could be used for a NASCAR qualifying article with a subsection on the special qualifying procedure used because of the special Twin qualifying races for the Daytona 500. So the questions are - Is the article on-topic? Is there too much detail about the qualifying procedure? Royalbroil 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WTCC team flagicons

User:Falcadore has changed BMW Team UK from to in WTCC season articles. Fair enough. Somewhat harder to understand is his decision to change Chevrolet from to . His arguement is that Chevrolet is just a sponsor of the British-owned, British-run and British-based RML team, saying that Ferrari doesn't get an American flag for its Marlboro sponsorship. However, I do not feel the two can be compared. I feel a better comparison is the Ford World Rally Team, which is displayed with a US flag despite its British-based operations through M-Sport. As far as I know, Chevrolet wanted to enter the WTCC after buying Daewoo to help market their cars in Europe. Due to a lack of racing knowledge, they got RML to run the programme. Chevrolet's Eric Neve is the team manager. What do other users think here? - mspete93 [talk] 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the FIA would have documentation as to the nationality of WTCC teams. I do not believe that the team's base of operations or background team should play any part in what the team's designated nationality is. I'm fairly certain that BMW Team UK, although run by a Belgian operation, would still be deemed as British.

As an example, Asia Endurance Team, run under a Chinese flag, was actually run by a French squad Perspective Racing at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The entry is still Chinese however. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the inbuilt fallacies of both flags and registration is that the obvious becomes debatable. A Belgian owned and run team with a very long history as a Belgian owned and run team can be considered British because of its driver and its funding? Similarly, Chevrolet do not own the team, the cars or anything to do with the operation of the team, there is practically no-one in American who even cares the team exists, and yet its considered American because of the flavour of the paperwork? You follow the links in the articles, and it flows into team articles from RBM and RML with little or no acknowledgement of UK/US "registration".

Why do we have flags when such fallacies can be perpetuated?

How is it a fallacy when it's correct? Teams have always run under altered names when it comes to manufacturer involvement. What Americans have to do with Chevrolet's involvement in WTCC is nil compared to the fact that the team is run under Chevrolet's dollar and under their name.

I fail to see how there is need for much acknowledgement of the team running under a different nationality in certain series. If the article mentions that the team ran as "Chevrolet" or "BMW UK", I think it's fairly obvious why in season articles they have a different flag. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 07:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is American about the WTCC Cruze's? The cars are Korean from GM Daewoo operations, the team is British. The badge? The word Chevrolet? --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The American anthem is played whenever a Chevrolet wins a race. Of course, the anthem played is always the manufacturer's nationality, not the team's (when Priaulx wins a race, the German anthem is played after the British one), so I'm not sure how much that supports the use of the American flag. About Chevrolet, the cars are run from the UK by RML, but all the managing personnel from GM is based in Belgium. However, GM Europe is based in Switzerland. So we may indeed have a bit of a problem here. --Pc13 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cruze is planned for US sale, it's just not available here yet. The solution to the problem is that rather than attempting to figure out whether we should have the nationality of the crew or the manufacturer or whatever, we just go with the nationality already submitted to the FIA. That's why these things are there. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that if the team is entered as Chevrolet, they are entered as American. Same with BMW Team UK, I would have thought they would be entered as British surely? That is what actually matters. - mspete93 [talk] 12:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't bothered that nationality can be bought and sold, and is therefore, essentially as meaningless and transitory as a list of sponsors. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should anyone be bothered? This is hardly something new in motorsport. I also fail to see how sponsorship is meaningless... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Like drivers, entrants for international level events have to hold a valid licence. This licence will have a nationality attached to it as it will have been issued by a national motorsport association. It is the nationality of this licence that counts, not the physical location of the team base. Chevrolet may hold a licence and be the official entrant, even though the "team" (by which I mean the infrasturcture and staff) is British, being paid as contractors. Go away and find out what the official entry list says, this is the team's "nationality". Pyrope 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FIA entry list does not state the nationality of the teams. - mspete93 [talk] 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case you are into the realms of guesswork. Leave the flags out all together, unless you can find a proper citation. Pyrope 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This settles the BMW Team UK issue. - mspete93 [talk] 12:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't as it does not escape that RBMs Britishness exists entirely on paper and not in reality, but I am also aware under current Wikipedia beliefs that this is one I will lose and will resist no further. --Falcadore (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Paper is all there has ever been Falcadore. This is just as true for any international motorsport series as it is for the better known F1 cases. The same rules that make Force India Indian (though based in the UK) make BMW Team UK British (though based in Belgium). This isn't about "beliefs", it is about sporting regulations that are decided on by the FIA. Pyrope 14:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree with them either. I would prefer the actuality, the common sense, rather than what the teams file with the FIA for commercial purposes. When you say sporting regulations, really its commercial image superseding the otherwise obvious. But as I said I am not going to get anywhere with this, it's just personnally frustrating. I've advised a few other edittors here in other discussions that some issues you win, some you lose, this illustrates that point that Wikipedia is consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is Wikipedia, we go by what we can cite, not what we feel is right. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that common sense is important, but listing BMW Team UK as Belgian does not necessarily equal common sense. - mspete93 [talk] 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree that ownership and geographical location do not constitute what I have referred to as common sense then there is nothing I can say to change your mind, so I am forced to concede. That's how Wikipedia works. --Falcadore (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It can be cited both ways, for example street address of the team's base could be cited of course, however consenses is very clear that FIA team registration is the prefered method of identity. I have no argument confronted with that. Additionally I guess I do not wish the persue this further as the best I could hope to achieve would be dual flag like appears on occasion for some times, like for example Piquet Sports, and that looks terrible and I would not wish that. --Falcadore (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Split Ultimate Signature

This article needs to be split into Ultimate Motorsport and Signature Plus. Ultimate Signature was a one-off collaboration made to facilitate Ultimate's acquisition of Signature's World Series by Renault operations. --Pc13 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Signature Plus still operates on their own in the Le Mans Series. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do. --Falcadore (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, a better course of action might be the develop the two team articles away from the redirects they currently are and let Ultimate Signature stand for the moment and reconsider its presnce once Ultimate Motorsport and Signature Plus have been developed. --Falcadore (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved Ultimate Signature to Ultimate Motorsport and done what I can with a limited knowledge. I've also created Signature-Plus from the redirect, although it doesn't contain much at the moment. - mspete93 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kazimieras Vasiliauskas requested move

A discussion over moving Kazimieras Vasiliauskas to "Kazim Vasiliauskas" is taking place here.--Midgrid(talk) 13:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Touring cars taskforce

I am interested in kicking this task force into life. I have a large amount of improvements to WTCC-related articles to start after Macau this weekend (see here), and I need some help as I just do not have the time to do it all. Other series could also do with some improvements I'm sure. The user who created the taskforce has not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year, and so I will make some changes to the task force page. If those of you that are interested could list your name under the 'Interested Editors' section on the page (and maybe state what you would be interested in doing) that would be useful. Thanks - mspete93 [talk] 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DNF or Ret

I was just wondering what the Wikipedia standard was for racing records. I have noticed the Ret (Retired) seems to be used more the the normal racing term DNF (Did not finish) but I also see the DNQ (Did not qualify) is used as well. I'm confused... Bjmullan (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It varies from series to series. The usual Europe/America division. Ret and DNF are essentially interchangeable. DNQ is, or rather should be, unrelated. In any case, follow the example set by the results key in use for that particular series in their season articles. --Falcadore (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ret is used across the F1 articles, as opposed to DNF. As Falcadore says, check with the results table key on the season articles of whatever series you're concerned with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just totally repeated what Falcadore said. Time I was asleep I think :( Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know NASCAR and other American stock car racing use DNF. F1 uses RET. I don't know what the American Open Wheel people use (Indy Racing League). Royalbroil 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a kind of DNF/DNQ/DSQ/FTD type of guy but one must go with the flow so it will be Ret for me. Thanks for everyone's input. Bjmullan (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed cat rename

