Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 6

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

Thanks. —

Here. Any and all (relevant) comments welcome. Apterygial 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice the (relatively) recent creation of

They're not Grands Prix. The only one you could feasibly apply the title "Grand Prix" to is the 1901 Pau Grand Prix, which is an anomaly in being first to use the name, but not the format one associates with "Grand Prix". Also, the Automobile Club de France retrospectively stated that some of these trials were incarnations of the "French Grand Prix", which is another problem. All I can come up with is "Early European motorsport", which is terrible. Readro (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"European motorsport 1894-1905"? Agree not Grand Prix. 4u1e (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Early History of Motorsport? --Falcadore (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From this discussion on WikiProject F1, I believe that winners of F1 Grands Prix should be removed from the articles on racing circuits, as almost every circuit in existance holds a multitude of races of varying importance. Consensus seems to be that there is approval for removing F1 results from circuit articles.

I also further propose, in regards to all motorsports circuits, that any lists of race winners might be removed. It is my feeling that race winners belong on an article about the race, not necessarily on an article about a circuit. Case in point,

Disagree I don't agree that race winners should be removed from articles. Formula One articles on Wikipedia are the only well-developed set of articles that contain articles for each race. NASCAR is probably the next most developed, and it doesn't have an article for each race. Little progress is being made on NASCAR articles anymore; WikiProject NASCAR is a shell of its former self. In short, I don't think that any other series is well-developed enough to warrant removal of race winners. Royalbroil 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think every race having an article should be a requirement. And by race, I mean the event. See,

Monterey Grand Prix, Coca-Cola 600, etc. If we were to keep race results on articles about a circuit, what exactly would be the criteria? Some popular circuits like Watkins Glen International would be full of results tables from every major series that has run there. ^IIIV_IX (Talk

) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's different if there are already existing articles for various series. I know lots of early NASCAR tracks only major races have been NASCAR races. Often main content on the circuit's article is a discussion of the NASCAR results, which were done instead of a separate race article. I didn't agree with it as a blanket statement, but there are lots of situations where it does make sense. So I think that Lakewood Speedway can remain as it is right now, except if someone wants to spend the time to develop separate articles for the NASCAR and AAA/USAC (now Indycar/IRL) races. The same thing with Heidelberg Raceway and the Illinois State Fairgrounds Racetrack. Royalbroil 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor ovals like that I think I can agree on, my concern was mostly with US and international circuits which have a wide variety of racing. This I think should include the likes of oval circuits which also have road courses used for other series. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like we agree then. I can see removing Formula One (and most other major series) results from most (if not all) circuit articles, as long as the results are in another article (which I bet most are). If someone wants to remove results from an article, then they need to check that they are in another article (or create one themself). I have struck out my disagree above. Royalbroil 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a circuit article should primarily be about the circuit itself (construction, major events, layout changes etc.) rather than provide fairly detailed stats about events held at the circuit.

I agree. A circuit article does not need a detailed list of winners for any individual event. Pyrope 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Recently, F1 race results have been deleted from (too) many circuit pages, in most cases for no good reason, especially when the circuit doesn't host F1 anymore, or isn't operational anymore. Ain-Diab Circuit hosted a non-WC F1 race in 1957, and its 1958 event counted towards the WC. That's pretty much all we had known about that track - until it was deleted from the circuit page, to be hidden elsewhere. Does it make Wikipedia better to reduce articles back to stubs? Does removing F1 results inspire people to investigate the history of other events there? If F1 GP results are removed, what chance of survival has a F3 or touring car race result? I hope to find an overview of results by all events available at all track pages (or a subpages "list of results at ..."), which may allow comparison between the lap times of different series, the effect of layout changes, when they raced there and when not, etc. Whats the point of removing venue-related information from the venue's article, and hiding it solely in a series page? You guys have a nice way of spoiling holidays. Really. Jesus returned on the third day, though, as they say, but he had to negotiate with death only, not with Wikipedia editors feeling an itch to remove information that in most cases had been added by others. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because we spend our time just thinking of ways to upset other editors. I took your post seriously until the last bit, which was pretty insulting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it make Wikipedia better to reduce articles back to stubs? If a table was the only thing stopping it from being a stub, then a stub is all it was and the rating was false. A table is not a substitute for actual content. --Falcadore (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)For the example you give, Ain-Diab Circuit, I note that in the current version of the text is the following: "On 19 October 1958 the course was the venue for the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix, the final round in the 1958 Formula One season. It was won by Stirling Moss driving a Vanwall, completing the 53 laps in 2h 09m 15.1s." - what did having the table add to that?