I have proposed that Category:Auto car racing controversies be renamed to Category:Auto racing controversies, for consistency with Category:Auto racing and its numerous existing sub-cats. I invite you to express any opinions you may have on the matter at the CfD page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the category even justifiable? It's going to be rather hard to justify what goes into such a category and what does not. --Falcadore (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Falcadore. Please make your argument at the CfD and I'll reconsider my position. The F1 subcategory is named "scandal", which needs to be renamed if the category tree is kept. Royalbroil 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't. Sealed off already. --Falcadore (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Macau FBMW Pacific

2009 Macau FBMW Pacific, some advice over this article is probably needed. --Falcadore (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Formula BMW support race for the F3 Macau Grand Prix? First and foremost I'm concerned about notability. Has this had any coverage whatsoever outside the local and specialist press? Pyrope 15:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when was a Formula BMW race notable? If FBMW races are worthy of articles then so must be Formula Three races, Formula Renault races..... I think it was decided WSbR wasn't notable enough. How on earth is this worthy? - mspete93 [talk] 17:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

With these comments in mind I have started an AfD. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD has been re-listed because of editorial apathy to the subject, some more comments would be appreciated. --Falcadore (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Andhra Pradesh Motor Sports Club

Srinivasbala (talk · contribs · count) created Andhra Pradesh Motor Sports Club, but then another editor added a speedy tag to the article. I added a reference and removed the speedy tag, but perhaps a member of this project could look at the article and make any improvements that seem appropriate. - Eastmain (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Llandow Kart Club

Could someone connected to your Project have a look at this newly created article. It has been created by a fairly new user, has a good image attached which the user claims to own, has not been categorised and contains incorrect linking and very heavy opinion. Is probably worth saving, but I have little knowledge of your sport. I have posted this on the British Motorsport Project page, but it appears to be fairly inactive. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of categories, but it still needs a lot more attention. DH85868993 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced about the notability of karting clubs, and a lot of you tube links to be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Filmed deaths and Category:Filmed deaths in sports

Category:Filmed deaths and Category:Filmed deaths in sports are up for deletion, though I don't know what do you think, but let have your opinion here. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Formula 3

Why have all the Formula 3 series articles acquired Main Article: Formula 3 links at the top of their pages? The various series articles are not derivatives of the Formula 3 page, this does not make sense to me. --Falcadore (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Those links are unnecessary and ugly. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Formula V6 Asia

Is it fair to say that the Formula V6 Asia series is now defunct. The second half of the 2009 season was completely cancelled and the official series website hasn't been updated for over 6 months. It is odd that the series simply seems to have been ignored and there has been no report of any sort as to what has happened to the series. I would be suprised if the series continues next year and even if it does, on this basis, we probably won't know about it. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any opinions on this? Officially Mr X (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Constructor Formula One drivers

A question I have. I notice a bunch of these categories appearing and I want to ask the question, are these categories based on Constructor or Team participation? If constructor, can we have this changed to team please? My reasons? There were several small teams that ran various iterations of Lotus, Brabham, Cooper, Ferrari, Maserati, March etc cars. Compiling those into a list is just a statistic. Any team could be a second hand or customer car from various manufacturers, beyond their contribution to Constructors points tally, which did not begin until 1958, it is a statistic of relatively meaningless stature I believe. The history of a team is more meaningful I believe. A list of Lotus drivers should only consist of drivers who drove for Colin Chpman run teams. Owners of second-hand Williams-Cosworths should not contribute to a list of Williams drivers but Piers Courgae who drove Brabhams for Frank Williams is a significantly more important statistic then someone buying a used Williams and bashing it around the Aurora series and once a year trying to qualify for the British GP. One list is a statistic for the sake of having a statistic, the other can provide a meaningful insight into the history of a major racing team, IMHO. Thought anyone? --Falcadore (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I too have noticed this and have spent half the evening making corrections. Fully agree with the comments above. Bjmullan (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed, and I too have spent some time this evening reversing this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that, as the categories are called Formula One drivers by constructor teams, it should be for anyone who has driven fro the constructor, works or non works. However, if Falcadore believes that it should just be for works drivers, he should/could change the categories too simply Formula One drivers by team. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Falcadore that was quite sexist! You could be a she! WilliamF1two (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Constructor is a term that only began to have relevance in 1958 and is not really representative of Formula One's complete history. Formula One's history has always been a collection of teams rather than a collection of constructors, and the categories I feel should more properly reflect that. Rather than a category for 'non-works Ferrari drivers', categories would be of greater value if they reflected the teams themselves, for example 'Scuderia Centro Sud drivers'. A non-works team could change from one chassis to the next from one season to the next. A car, while important, is just a piece of equipment. It would be of comparable value to list for example a category for 'Dunlop equipped Formula One drivers'. --Falcadore (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a fair point. I agree that Scuderia Centro Sud drivers etc would be a more valuable exercise, and also one which we should probably start. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution before we create too many new categories; consider that a driver like Andrea de Cesaris would be a member of 8 different constructor/team categories. Is that what we want? Maybe, maybe not. Also note that WP:CAT states that categories should reflect "defining characteristics" of the subject of the article - is it a defining charactistic of de Cesaris that he drove for Sauber? Having said that, I think the current situation where we have categories for several minor teams (e.g. AGS) but are missing categories for numerous World Championship-winning teams (e.g. BRM, Benetton) is undesirable. Personally, I'd delete the lot, but I recognise that others have different opinions. DH85868993 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite comfortable raising CfD's for the lot. I mean, don't you think Formula One drivers have a lot of categories already? --Falcadore (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that they are very valuable, but agree with DH85868993. Categories for AGS and ATS but not for BRM and Benetton is stupid. Falcadore says that Formula One drivers have too many categories already - Lets once again use the example of de Cesaris:

-1959 births (not restricted to F1 drivers)

-People from Rome (not restricted to F1 drivers)

-Living people (not restricted to F1 drivers)

-Italian racecar drivers (not restricted to F1 drivers)

-Italian Formula One drivers

-British Formula Three Championship drivers (unrelated to his F1 involvement)

-European Formula Three Championship drivers (unrelated to his F1 involvement)

-Grand Prix Masters drivers (unrelated to his F1 involvement)

-Kart racing drivers (unrelated to his F1 involvement)

-Plus the discussed categories for his involvement with Alfa Romeo and Minardi.

So excluding the discussed categories, he has just one category that is related to his status as a Formula One driver. Even including these categories, he would have only three. Compare this to other sportspeople - David Beckham has 23 categories directly linked to him being a footballer. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you have to go through junior categories to get to Formula One, i'd say a lot of those are in fact related to Formula One. But in any case I actually meant all the categories, Formula One drivers have a lot of categories, generally, rather than specific Formula One categories. So the further proliferation of categories is the problem I was referring to. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't hold water. De Cesaris has 13 categories in total, where as David Beckham has 37 categories, more than three times as many. WilliamF1two (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Beckham is scarcely relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Beckham is highly relevant, if the discussion is about number of categories for a Formula One driver, surely comparisons to other sports, such as football, are very relevant? Thoughts? WilliamF1two (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd believe Beckham to have been just about the most extreme example possible in the opposite direction. You might also have noticed that Wikipedia editting is reasonably compartmentalised. The edittors involved in editting football articles are not the same as those involved in motorsport article editting and are likely to be following their own precedents. --Falcadore (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia may well be compartmentalised, but that does not mean it should not be standardised. WilliamF1two (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that it should. --Falcadore (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there is a good argument for it to be standardised among sportspeople. WilliamF1two (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be standardised amongst racing drivers. Formula One drivers have have significantly different careers to say sports car drivers or touring car drivers. Sports car and touring car drivers compete in signature racers that can create their own race specific categories, for example, the Le Mans 24 Hour. All F1 Grands Prix are signature races, so we can hardly create categories for example for Spanish Grand Prix winners, or French Grand Prix participants. --Falcadore (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never suggested this. WilliamF1two (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

World Series by Renault/FR3.5

I have raised a query about what the World Series by Renault actually is at its talk page. Thanks - mspete93 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Formula Asia 2.0