Moving back to a more general example, each article should be concise, we can't provide every last detail of every event that has ever occurred there. In what is intended to be a general article about the circuit, a balance must be struck between each aspect, of which events held at a circuit is only one minor part. Hundreds of races may be held at a circuit, but it's only constructed once, modified a handful of times, changes owner once or twice etc. Trying to give the hundreds of events a similar weighting as details on the circuit's conception and construction inevitabely means that there has to be some cut-off in the level of detail provided. The debate is about where that cut-off should be. My personal opinion is that it's relevant to say that a series raced at a track between certain dates, but it's too detailed to give information on the winning drivers and teams from each and every year. It's worth also remembering that an article is intended to primarily be a written section of prose rather than a bunch of tables. The latter type of page is a list and is not what the circuit pages should be. Info about laptimes between layout changes this should be done in prose where context can be provided. The aim of Wikipedia is not to be a stats-fest for the hardcore fan, but to provide accessible information on a topic that can be understood by those with only a basic knowledge of the subject.

Finally, I wonder how Wikipedia would look if we all tried a tug on the heartstrings to get our own way? Keep it factual and to the point, and your argument will be taken more seriously.

AlexJ (talk

) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed

I reverted the WRC table. Its April, deciding these titles is six months away, they'll just be blank for months and months. It's pointless. There are links to current series articles at the top of the page. Completely unnecessary. --Falcadore (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also - the WRC article has had current series information as a large chunk of the piece for a very long time. Years at least. --Falcadore (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the above article, plus other WSBR race reports should be sent to AFD. Unlike F1 and MotoGP (and I guess A1GP), this doesn't satisfy notability guidelines in my view. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's too low of a tier in open wheel racing to really need individual race reports. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've

2009 Barcelona World Series by Renault round. D.M.N. (talk

) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a support race for the 2009 Monaco Grand Prix - merger perhaps? --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think merging with the Grand Prix page would be a good idea, it would set the precedent that all GP articles should detail support races, where the focus should be on F1. A merger with the

series season article would be more appropriate. Apterygial

Having edited the Barcelona page, I feel it'd be more appropriate to merge back into the series article. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While reading through the history of the

Not so far as I'm aware. I think the Anglo rather than All use is a hang-over from the early days of Wikipedia when the F1:WP was the only one very active. I see no reason not to move the page. Pyrope 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=timezone&prefix=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject+Formula+One%2FArchive&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search or related searches, and not sure if this is one for this project or perhaps an ancestor. Basically, what's with the timezone field in circuit infoboxes? Should this be changed everytime a circuit moves into or out of daylight savings? For instance, the UK and Silverstone are currently on BST, (GMT+1), but the box says GMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverstone_Circuit&oldid=283463149). Especially as not everyone changes on the same dates, I think this could only lead to confusion.. Anyway, opening the floor.

(as initially raised at the F1 projectpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One) 78.151.177.80 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to use the flag of the Land hosting the race weekend instead of the German national flag because these series use German circuits principally, so it is easier to distinguish the area of the circuit. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By that do you mean a German regional flags? Personally I'd be against that unless it was a specifically all German series. Certainly against it for the F3 Euroseries as the series name and its heritage (a merger of the French and German F3 national series) specifically suggests an international series rather than a domestic series. --Falcadore (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

F3 euroseries is a merger, but it is also a support series of the DTM, which is a German series. Mattomatteo27 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can get DTM to stop going to France, Spain, Britain and Holland, I'll agree with you happily. --Falcadore (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit like AAR, this is another page that has had the wrong title for a long time. The page was originally titled simply Lola or Lola (constructor), I can't recall anymore, but someone decided to rename it in haste in order to clean up some disambiguation, and they basically did it incorrectly. There is no such thing as Lola Racing Cars, hence why I want to fix this problem. This however creates two new problems as 1) What should the proper name be and 2) There's roughly 1000 pages which link to Lola Racing Cars and would need fixing.