The Formula Asia 2.0 page should be deleted. It is a minor Formula Renault series which is now defunct. The series is covered enough on the main page, lasted for only one season and has a page when a lot of more of more significant Formula Renault pages do not. I am not very sure of how one goes about deleting a page. A little help? Officially Mr X (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My answer about delete or not on Talk:Formula Asia 2.0 - Rollof1 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Formul'Academy Euro Series season

Article about 2009 Formul'Academy Euro Series season is just created by User:Cybervoron. Formul'Academy Euro Series (managed by Auto Sport Academy) is the succesor of the Formula Campus (Fench Formula Renault 1.6L managed by the FFSA) and is a minor series active only for 2 seasons (2008-2009). It will be replaced by F4 Eurocup 1.6 (still powered by Renault). But a season article is insignificant with driver lineup, calendar, standing. A quick standing and infos about the season was included on the 2009_Formula_Renault_seasons#2009_Formul.27Academy_Euro_Series_season (still apparent on the 2008 page).
Even if the Formula Renault season pages are long, Formul'Academy doesn't deserve complete seasons pages. Moreover the series is a Sports Studies in France section and has not to be considered as a classic racing series. I suggest remove the modifications made by User:Cybervoron. For the size problem of the Formula Renault season page, there are several more important series who deserve maybe a complete article. - Rollof1 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed category merge

I have proposed that Category:British motorsport technical staff be merged into its parent category Category:British motorsport people. Please add any thoughts you may have at the CfD discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox motorsport championship

A question, on this much used template, why is it prefered that the lines for inaugural and folded it is prefered that they hyperlink to the category 19xx in Motorsport rather than link directly to that season article? Fair enough when such a season does not exist, but a direct link is a second option for inaugural, but not for folded. Can at least the option be created to direct link the folded line? --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced about the usefulness of linking to the categories at all. On the assumption that the category link is only used where there isn't a specific season article, then clicking the link takes the reader to a category where they won't find an article about the series they're interested in. So I'd recommend changing the "inaugural" and "folded" parameters to simply display the parameter values (if they're non-blank), noting that this won't break articles where the "inaugural2" parameter is currently used. In addition, I find the use of the word "folded" somewhat confusing/ambiguous - is it supposed to identify the series' final season, or the year it folded (which aren't necessarily the same year, i.e. sometimes series successfully complete their final season and then officially "fold" early in the new year). If it's supposed to indicate the final season, then I'd recommend changing the displayed text for the "folded" parameter from "Folded" to "Final season". DH85868993 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Final season and the year it folded in most cases will be the same. For it to be a link it would have to be the final season. --Falcadore (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled. Notwithstanding my comments above, I have no objection to the additon of a "folded2" parameter (similar to "inaugural2") to enable direct linking of the final season. DH85868993 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename

There is a rename and move request of the Spec racing article to One-make racing, lets have your vote here. Donnie Park (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Di Grassi

There is a discussion at Talk:Lucas_Di_Grassi#Capitalisation about whether or not the "D" should be capitalised. Please add any views you may have. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI (for those not watching the page), the consensus was to move the page to Lucas di Grassi. A move request has been submitted. DH85868993 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Formula Ford Years template

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Formula Ford years over why this template should exist. I have not yet nominated for TfD, but I'd like to know why I should not. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 season articles

It's early January still, and wondering across a 2010 season racing articles I came across, this. The sheer size of such a table and the repition of TBA across so many table spaces led me to wonder if this might be better for use in the pre-season of such 2010 season articles prior to racing beginning, which I note in this article's case is still some four months away. Thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the empty columns definitely. It could be useful to keep the three-race structure, as it saves having to put it back in at a later stage. I'm not really bothered about that too much though. - mspete93 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a new table, to be deleted once the season begins, the old table is still there, hidden. --Falcadore (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FIRST Racing

It has been proposed to move FIRST Racing to First Racing per MOS:TM and WP:ALLCAPS, on the basis that FIRST Racing says "FIRST Racing (sometimes written as First Racing)...". Is that correct? I think I've only ever seen it as "FIRST". Please add any views you may have at Talk:First Racing. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they're right per WP:TM. I totally disagree with the MOS about capitalization being reduced to lower case for no good reason. It disagrees with common sense. We should be reflecting reality, not changing reality to fit us. Let me know if you want me to deletion of the redirect to allow the move. Royalbroil 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I can understand making lowercase something that is not an acronym (a popular scheme used in Japan in which words are all capitals for no apparent reason), but I have a feeling that FIRST may in fact be an acronym (similar to the Haas Lola FORCE team). The³5₉ (Talk) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved. DH85868993 (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Castrol Rankings

Should this new system of ranking drivers from all across motorsport be given its own article? Similar ranking systems are summarised already here such as FIFA World Rankings, Official World Golf Rankings and ICC Player Rankings. Below are a couple of links if people think it's worth getting started. The article, if created, should explain the scoring system and how it is calculated, describe the range of series covered in the system and perhaps list the current Top 50 drivers and the Castrol Rankings winners from each month and year.

Official Website

Coulthard unveils Castrol Rankings

Officially Mr X (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, for lack of notability and the fact that the other ranking systems are developed by FIFA, the Federation of PGA Series, and the ICC, while this one is developed by...Autosport. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So what if this is developed by Autosport? So are the Autosport Awards and they are considered a big deal. Lots of sports awards are organized by publications and are considered quite prestigious. Wikipedia also has a Castrol Performance Index article for football players --Chris Ssk _talk 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As with any Wikipedia article, if you can write an interesting enough article (in prose, not just a table of rankings...) and prove notability through citation of reliable, third-party sources, then the world is the mollusc of your choosing. The Autosport Awards are a long-standing mark of excellence, that are regularly referred to in other print, and occasionally broadcast, media and are often cited as a turning point in a young driver's career (especially if you read many autobiographies). These new awards/rankings/whatever don't appear to have generated any interest outside of publicity machines controlled by those with a vested interest, but if you can find things then cite them. The two sources you have provided so far are not sufficient as they are both directly linked to the subject. Pyrope 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial, sponsor commerical driven. Not really notable. How about I make a list? Could you write an article about that?

More seriously, is it actually referred to by media, do any third parties use these ranking in describing driver? If industry accepted and used these rankings, then you'd have a case. Otherwise its no better than a fan compiled list. --Falcadore (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to bring up the Castrol Performance Index for football and then saw that Chris Ssk had already done so, which appears do be done in a very similar way. The fact that Autosport has developed it, and the fact that they will mention it every month as a result, means that it will be spread around the rest of the internet-based motorsport media, so they could therefore become fairly significant. The WRC was set to launch its own ranking system, although I'm not sure what the point would be now. - mspete93 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The point would be it would be official. And have a practical purpose to assist with starting order of rallies. --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yeah, fair enough. - mspete93 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, here are just a couple of third-party articles in relation to Castrol Driver Rankings:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/2808728/Lets-see-a-World-Cup-for-drivers.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/castrol-ranking-karthikeyan-best-among-indian-drivers_100304540.html

Officially Mr X (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. Now if these rankings generate ongoing debate in sources not linked to (or paid for by) Haymarket Publishing or BP plc, then perhaps it deserves an article. I'd wait until the initial launch publicity dies down a bit before you can tell though. Pyrope 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you can make a good-enough article that is regularly updated, then go ahead. - mspete93 16:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article would have to be named Castrol Driver Rankings so as not to confuse with the Castrol Performance Index for football which also uses 'Castrol Rankings'. Castrol Driver Rankings is the right name anyway as that is what is used in the official website's URL. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do I bother? Pyrope 19:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would worry about that. Without that ongoing debate, these rankings fail notability. Utterly.