So, Lola themselves is officially the Lola Group, which features Lola Cars and Lola Composites. The car division is obviously what the entire article about, although Lola Composites does have some mentions elsewhere (for instance, the

After the name is decided, I'll need some help from people to fix all the Lola links so that they go to the correct page. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's actually no need to fix the links, per

WP:NOTBROKEN. DH85868993 (talk

) 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems silly not to, to me at least... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are other things I'd rather spend my time on. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* Any name suggestions though? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably go for "Lola Cars". DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably "Lola Cars". If we had "Lola Group" we'd probably have to have "McLaren Group" too. Apterygial 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We do. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In which case I have no problem with "Lola Group". Probably should have checked that. Apterygial 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My heart says Lola Cars, but logically I guess Lola Group is correct, with redirects from Lola Cars and Lola Racing Cars. Regarding the amount of work, can we place a request for a bot to do it? 4u1e (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No preference. Just updating the templates manually often fixes many wikilinks. Royalbroil 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the page only concerns the cars part of the group I'd say Lola Cars was the better title. The group and the composites parts of the company can be mentioned and should someone want to create those pages then let them, but to give the page a general title when the subject is specific seems odd. Pyrope 13:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article moved to Lola Cars with mentions of Lola Group and Lola Composites. I've mostly made corrections to templates and major articles about Lola teams and cars. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think serious consideration has to be taken into deleting this template. It is turning into a monster. Every little 2009, 2008/09 and 2009/10 motor racing series is going to get added as each editor running those pages finds, and adds their series. It is already a very bloated template, that is going to get worse. And does it really add anything not done by the Category:2009 in motorsport ?

Its a good idea but without reasonable and enforcable limits it will turn into a large glob of fat at the bottom of referenced pages. Potentially it could yet grow to double its present size. --Falcadore (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it may be a good idea, but as User:Falcadore says, it will only get bigger. If a user wants to look for 2009 series, then they can look at the 2009 in motorsport category page. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete I would make it unusable if I put in every series that I know about. Royalbroil 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As the person who created the template, I guess I should weigh in. The reason I created the template in the first place was because, as a user, I found it somewhat inconvenient to navigate between the pages of the 2009 F1 season, the 2009 World Rally Championship season, the 2009 MotoGP season etc when I wanted to check on the status of these series. I know it is not excessively difficult, but the template makes it a lot simpler. Regarding categories and in particular Category:2009 in motorsport, they definitely have their place but are not so useful for day to day navigation. The relevant pages and subcategories are not laid out so that you can see all the major motorsport series grouped together in a convenient way. In fact, for everyday usage I think it is more convenient to navigate by using the search box.

I take the point about the amount of things in the template. Is that a major problem? As it stands I think it looks comprehensive rather than overbearing. If it is a problem, maybe the template could be trimmed rather than scrapped altogether. It could be only for truly premier class series and "international" series only, without any feeder series. Of course I realise there may arise conflicts over the definitions of these terms, e.g. someone might argue that the IndyCar series is not truly international and can be regarded as a non-premier or feeder class for formula 1, whereas I would regard it as a premier class and international series. However, I think it would be possible to come to a consensus as to which series might qualify as sufficiently high-level.

Basically, I advocate keeping it, as it is useful for navigability, but possibly trimming it down to the really top level international series and events (eg of such an event - the Dakar Rally). Juwe (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I meant by it not having reasonable and enforcable limits, either shrink it to top level international series (and deciding what series gets those honours will be as popular as delisting F1 test drivers), or subdivide it into particular streams - Motorcycling, Rallying, Open Wheel, Sports/GT, Touring/Stock Cars etc --Falcadore (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have been guilty myself of adding too many championships, but I agree that we should keep it, just trim it down to championships with international significance, which would include BTCC and V8 Supercars, but not STCC.

talk

) 09:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we move this... box to the category itself? The category lists the pages by name, so the box could help users to search pages by race type. I've suggested the same regarding automobile timelines. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would have in a trimmed-down version of the template. DO NOT EDIT THIS VERSION- JUST SUGGEST CHANGES BELOW. One-off events part of other championships such as indy and daytona have been removed. Alternatively we could have seperate templates for each genre as Falcadore suggested. What do we think?

Anything that could be added to the version above (please give reasons)

• How about including Category:2009 in motorsport in an "Other" row?--Midgrid(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• The Intercontinental Rally Challenge, FIA GT3 European Championship and Motocross World Championship are all international level. The IRC is organized by Eurosport, held all over the world, features works-supported teams and is included in the list of FIA approved series. GT3 is part of the titles attributed by the FIA, and World Motocross is self-explanatory. I don't include the European Rally Championship because the competition is mostly dead and most ERC rounds are also IRC rounds. --Pc13 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you with IRC- I created the page but I wasn't sure how seriously it is taken. I also agree with you with removing Grand-Am and the minor Nascar series

talk

) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything that could be removed from the version above (please give reason)

• I imagine both the Rolex Sports Car Series (Grand-Am) and any NASCAR division with the exception of the NASCAR Sprint Cup will have low interest outside its country of origin. If you say NASCAR to a motorsports fan outside North America, he will think only of the Sprint Cup, which is the only series I've seen with reporting in the European media. Likewise, the Rolex series, usually just called "Grand-Am" (erroneously, I know), has reporting identical in size to stuff like Super GT, FFSA GT, ADAC GT, Belcar and the International GT Open in European magazines. I cite my experience reading Autosport (UK), Autosprint (Italy) and Auto Hebdo and Le Mans Magazine (both France). --Pc13 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stock car and Touring car really should be merged. Both are sedan based silouhette series. --Falcadore (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What title could we give it?

talk

) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Saloon Cars? Saloon Cars & Stock Cars? Touring Cars & Stock Cars? --Pc13 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sedan racing? The article is called Sedan (automobile) is it not? --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No one in the U.S. will look for NASCAR if the section title isn't stock car racing. I disagree with any of these other names. Stock cars and touring cars shouldn't be merged, even if they are both used to based on production vehicles. Royalbroil 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Touring & Stock car racing" would seem a reasonable name which avoids confusion. Juwe (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one in the U.S. will look for NASCAR if the section title isn't stock car racing - but it will say NASCAR right beside it. I think that's a touch OTT reaction. If word NASCAR was hidden, I'd agree, but it isn't. It's merely a recognition that there are two different words that mean the same thing. The goal here I believe was to make this smaller, to have two different lines for sedan based series seems non-sensical. It would be like having two different lines based on whether a league refers to itself as Association Football or Soccer. We merge GT and Protoypes into Sports Cars because its a catch all phrase, Sedan would perform a similar function and on the same basis. I'd be happy with Touring and Stock as well but there I do not believe there to be a justification to not merge. --Falcadore (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what OTT means. And I meant that the template won't be useable for Americans, they'll find it pretty difficult to navigate. I don't think that the template is too high - we should be able to easily have both stock car and touring car lines. If it would HAVE to be merged (which I don't think it does), then the "touring & stock car racing" is a much better option than making up a name like saloon or sedan cars. There isn't even agreement in the English speaking world which is the preferred term. So it looks like there's no neutral term. Looking at the article sedan (automobile), it says that the car has 2 rows of seats. NASCAR has one racing seat for the driver and that's it. With the Car of Tomorrow, it is located more towards the center of the car than a traditional driver's seat. Royalbroil 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OTT - Over the top. I picked Sedan, because the article was titled Sedan rather than Saloon. And of course there are no racing cars with back seats, a reference to the origination vehicle rather than a race car, in the same way that a Le Mans Porsche 997 GT3 is substantionally different from a 997 road car. But I fail to see how it becomes hard to navigate, is it your contention that these Americans could not find the word 'NASCAR' left-most in the list line, and in acronym capitals no less, in the list above without the Stock Car in the Group Line next to it?