And more than just notability, the article as currently presented, is little more than copying the list as it appears on the Castrol website. Borderline copyvio perhaps? There is little or no context, no relevance, to anything other than itself has been generated, I think you could make an excellent case for an AfD. --Falcadore (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about trying to find opportunties to delete things. Further, non-table, content is coming imminently but I really wish you could spend more time doing constructive things here rather than simply mediating others' actions to tediously frustrating levels. Just by chance came across a couple other articles just now so Castrol Rankings are creating an effect outside of Autosport even this soon after being announced. I can forsee countless publishers refering to these rankings over time and there is the potential for even racing teams to look at them to some degree when wanting a fuller picture rather than just race finishing results when scouting for young drivers. Just possibilities but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Castrol Rankings are something that is and will continue to be, so an article about them should be a given. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You remember your list of racing dates? You're not the best judge of what constitutes encyclopaedic content. All I, and I believe Pyrope (please correct me if I am wrong), was asking was that you wait a few weeks to see if this becames more than a joint Castrol/Autosport marketting exercise. --Falcadore (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can foresee all you want, the article needs reliable third party sources now. No one is trying to find opportunities to delete things, you simple are creating articles that are not worthy, at least at the moment. Don't try to pass blame onto others for fixing something you've done wrong. Your assumption that these rankins "will continue to be" is crystal balling at its best. Wikipedia articles aren't necessary just because something exists. You seem to still be lacking a fundamental grasp of what sort of material belongs on Wikipedia. We are an Encyclopedia with limits, not an Encyclopedia of Trivia. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And here we are two weeks later, and still the only references given on the page fail to establish notability. Pyrope 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what stuff you are looking for to go on the article? There is stuff out there which refers to the rankings but nothing that I can see that needs to go onto the article. Do I really have to write "Article X has refered to the Castrol Rankings" etc. to prove whatever point you are trying to make: that in itself will not add extra value to the article which is already fulfilling its needs at the moment. There are plenty of far less substantial and satisfactory articles out there than this one that you could slag off instead because really this article is better than most and will be seen as relevant by far more people as the rankings are in the public eye and just as worthy of an article as any racing series which also may only be referred to in the most part only by the series' official website but you have no problem with that. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just go away, actually put in some effort, and read WP:NOTE. That article, as it stands, fails. Specifically, it is in direct contravention of WP:SPIP. If this isn't fixed pronto I will list at AfD. If I was just interested in slagging this article off I wouldn't bother trying to persuade you to make it better, I would just have listed it straight away. We are here to make Wikipedia a reliable, independent reference source, not an extension of the promotional arms of various large corporations. Pyrope 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me then how any of these are any different:

• FIVB Beach Volleyball World Rankings
• ICC Player Rankings
• ATP Rankings

There are all these references but what I'm saying, if you'l listen for once, is what the hell do we do with them and how will mentioning them improve the function of the article:

• http://www.portalangop.co.ao/motix/en_us/noticias/desporto/2010/0/4/Angolan-pilot-between-FIA-300-best,fd797b38-d2df-43aa-b783-e6c9a89bf01b.html
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/racing/other-racing/others/For-Karthikeyan-R-Day-honour-is-a-birthday-gift/articleshow/5499755.cms
• http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2010/01/the-january-review-3/
• http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/cars-motorbikes/2010/01/david-coulthard-is-top-rank.html
• http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3262_5865480,00.html
• http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/2808728/Lets-see-a-World-Cup-for-drivers.html
• http://www.racer.com/button-tops-new-castrol-driver-rankings/article/161350/

Officially Mr X (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so those are all ranking issued by the official governing bodies of their respective sports. There is only so much of Wikipedia that I have the time to involve myself with; when the FIA start issuing rankings come back and see me. The articles you mention also fail to establish independent notability, so if you feel inclined by all means go and stick the {{notability}} banner on them, either they will improve or they will disappear. Just because other articles are poor does not provide a defense for a poor article that you wrote. The Castrol Rankings have some significant, possibly fatal flaws, which have been discussed in many forums and message boards across the internet. The idea that they are on a par with the ATP rankings (which actually influence tournament seeding, and other tangible aspects of the tennis world) is laughable. I was certainly listening (reading?), and all you were saying is that you couldn't see why you should include third-party references as "will not add extra value to the article". So I showed you where to find the relevant information (which as an established editor you really ought to be aware of by now) and why you need to recast the article from a neutral standpoint. The article as it is could easily have been written by a Castrol marketing exec, with all the puffery of the Coulthard (who is being paid by Castrol) statement and the original press release preserved intact. You use the articles you have found to write a decent, discursive, balanced, third-party description of the topic, not just parrot the promotional material released by two independent, unaccountable, profit-making corporations. My aim is to make Wikipedia better, not to get on your back without need. Pyrope 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read the article, it states the rules/methods of the system and lists the rankings, other that DC's quote no opinions are stated, I dont see NPOV issues with it. Also I dont see how WP:SPIP applies. As for the system's flaws etc they can be added in the article as a criticism section provided they come from reliable sources, but they are irrelevant to the notability of the article, on the contrary your admission that the rankings system and its flaws are discussed in many forums and message boards across the internet actually shows notability --Chris Ssk _talk 18:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, read WP:NOTE. You need to prove that this is notable. Using reliable sources (forums do not suffice). Using third-party sources (Autosport and Castrol sites are out). As for WP:SPIP, the text states that "The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." The pertinent parts there are independent and non-trivial. A brief couple of paragraphs in the sports pages of a newspaper noting the driver ranking launch is not non-trivial. To be non-trivial they need to discuss the way the rankings are calculated, their application, their likely reliability, and so on. As for the forums proving notability, the other key of WP:NOTE is that "notability is not temporary". This rush of discussion has already died away. Nobody cares now, and we are only a month down the road from the launch. That is why I originally recommended waiting to see if the rankings actually developed into something of note, which they have not so far. Pyrope 18:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree almost entirely with what Pyrope has said, these rankings are trivial and do fail notability. This is however not stopping at some future point these ranking becoming notable, and the lack of actual racing in January contributes to this, perhaps suggesting the timing of the launch was premature, but Wikipedia is not in the position of anticipating notability. --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tracksplit car racing?

There is currently a AfD here for something called Tracksplit car racing. It would fall under the purview of this project, so I thought some editors might want to add their opinions. EeepEeep (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pau Grand Prix

Is there any reason why the Pau Grand Prix article is at Grand Prix de Pau? Surely unless the race's name is as notable as the Targa Florio for instance, we should be using the anglicised version? Readro (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I come across "Pau Grand Prix" at least as much as I come across the French version. Being an English-language project we should proabably be using the English version. Apterygial 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gimme a brake

Just noticed a contradiction tween this page, which says the F3 got discs in '54, & this one, which says 1957. Anybody know which is right? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Racing in drag

I came across a back ish of Hot Rod with a history of the Greer-Black-Prudhomme digger, which could make a stub page here.The trouble is, I don't know how to title it. Any suggestions? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing data

I imagine a number of people will be upset with me, but I've just gone and removed the mass of tables covering off season testing across a number of motorsport season articles. My rationale was simple. Testing is not of sufficient notability to require tabular coverage. A few, few, simple senteneces should be enough to convey testing in the context of the season. Testing does not contribute to season points, it does not contribute to race qualifying. Wikipedia does not document the results of training sessions of football teams, why should motorsport be any different? Testing quite often can have no relelvance. Teams will test with hybrid 2009/10 vehicles that will never see an actual race. The test with various aerodynamic and mechanical tweaks which may never see actual racing using drivers who will never actually race. The cars do not have to pass scruitineering, they can be as illegal as you like. It is my belief that baring significant events, for example a serious injury to a driver, that testing for any motor racing season article can be best represented by two or three sentences and tabular coverage, of any size, is trivia. Wikipedia is no more a statistics resource/dumping ground than it is a news source. --Falcadore (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not one part of me thinks you are doing the right thing as I have explained to you previously. You are relentless and destructive. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he is focussing on Wikipedia's core aim: to make a readable, interesting, broad interest encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content is prose, not tables of data. Go take a look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance. Each page should allow someone unfamiliar with a subject to spend a few minutes reading and understand better what it is; they can then go off and peruse specialist stats sites at their leisure. There is a plague of new editors here who seem to think that merely retabulating data available elsewhere is "writing". It is not. Masses of tabulated data are visually boring, and intimidating for a reader who may only be peripherally interested in the subject. If you want to create a stats site then go ahead. There are motorsport Wikis out there already, and nobody is stopping you downloading the wiki software yourself, hiring a url and setting up on your own. Tables should be used as an adjunct to text to display only the most important of information, and should allow these important data to be understood at a glance. Testing is not important, and even if you tabulate it to be able to divine anything significant is almost impossible. Even professional motorsport journalists struggle to see the point of exhaustive testing discussions. When you are working on here always remember that, at its heart, Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia. Not a fan site. Not a fanatics' site. Not a stats repository. Far from him being destructive, what I see Falcadore doing is removing cruft and tedious minutiae and allowing the article to breathe a bit more. If you spent more time writing properly constructed prose articles then maybe you'd see what I mean. Pyrope 15:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: There are a few specific areas where testing infomation is relevant. The key here is we're trying to write concise articles - covering all the major information about a topic without going too far into minutiae. The relevance of practice & testing to those articles varies depending on the scope of the article in question, but in all current article types we have, only makes up at most a small part of the topic.