Are you saying that rough approximation is too hard to navigate? --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult. Most know NASCAR as NASCAR -- much like tissues are Kleenex and healing devices are Band-Aids. I could see the general category for this purpose as sedan racing. The combination of NASCAR and Touring Cars into a single article describing sedan racing (not sure if this is the direction going) is a no-no, though. WTCC and BTCC are very different than NASCAR/CASCAR. I would even place V8 Supercars as its own category. For template purposes I could see it called sedan racing, but stock car racing would be preferred. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sedan racing" can't be used because not all touring cars are sedans. There are lots of hatchbacks and a few station wagons (examples one, two). --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody happy for me to go ahead and cut down this template? Don't forget that whatever changes I make are not final.

I have now cut down the

Keep as most commonly known name. Everyone knows A.J. - nobody knows what A.J. stands for and would not look him up on that basis. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion closed after 9 hours with 12 supports to move and 0 opposes. Royalbroil 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that having the

Think you'd get a fight from the F1 folk, with F1 considered above all else and all. --Falcadore (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, consider Juan Pablo Montoya for example. If a driver is currently active it seems to make sense that the top infobox is their current series. If they are retired it should be that series in which they had the greatest degree of success. Pyrope 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than the current Wikipedia format indicating a driver's placing, Autocourse and Motocourse indicate points earned as in the following John Surtees example. I don't think there will be much clamor for change, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.

Orsoni (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Although that is a valid point, I'm afraid that I'm not a fan of that system because it is not immediately clear where the driver finished in each race. Also, it would take forever to change it all. Therefore it should stay as it is.

Meanwhile, while we're on the subject of drivers results tables I have created one for World Touring Car Drivers

talk

) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The drama with the presentation format is how do you differentiate in the finishing order of those who finish outside of the points. 7th would look exactly the same as sixteenth - that shade of blue with a '0' in it. There are some series I would be in favour of it though, series like British Touring Car Championship, and V8 Supercar where points structure varies from race to race. It would have to be limited to those circumstance though. --Falcadore (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points.Orsoni (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be articles for racing families, like there are for political and other sorts of families? I would think a central clearing house for general information on the likes of the Brabhams would be a good idea. say...

I concur. Perhaps long-winded (all links are to the "patriarch", if you will), but I agree on pages created for

AJ's page), the Bettenhausens, the Villeneuves, the Scheckters, and the Davisons. Maybe The Mears Gang, the Fittipaldis, The Laziers

, and (dare I suggest) The Whittington brothers?

In

The Greens, The Houstons, The Keselowskis, and The Woods

.

There is a page devoted to this topic, but certainly racing's most prominent families should have a cumulative page (Andretti, Unser, Earnhardt, etc). On such a page for each family, perhaps a side-by-side comparison could be made between father and son or brother VS brother. 97.125.92.220 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for the various surnnames should be enough to handle this on a basic level. Additionally the varied members of a racing family each have very different racing careers which may not be easily comparable, and each racer should stand on their own merits anyway. And side-by-side comparison will be wading into