An official practice session as part of a race weekend warrants a couple of sentences in the relevant race report, as per our featured articles. Full timing rundowns hold little value, because nobody except the teams themselves know the setup of the car - it's not comparing like-for-like if Ferrari have concentrated on long runs whilst McLaren have focused on qualifying lap pace, and hence the data is, to all intents and purposes, useless. A driver writing-off his car in practice, with the rebuild causing his qualifying to be compromised however is probably relevant.

For articles on individual cars, then testing infomation should make up a small part of the article, for example revisions made to the car following certain tests would aid understanding. Trying to compare like-for-like times of unofficial testing however is even more pointless than official practice sessions. As well as the different strategies, we can add varying timing equipment, deliberate timing misinformation, testing of components and other articles banned under the regulations, variations between test drivers (one team testing a rookie versus another having a seasoned test driver) and weather conditions. It's useful to bear in mind the key rule of elementary level science experiments: Only one variable should be changed and the others kept constant in order for it to be a fair test (and hence a relevant test). For the testing times to have any relevance to the performance of the cars in comparison to other cars, they'd have to have drivers of similar ability, same fuel levels, same weather conditions and be timed by the same independent timing equipment. As it is, Top Gear does a better job at ensuring a fair test than F1 testing sessions do.

For articles on drivers, there should be very little to no testing information, especially for a driver that has had a lot of involvement in the sport. An test session with an F1 team whilst competing in a lower series (as part of a "early career" section) or a major incident that occurred in a test session are the only two exceptions to this rule I can think of. That Alonso was 'fastest in the 2011 F1 pre-season testing' has so little relevance to his F1 career as a whole. Ditto for teams.

Testing can be relevant to an article, but often because of an incident that occurred during it or an event that happened because of it, rather than the raw data. Would I want to know the weight every single rugby player can bench-press? Probably not. Would I want to know that because a player could only bench a small weight, a coach had them focus on increasing this to better their perfomance? Possibly. That as a result of a accident in the gym, a rugby player was out injured for two months? Probably. The same applies for the F1 testing information. AlexJ (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

An inciteful and elegant summary AlexJ, thank you. Pyrope 18:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Is that true about Alonso? If it is, I'm off down to the bookie's this afternoon. Imagine the odds I'd get on that... ;-) Pyrope 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If testing is so insignificant why are BBC running a live feed from the Valencia test sessions? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8491190.stm Officially Mr X (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a byline known in certain satirical journalism circles as "Phil Space". They have a website to fill, the data feed is included with their broadcasting rights fees, so they just dump one onto the other and bingo, instant content. Pyrope 17:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the removal, a few lines about pre season testing should be enough for the articles, as for BBC covering testing, BBC is a news site, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, In a similar note I believe the "new car launches" tables are equally irrelevant in the season articles. --Chris Ssk _talk 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, Falcadore is right, but his actions are similar to the vandalism. I am returning the tables until the promised "few, few, simple sentences" about the results of the tests will not be written, also this sentences must contain dates (not months) & fastest driver per every practice session. Like The Twelve Chairs: "In morning - money, In evening - chairs." Cybervoron (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't hold pages to ransom until you get what you want. As per WP:NOT#STATS, the tables with testing data should go. A lack of prose about testing does not imply that tables are an acceptable substitute. Also, removing material that goes against Wikipedia guidelines is not vandalism. Readro (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What he's saying is that Falcadore's only half finished what he started: he removed the tables but hasn't replaced it with the explaining sentences. It couldn't be left as it was and is easier to translate into sentences with the original and its references temporarily there. The references must remain so people can find the results in full should they wish. Officially Mr X (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This information should never have been presented in this manner in the first instance. That you do not understand that is not a valid reason for re-instatement. It is not up to me to fix the presentation when deletion works just as well, if not better. Testing put in context of the season as a whole, fails notability. There is not a need for precise date and a nomination of fastest driver in each session. Underlining the ridiculousness of your case is 2009 Formula BMW Europe season where the pre-season test sessions got better coverage in the article than the races which actually make up the season and decide the championship. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rallye de France

As the Rallye de France has moved for 2010, we need to either move Tour de Corse or create a new article to cover the event. Please see this discussion. Thanks - mspete93 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Formula Three Euroseries

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Formula Three Euroseries as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not meet the current GA Criteria. My review can be found here. I am placing the article on hold for one week and notifying all interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion

It would be great for some editors from this project to weigh in at Talk:Rolex Monterey Motorsports Reunion about the content of the article. There is a discussion going on if this race is a continuation of the Monterey Historics or a brand new event. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DTM Champions

I have some concerns over accuracy of information regarding to teams and makes champions listed on the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters page, serious enough to consider removing chunks of information. If there is anyone able to contribute please have a word at: Talk:Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters#Teams / Makes Champion --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a concern and a large part of a problem across WP:Motorsport. 2009 DTM season, aparently, changing weights of the cars is the most important event in the season as it gets featured in the interoduction. We have points tables, bullet point driver changes, and the complete season review is half a setence captioning a photo. This is just wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport in 2010

There's some discussion here about what belongs in Template:Motorsport in 2010. I don't think there's a definitive answer, but it would be nice to get some different opinions! Thanks. EeepEeep (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:IROC tracks

FYI Category:IROC tracks has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Anderson

I am hoping to avert an edit war with what I am assuming is some sort of PR firm for Jordan Anderson, who is a driver in the Legends Racing series. I am not sure where to post this, but as I am not familiar with motor sports, and felt it would be helpful for those more familiar with what should be added to a racing driver's article. I reverted the article to a stub to remove all of the painful advert and potential copyvio. I hope someone can take a look so we can improve this article according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also question the notability. Legends racing is hardly high enough up the ladder to warrant an article. Readro (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single page for any indivdual legends series. Therefore Legends drivers currently fail notability. If they keep it up, slap an AfD on the article citing notability. --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, somebody already nominated it for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson. Angryapathy (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Large photo collection

This photo collection has lots of racing cars and motorcycles photos (mostly MALLORY PARK albums), but they need to be recognized. --Sporti (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

...and if you upload any, please make sure you categorise them properly at Commons to avoid duplication! Thanks. Pyrope 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And if someone knows the racecars' and motorcycles' types and which are notable, just upload good pics (BTW these six pics are already on Commons) --Sporti (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple of hours trawling through and sifting out the good pics of interesting cars that we don't already have plenty of on Commons. I might have missed some in people's opinion, so please don't think I'm claiming that the job is done. Also, I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to 'bikes, so if anyone who knows two- and three-wheeled motorsport wants to take a look there is still plenty there! Pyrope 15:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

American Open Wheel driver results

Why do we use the flags if the majority of races held in the U.S.? Cybervoron (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A question better asked of the Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing I feel. --Falcadore (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with 2009 season articles

Having quickly dashed through the collection of articles under 2009 in motorsport template, I have found the following articles do not mention who won the race/championship/title featured in the topic in the opening paragraph, or in the executive summary at the start of each of the articles.

The winner of these series or events is the most important detail of each as sporting events and they should all have this article included up top as a matter of logical writing for encylopedic content.

The list is:

• 2009 ADAC Formel Masters season
• 2009 African Rally Championship season
• 2009 American Le Mans Series season
• 2009 Atlantic Championship season
• 2009 Australian Drivers' Championship
• 2009 Australian Manufacturers' Championship
• 2009 Australian Mini Challenge
• 2009 Australian Production Car Championship
• 2009 British Superbike Championship season
• 2009 British Supersport Championship season
• 2009 D1 Grand Prix season
• 2009 European F3 Open season
• 2009 FIM Motocross World Championship season
• 2009 Formula D season
• 2009 Formula Le Mans Cup season
• 2009 Formula Nippon season
• 2009 Formula Renault 3.5 Series season
• 2009 FIA GT3 European Championship season
• 2009 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season
• 2009 H1 Unlimited season
• 2009 Indy Lights season
• 2009 Intercontinental Rally Challenge season
• 2009 International Formula Master season
• 2009 International GT Open season
• 2009 International Rally of Nations
• 2009 Isle of Man TT
• 2009 Le Mans Series season
• 2009 Manx Grand Prix
• 2009 NASCAR Mini Stock Series
• 2009 NASCAR Nationwide Series
• 2009 Monte Carlo Rally
• 2009 New Zealand Grand Prix
• 2008–09 New Zealand V8 season
• 2009 North West 200 Races
• 2009 24 Hours of Nürburgring
• 2009 Porsche Supercup season
• 2009 Race of Champions
• 2009 Rally America season
• 2009 Rally Isle of Man
• 2009 Rolex Sports Car Series season
• 2009 Southern 100 Races
• 2009 Star Mazda Championship season
• 2009 Super GT season
• 2009 Superbike World Championship season
• 2009 Supersport World Championship season
• 2009 FIM Superstock 1000 Championship
• 2009 TC 2000 season
• 2008–09 Toyota Racing Series
• 2009 Ulster Grand Prix

--Falcadore (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Cs-wolves(talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated again. Cs-wolves(talk) 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All done. Sufficient spiel on all pages. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Formula One fatal accidents FLRC

I have nominated List of Formula One fatal accidents for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BTCC race report

2010 BTCC Round of Thruxton - As a national series, wasn't it decided that BTCC races didn't need individual reports? - mspete93 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick look. There is only two short sentences. It's essentially duplication of information found at 2010 British Touring Car Championship season. It woul struglle to pass WP:N now, and unless further text is added to justify its existance outside of the season summary it should be either Speedy'ed or AfD'ed. --Falcadore (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Similar view to Falcadore, methinks. Cs-wolves(talk) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of a lack of sentences can be resolved. The issue is most certainly over notability. I can tell you that apart from afternoon-long live coverage on ITV4, individual BTCC rounds recieve very little attention in the non-motorsport national press, and that's in the UK. Not worthy of such coverage on Wikipedia. - mspete93 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be resolved, but that the originating edittor appears to feel that it serves as little other than an extended table, duplicating information already carried elsewhere.

And by the way I'd like to know what BTCC Round of Thruxton means. It appears to me to be be entirely made up. I can't find reference to BTCC rounds being referred to as Round of Xxxx, and BTCC should not be shortened to acronym in an article name. --Falcadore (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It has clearly been taken from the WTCC naming, which is WTCC Race of xxxx. - mspete93 17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Danny93. He has a thing for writing up empty race reports, he added a Japanese SuperGT race result with only one sentence as well. He also has a thing for writing articles on events as soon as entry list appears... The³5₉ (Talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see the part where it said no race reports for BTCC. If so then I won't post up the results of BTCC rounds anymore. --Danny 93 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be imagining that I saw it, but still, I think we've agreed here that we don't really want them. - mspete93 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Message recieved, no more BTCC reports, well results as I only saw the highlights.--Danny 93 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I have now redirected it to the season page. Delete it if you wish. - mspete93 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalisation of Categories

A trend rejected here is beginning to spread. The Category:24 Hours of Le Mans drivers, and Category:DTM drivers I additionally note, is being split up according to nationality. Is this really neccessary? While I can understand a case can be made for Le Mans, but DTM? You can fit the enitre list of DTM drivers onto a page, I think a national based split, certainly for DTM is overcategorisation. --Falcadore (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These re-categorizations should be reverted ASAP. -Drdisque (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think its overcategorization, noting that all the articles would already be in the relevant national subcategory of Category:Racecar drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

reverted all. --Falcadore (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula Three Euroseries > Formula 3 Euro Series

Having done some research, I've found that we should change the name of this series on Wikipedia. See here for more details. - mspete93 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Obscure series results tables in driver articles

User:Cybervoron keeps adding results tables to drivers' articles for every series they have competed in, including series as obscure as Formula Palmer Audi Autumn Trophy (see Max Snegirev, Matias Laine and more). These tables are taking up more than half of the page in some articles, and the info should be covered in text. I have reverted them, but they have reverted back telling me to 'stop vandalising'. They claim there is a precedent, and cited Juan Pablo Montoya's article, but I then pointed out to them that he only has four relativley major series, although they seem to think that North America's most popular racing series is not major! They have since claimed Paul di Resta sets a precedent, but once again his article is relatively fine. This user is claiming there is a precedent, yet they can't actually tell me where this precedent is. I would advise that F3 Euroseries would be the lest significant single-seater series needing results tables on driver articles. Thoughts? - mspete93 11:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think you have no right to decide which table are needed, and what is not. Argument with FPA Autumn Trophy is not valid now, because i remove this. In Paul di Resta's article is Formula Renault UK record like in Max Snegirev's article, that you deleted. Please see WP:Don't lie. Cybervoron (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor do you have a right to stop me from questionning this when I feel others would share my view. When did I lie anyway? You lied saying there was a precedent with Montoya. To clarify, di Resta's article is not filled with tables like Snegirev and Laine. Besides, FRenault UK would also be removed from di Resta with my recommended bottom line of F3 Euroseries, which I recommend because it is a major continental competition. However, not all European series, e.g. FRenault Eurocup, would not fit above this. - mspete93 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Race-by-race for purely domestic series is too much. Very much too much. A single line which has a link though to the relevant season article would be perfectly fine. --Falcadore (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, if you had opportunity, you would have deleted 95% of the contents of Wikipedia. Cybervoron (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get personal. Prove notability. Don't add material simply because you can. Wikipedia isn't about the contributors, it's about making a readable end result. 400 lines of tables and bullet points work directly against readability. You're not debating this subject with tables are you? You're using sentences. --Falcadore (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Prove that this not notable. Proposition that tables make article unreadable is very subjectively. Cybervoron (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why aren't you making this argument in a table if they are so readable? --Falcadore (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Max Snegirev even pass notability? Never had a top five result in any of the races list. Top tens seem exceedingly rare. --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If Autosport write about him [1], then obviously he is significant. Cybervoron (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes. Really think he struggle to meet this. --Falcadore (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, notability again, huh? Fun, as ever. Ok, my 2¢/p: Cybervoron, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is not a dump for "stuff that we know". Just because the information exists doesn't mean that we should include it on a biographic article about someone. We certainly should not be giving a driver's junior and national level results the same degree of coverage as their international and World Championship results. We are a general interest encyclopedia, designed to be read and enjoyed (enjoyed being a fairly important point) by people who may have little or no previous knowledge of the subject. If you fill an article with trivia you make it boring and unreadable; so yes, there are times when removing information makes Wikipedia better. Take a look at what you did to the Nico Hülkenberg article. The F1 results are completely lost down at the bottom of a screed of minor league tables. For someone who has reached the top flight of motorsport a simple career summary table is sufficient for their lesser results. If someone sat down next to you in a bar and started giving you a detailed race-by-race run down of how some minor driver had finished 19th in Formula Palmer Audi you'd move stools pretty fast. It's dull and - if that person went on to become an F1 driver - deeply, deeply trivial. However, under the terms of WP:ATHLETE, if that sportsperson is fully professional and that's all they have achieved then that's the best you can write about. The key there is "fully professional", which is sometimes hard to judge in motorsport where so many participants are actually just glorified amateurs, in the sense that they or their backers pay for the drive and don't make money solely on their skills as a racing driver. This can even extend into F1 (take a look at another Russian; Renault are certainly not paying Vitaly Petrov a cent) so then the second clause of WP:ATHLETE comes into play. Please try and put yourself in the shoes of a casual reader and only place emphasis on those aspects that actually matter when considering why that person is of interest. Pyrope 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And since Cybervoron raised the incorrect point, proof of notability lies on the person adding the information. There is no requirement to prove that something is not notable. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On the notability of Snegirev, I had thought about this when it was created. While he does not need an article as a British F3 backmarker, I felt that as the article had been created, I'd leave it and go looking for other, less notable drivers to delete. - mspete93 22:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is if the driver article itself is a borderline AfD failure then certainly round-by-round performance in a domestic series is certainly too much. --Falcadore (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a stats dump - see #3 at WP:NOT#STATS. This guy Snegirev is a typical lower-formula no-hoper and his notability is deeply questionable. Put one of us in his well-heeled shoes and we'd probably turn out similar results. Listing the minutiae of his results is not encyclopedic. We could write hundreds of articles about guys like this, and it's not a good idea. This stuff is for FORIX and Autosport to deal with, not a general encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The career record summary table works quite well and this should be used to link to season articles where they exist, allowing access to these stats if required. At the moment, a mass of tables could seem quite daunting to the casual reader. - mspete93 23:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Daunting? Why do they seem daunting? They are much more structured than text and convey more information within a space. Officially Mr X (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not daunting to you. You're intimately familiar with both the subject and tabular format. Not everyone is like you in this regard. Wikipedia edittors are not the target audience. --Falcadore (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The results do look best in table format, but the point is that they are not needed at all. Maybe daunting wasn't quite what I meant. - mspete93 10:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Driver nationality, once again