WP:Original Research. --Falcadore (talk

) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)I

If the side-by-side comparison isn't in the book, it would be. I believe it to be unnecessary, but my opinion has only the power you give it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Iffy. Could see purposes for famous racing families that have three or more members like the Earnhardts, Allisons, Pettys, Brabhams, Andrettis and Bettenhausens. The Bodines? True, there's Brett, Geoff and Todd, but honestly I would disagee with it unless we got into what's in the Chemung, N.Y. waters that brought them all to NASCAR. Would have to be inclusive of dynasties and more than simply a page discussing the fact they happen to all race. I would orient it more toward families with multiple generations racing (i.e. Marco Andretti and Jeffery Earnhardt getting into the top ranks of their series). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another concern I would have was that there would very likely to be a large amount of duplication in these articles of information from articles based on the individual drivers. The end result of one of these family pages would have to be markedly different from the individual driver articles, and it would have to be an articles on the family, rather than on the individual members of the family. A case like the Brabhams would be difficult as each of the five (Matthew Brabham is beginning to verge on notability) of them have had completely divergent careers with little in common. --Falcadore (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has created {{

Yes - I think it's a gppd idea. Formula Two is the second thing after Formula One and if we want people to know about Formula Two, we need to give them more information... - TrickOrDeath 14:53, May 31, 2009 (UTC)

But what new information does a separate template provide that justifies its existence? And if you're proposing that the F2-specific infobox should remain in the article once a driver leaves the series, then this is not (usually) the case with similar-level championships such as International Formula 3000 and the GP2 Series: all are covered by the Infobox racing driver template.--Midgrid(talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary, and as User:Midgrid states, it is all covered by the original infobox template. Cs-wolves(talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. It would only have a use if it didn't actually have the 'team' section, because I don't really like having MotorsportVision every time, but its just not needed. On a similar theme, what do we think of the BTCC Driver template (

talk

) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe its sufficiently notable to justify it. It most definitely does not operate on the same level as F3000/GP2 as one rung below F1. Probably around the same level as WSR or EuroF3 really. --Falcadore (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. A user has created the

User talk:Mr.Z-man is working on something that will provide us with some stats. on page views along the lines of:

• stats.grok.se

He's working on this for June - so maybe by next month we'll be able to see what articles are getting the most traffic. He also mentioned that he'll be doing this for

I support the idea of each series only having a single template which is updated every year, as described above. I raised the issue that the BTCC templates are inconsistent with most other series in this regard at WikiProject British Motorsport back in 2007 but received no response. With regard to the comment that "in F1 there used to be a template for the teams and drivers for each year" - since I joined WP:F1 back in 2006, there's only ever been the one template (Template:Formula One teams) which has been updated every year - this is supported by the template's revision history which goes all the way back to 2004. Admittedly the template was renamed to "Template:2008 Formula One teams" from early November 2007 to early January 2008 - an editor renamed the template without discussion and it took a couple of months for the name to be changed back. DH85868993 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I'd just seen that the 2008 template had been renamed and assumed this was a change from the norm. I only joined back in February so I just had to go by looking at previous discussions.

talk

) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - it's sometimes difficult to follow the history of articles unless you "were there at the time". DH85868993 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Most templates found in Category:Racecar driver infobox templates are very similar to each other. Except those Nascar ones, which are full of particular details as we could expect in an English-language encyclopedia, I believe that the rest can be merged into Template:Infobox racing driver:

• Personal information like name, image, place and date of birth, nationality etc are already found in the top of the template.
• In the section about the last series' details, we could add "cars" (very relevant in most racing forms), "podium finishes" (or "top 5 finishes" depending on series), "first/last race", "first/last win", "co-driver" and "stage wins", (for rally drivers) and "championship points". Actually, I find the latter field irrelevant, since most championships change the points system every few seasons.
• Most important of all, there should be at least three championship sections, for drivers such as Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Pablo Montoya who raced in nearly major racing series.

I've created an example here. What do you think? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the Formula Two season pages from 1967 to 1984 don't make references to non-championship races (which started in 1964, not 67), or to the Trophées de France, Autocar F2 Championship and Temporada Series which ran to F2 regulations in the mid to late 60s. Should these have their own articles or do they work better in the respective European Formula Two season article? --Pc13 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Autocar, Trophee de France and Temporada could each justify their own article, once there's enough material on them. I'm not sure about the non-championship races. Perhaps they should be included with whichever ever series seems natural (i.e. British ones in the right period with the British F2 series, French ones in the right period with the French F2 series, other European ones of the right period with the European F2 series etc)? 4u1e (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows anything about the commentator

I'm a bit puzzled by this. On the wikipedia commons there appears to be a collection of

A question to be asked on a Commons talk page rather than here I would have thought. --Falcadore (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but my logic was that more people would be able to see it here than on the commons, no? ;-) --

Review this GA review!