As I figured might come up, a recent discovery in the 2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season article has once again raised the question of what flag we use for a driver. Michael Krumm, clearly born and raised in Germany but having raced his entire career and lived in Japan is listed on the FIA entry list for the series as Nationality - German, License - Japanese. I originally had Krumm listed as German, but another editor pointed out the license listed for Krumm, so I let the edit stand as the consensus for WP:MOTOR seemed to point to driver licensing being the standard. However, User:Falcadore has come in to claim that Krumm should remain German, even though this is not the only driver listed on the FIA entry list with nationality and licenses coming from different countries.

As of right now Falcadore's claim is that we should simply go by "What the driver says he is", which I do not believe most drivers actually come out and state, and equally calls into question Krumm's nationality since he lists on his website his nationality as "German / Swedish". Also pointed out on Talk:2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season, there are half a dozen drivers who have licenses different from where they were born or where they reside. So since this is becoming a bit of an edit war, and before we start getting a slew of IPs who will want to change things around, we need consensus. Not only for Krumm, but for all drivers in general. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall, from previous discussions on the subject of nationality was related to teams, not to drivers, thus an entirely different discussion. FIA licence stablishes where a driver lodges his paperwork, not his nationality, and has produced a number of false results over the decades and in all previous instances that I can recall having paid attention to the common sense answer, ie driver statement, personal websites and driver profiles on home series articles has taken prcedence over the location where a driver lodges his paperwork. Some drivers lodge their paperwork internationally through their home country ASNs, others prefer the conveninience factor of lodging through the geographically closest office. Seems silly to me to suggest that we define a drivers nationality by the location of their prefered post office.

I don't understand how it is difficult to establish a drivers nationality via means other than the drivers licence, The359 found Krumms of his personal website without any promting suggesting that it is not difficult at all. MSPete also dug up from GT1 official website driver profiles, for which GT1 would have been in contact with the driver and/or team PR rep (who in turn would have been in contact with the driver) to gather the data for the driver profiles, so I fail to see why these official sources do not extinguish the somewhat curious and transitory nature of the location of paperwork lodgement. --203.161.138.131 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The GT1 website does not even match the nationality given by the FIA entry list, such as Nicky Pastorelli (Dutch license, Dutch on gt1world.com, Italian on FIA entry list). Krumm's website also lists his nationality as German/Swedish. You seem to have no statement on Krumm's own statement about Swedish. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn;t think it needed commenting as the argument previous was on German vs Japanese leaving Swedish in a minority position. You advocating three flags? I'd sooner see none than that level of disorganised confusion. --Falcadore (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to be advocating we go by what the driver says, and in this case the driver says German/Swedish, so do you propose we use German or German and Swedish? The³5₉ (Talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was advocating German as a preference over Japanese. His official GT1 profile, which as I explained in the previous thread would have been sourced back to the driver also says German. --Falcadore (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And drivers such as Roman Grosjean, listed as French on Wikipedia but Swiss on gt1world.com? You can't just start reverting edits to Krumm's nationality without having this affect on every other driver. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When I brought up the question of Krumm's article stating he was German in the GT1 thread you pleaded the opposite stating 'what's written in other articles isn't my responsibility', but if I disagree with you it then is my responsbility to clean up other articles? Are you being selective or confused?

Nationality is a personal statement. Each driver has different reasons or beliefs with relation to nationality from guys who are fiercly patriotic and others like Bertrand Gachot who famously refuse to be pidgeon-holed (at one point having the EU flag painted on his car). This is why the drivers licence is, and really has always been a poor choice of reference, dating at least back to the 60's when Australians and New Zealanders were flooding into F1 and sending their licences back to their home countries for renewal could take weeks and months because of the vagaries of international post and FISA officials faced the danger of having various mechanical tools or pieces of car inserted into them at speed if they dared recognise this fiercly patriotic band as British because of the ink imprints on their licences. Hence why I have asked for a common sense approach, and indicate that the FIA licence does not constitute common sense. --Falcadore (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. I stated that another article being incorrect is not my responsibility to fix since I was changing the flag based on a citation. You however seem to be wanting to change our entire policy. If you can't tell the difference between "It's not my responsiblity to fix errors on other articles" and "You're changing our entire policy on driver flags which will affect other articles", then I can't help you. In absolutely no way have I changed my stance on any statements I've previously made.

And so, you seem to be implying we should use the EU flag for Bertrand Gachot? Or maybe an Earth flag for David Brabham, who now wears no flag on his driver uniform as part of a UN initiative? And how can you be claiming to go by what the driver wants while quickly sweeping away any notion of Swedish from Michael Krumm's entry? Nationality is a vague concept that cannot be agreed upon by sources. Even the SRO and FIA list different nationalities for certain drivers, seemingly these were nationalities submitted by the drivers? Licenses are the only things that are consistent. Are you really telling me, with any factual proof, that Krumm got a Japanese license because he didn't feel like filing a German one, even though he seemingly, according to his own profile, lives in neither country? What exactly is the common sense here, that we "make up the nationality rules as we go?" The³5₉ (Talk) 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Point-by-point, thanks for clarifying, yes I was confusing your point. Secondly, I've never been aware that it was policy (it was always previously argued that I can remember with respect to teams), if it was then violations are widespread and little effort has been made to correct and it is fundamentally more difficult to apply historically as it would require retrospective FIA/FISA licence lists, and thus filled with contradictions as drivers file their paperwork from different locations in defferent stages of their careers but nationality changes rarely, and if it is WP policy to refer to FIA licence for driver nationality then its factually inaccurate policy in tens of cases. Why are we perpetuaing an inaccurate policy? Thirdly, the Gachot example was illustrative only. The rules aren't ours to make up. We can't legislate what a driver believes their nationality to be anymore than we can legislate their favourite food. A licence is just part of a drivers paraphanalia. You may as well be using their helmets or gloves (which also need FIA paperwork approval).

As for factual proof, sort of photocopying and publishing confidential documents no I can't provide. However I have been an office bearer of several motorsport clubs. During that time members have included Australians driving and basing themselves overseas but applying though a home country club because it is important to them, and several international drivers living locally and racing in various other countries who prefer convenience. I can not proove it to your satisfaction, but that is how it is. It seems to me you have a preference to perpetuate a policy you know to be inaccurate, by drivers own statements, but however can be substantiated by a licence, which only proves the nationality of the paperwork, rather than the driver. Is that correct? --Falcadore (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Grosjean, I'd say we go by gt1world.com, as these are likely to be the same flags as used in TV coverage, timing and scoring and on the cars. I was going to mention podium flags/national anthems, but I guessed they use the flag of the team in GT racing. Listing Grosjean as anything other than French though is likely to cause conflict, as F1 said he was French. However, if we have a system to go by, like the series official site, we could probably do it that way. - mspete93 11:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

By way of some historical background, the issue has been discussed before, and, I believe, more often with respect to drivers than to teams. The conclusion has always ended up being that all we can reliably go by is the official nationality of the driver in question, as defined in the International Sporting Code para 112: 'As far as the application of this Code is concerned, every competitor or driver who has obtained their licence from an ASN takes the nationality of that ASN for the period of validity of that licence. All drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their licence, participating in any FIA World Championship event, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, meetings, information bulletins and prize-giving ceremonies.' So the rules differ slightly between F1 (an FIA world championship), where the passport is the deciding factor, and, say, the BTCC, where it's the ASN that issued the driver's license that is the decider. If there's conflict between sources as to what that nationality is then it makes life more difficult, but in that case we have to use the most appropriate source bearing in mind what the rules are.
FWIW, my opinion would be that Krumm's website is answering the questions "what is your ancestry?" (hence 'German/Swedish'), not "what nationality are you entered in the championship under?" If I'm understanding correctly that the GT1 championship is an FIA world championship, then the nationality can be different to the license (see above for explanation) and he would be German based on what you've said above, despite holding a Japanese license. 4u1e (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If however we went by what the FIA document says about nationality, then it would not match what is equally citable on GT1world.com, as Nicky Pastorelli is Italian to the FIA, but Dutch to GT1World, and we'd also have to change Romain Grosjean to Swiss, clearly conflicting with his article on Wikipedia which says French as that is what he raced under in F1. Same would also apply to Andreas Zuber who has been listed as UAE in all his GP2 information, but his nationality on GT1World.com and the FIA document is Austrian. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, I don't think there should be any real difference between the FIA usage in F1 and the FIA usage in GT1, they are both series they govern and both world championships. Same should also apply to WRC and WTCC. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you think. (Or what I think). The FIA treats some series different to others. However, I think both F1 and the GT1 championship are FIA world series, so they wouldn't in fact be treated differently. 4u1e (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a slight difference between F1 and other series, in that, once a driver reaches F1, there can be no messing around with foreign licences, and you have a licence from your home country. If that is so, then any F1 driver races under his own actual nationality. If Zuber ever makes it, he would have to race as an Austrian. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But Grosjean was born and resides in Switzerland. The FIA lists him as French for Formula 1. FIA document for GT1 lists him as Swiss nationality, French license. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignore where they're born, ignore where they live. What nationality are they officially racing under? Grosjean has dual French-Swiss nationality, and (had) a French racing license, although these can of course be changed on a yearly basis. If the FIA list him as competing as Swiss in GT1, then presumably he's changed which of his two nationalities he uses. It's not a problem - just use the Swiss flag in the infobox and note somewhere that he has raced under both flags. Under the rules given above Zuber would indeed be UAE in GP2, but Austrian in GT1, so no contradiction there either. 4u1e (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Switzerland, where motorsport has been banned for 50+ years, even have an ASN? Might that be the reason for his 'French-ness'? And what of drivers like Regazzoni, Surer and Foitek? Were they not allowed to be Swiss because of a lack of an ASN when driving at lower levels? Plus the insistence of licence overcoming... I dunno, reality maybe, Max Wilson would have become Australian up until two years ago, similarly Richard Lyons, the Brabham clan become British and American and Wayne Gardner becomes Japanese... all very much wide of the mark and I've never seen any of those drivers apart from David Brabham, listed by these alternatives with media outlets and commentators, press packs and so on, all preferring to list drivers as the drivers prefer themselves. I state again that this policy is perpetuating falsehoods. Just because the FIA list it in that way merely makes it an official falsehood. We routinely correct speculations and soft news that have been referenced even when it comes from official sources, why is this any different? --Falcadore (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I think I might not be getting my point across. In F1, which is the category applicable to most of the drivers you list above, it's the passport nationality that is relevant, not the license, so they have exactly the nationality you expect. There is no contradiction and the only potential confusion comes in cases where people hold more than one passport. For cases where it is the license that is relevant, you seem to be assuming that if you compete in, say, the UK, you can't hold a racing license from CAMS. Who says that is true? 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Switzerland does have some kind of ASN, this is the Swiss member of the FIA. Grosjean's situation is because he is also French. Buemi races as a Swiss, despite, I believe, having links with Bahrain. - mspete93 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland allows motorsports as long as it is not direct competition on a circuit. They still allow hillclimbs, and even had Swiss Formula Three Championship, mostly held outside the country, so yes they clearly hand out licenses.

So what does consensus seem to point to. Krumm is German, Buemi is Swiss, Zuber is Austrian, Maassen is Dutch, Pastorelli is...? The³5₉ (Talk) 04:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What passport does he hold? 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, can't see any suggestion that he's anything other than Dutch. Italian on the FIA list could just be an error based on his name, I suppose. Unless he holds dual nationality? 4u1e (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess this helps establish Grosjean's changed nationality The³5₉ (Talk) 03:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting! Purely as an unfounded opinion, it always looked to me that he was more 'naturally' Swiss than French (born, worked and lived there), but you had to suspect that being French had its advantages in terms of getting onto Renault's driver programme. As pure speculation, if he's now given up on F1 perhaps he feels more at home being Swiss? Anyway, if he's now definitely racing as Swiss then I suggest wording along the lines of "Romain Grosjean is a racing driver competing in the GT1 world championship. He holds dual French and Swiss nationality and competes in GT1 under the Swiss flag. In his earlier career he competed under the French flag in GP2 and Formula One." There's similar wording at Nico Rosberg, a similar case. 4u1e (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fire, meet Fuel - Grosjean's driver uniform has the French flag... The³5₉ (Talk) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Although he didn't have a flag on his overalls, I noticed Zuber had the UAE flag on his car. - mspete93 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Both secondary evidence. Focus on what is used in the official FIA results when published. 4u1e (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over some of the earlier discussion, I'd note that we need to be careful over the historical elements of this. The references I've given above are the way the rules apply now. They've definitely been like that for the last five years or so (because I've been looking at them) and for an unspecified period before that, I'd guess at least back to the late 1980s because they seem to have been applied to Bertrand Gachot. We need to be careful about trying to apply them retrospectively further back than that. Taking Falcadore's point about Antipodean drivers in the 1960s and 1970s, he may be right that back then the likes of Jack Brabham and Bruce McLaren used British racing licenses for reasons of convenience, although I've seen no proof to that effect. Maybe the RACMSA was able to issue Aussie licenses on behalf of CAMS. We don't know how the FIA interpreted official nationality then. However, to the best of my knowledge they've always been listed in official results under (respectively) Australia and New Zealand. And to repeat what I've said above, it's the official results we should take as our guide - it's just useful to understand that under current rules nationality may not be what you think it is, and may change when a driver changes category or license. 4u1e (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears for GT1 that we have decided to use the flags used by the championship. A good move I feel and the best one until we find a better solution. I feel that in season articles we should use the flag used by the championship. These articles should show the flag that they race under rather than their nationality as such. A driver's nationality should be shown in their articles. This clears up any issues of dual nationality like Grosjean. Drivers cannot race under two flags at the same time, even if they have exactly 50/50 split nationality between two nations. On the subject of Grosjean, it is worth noting that he raced for a French team in Renault in F1, and before that for ART in F3 and GP2. In GT1, he races for a Swiss team, so this may explain his decision to change between his two nationalities. - mspete93 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, every thing agreed above matches what the FIA say is the driver's nationality, by which of course they mean the flag they race under.† And that is what I would say is the most important thing here. († Except Pastorelli, and I think that may be an error). 4u1e (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)