14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was very strange to see numbers added to images that I uploaded on Commons. I don't understand how that grouping is useful for an image repository. How many readers will use car number as a searching index? Royalbroil 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost no-one I would have thought. I had a think and these were the only examples I could think of: 0 (Damon Hill for two years in F1), 27 (Gilles Villeneuve for 2 years in F1 and Jacques Villeneuve in Indycar), and Greg Moore's 99 in Indycar. I really can't imagine many people wanting to search on that basis though. 4u1e (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting

Review this GA review!

21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created some userboxes on my user page to show what racing series I follow, and therefore contribute to. Feel free to use these on your user page or create your own for the series that I have left out. A selection of them are below. Thanks MotorsportPete93 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Motorsport to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that the User:F1season's article is relevant enough? I believe it's not. NaBUru38 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself needs some work, but I believe a race event from a series of World Championhsip status is highly relevant. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly agree that WTCC is under represented. We have four articles up on individual rounds of the 1987 WTCC (and a brand new User Infobox just two items above this section!), why not the 2008 WTCC, or even better the 2009 WTCC? And should not the name of the article be Race of Brazil? --Falcadore (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right Falcadore with the name, I think it should be 2008 WTCC Race of Brazil. I'm happy to do articles about the 2009 season. Should I include support race (F2, IFM, Leon Eurocup etc.) data? In fact could we give races their proper titles, e.g. 2009 FIA WTCC HSBC Race of Brazil? MotorsportPete93 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just created 2009 FIA WTCC Race of Portugal MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you get too carried away, driver and team articles need much work.

2008 Curitiba World Touring Car Championship round in its current condition could fail, certainly needs some prose added and some citations. --Falcadore (talk

) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's broadcast live on Eurosport. Is that enough? --Pc13 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With very active domestic touring car series across Wiki and a rich category history dating back into the 1960s under its predeccor name the ETCC and with factory backed team efforts from four manufacturers, one of them from a developing motoring manufacturer nation, and who headline their own race meetings, I believe so, although it will require some more enthusiastic editting than presently available, and some priority should be shifted to expansion of team and driver articles first like RML certainly and definately BMW Team UK.

I don't really believe notability is the biggest problem. Individual rounds could be justifiably removed, especially if it is just a list of results, while articles on series, drivers and teams are improved and/or created. Certainly the page in question is deleteable as it carries no information other than the finishing order.

My opinions however have only the power you give them. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are race report-type articles on series far less notable that this one! If someone wants to spend the time to do an article and they use reliable sources - then let them. I suggest NOT getting people's opinion about whether or not a topic is notable - use the notability guideline. Per Wikipedia:Notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute. Just meet the following sentence: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If you have significant coverage in reliable independent sources, then you have a valid topic. AFD regulars will base their opinion on these 2 sentences. Royalbroil 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is worthy of more coverage on Wikipedia. It is the thrid FIA World Championship and at the moment probably gets less coverage than

FIA GT. The manufacturer presence is also of significance. The Porto round is still work in progress by the way. MotorsportPete93 (talk)

09:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that sentence, Royalbroil. If I'm not mistaken, several media outiside Eurosport have covered the WTCC, so under that definition the issue is notable indeed. Actually, my view is that one article per season is enough, even for Formula One. But I'm very late to the party, of course, so et's go ahead with articles on WTCC races. I'd go for "2008 WTCC Race of Brazil" as the right title format - we don't use sponsor names for non-American races. However, some countries receive more than one race per season, so that may cause trouble. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Imola's race last year was 'Race of Europe'. In previous years I think it was 'Race of San Marino'. This year it's 'Race of Italy' anyway. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [4]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Formula BMW for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Brabham BT46 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)