Talk:Oval track racing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Raceway, Speedway, Superspeedway
just a question: what is the difference between
- Raceway
- Speedway
- Superspeedway
maybe they could be explained more detailed?
all the best, --menphrad 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Raceway is just a general name for a track. For example, Virgina International Raceway is a road course. Superspeedway has it's own article. Speedway is normally just used as a name, but could describe a one mile oval.Mustang6172 08:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Generally, a superspeedway refers to only Daytona and Talladega (and any other high-banked tracks that may be added at least 2 miles in length). Speedways are all other tracks 1 mile or longer, including flat long tracks. Pocono, Indy, California and Michigan belong in that category. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page title
The title of this page suggests the page should be about the dedicated road, not the discipline of motor racing. The discipline should be covered either in a separate section of the article, or at Oval track racing. After all, when the discipline is referred to as "oval track", that is an abbreviation, whereas oval track is the correct full name for something like the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, for example. Tbone762 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
- Further information: WT:MOTOR
I would much rather see one article of a decent size about ovals that includes superspeedways and rovals than the three stubby articles that we have now. It's fragmented and at this time, there is a lack of material (that may change one day, of course, but de-mergers are easy). Short tracks, etc. deserve their own articles as they have now, because they are much bigger individual subjects in their own right. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, one article is the way to go IMO. Most Rovals are also primarily Ovals and all SS's are classed as ovals so having one article of decent length makes more sense than bits here and there. AlexJ 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm all for merging this article with superspeedway, and maybe even short tracks. I think rovals are different enough to justify a separate article. I have been considering ways to expand this article by adding some of the criticisms of ovals related to driver skill and safety.Mustang6172 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Short track racing has a distinct history to it that would make it inappropriate to include in any merger. However, how are rovals a sufficiently distinct and complex subject to warrant a separate article, particularly at this time? Remember that what we have now is only enough to fill a section and if that ever changes (of which I am doubtful right now) then it is easy to fork it off over the redirect, using the {{main}} style that I proposed for boardtrack, dirt, etc. Adrian M. H. 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'm all for merging this article with superspeedway, and maybe even short tracks. I think rovals are different enough to justify a separate article. I have been considering ways to expand this article by adding some of the criticisms of ovals related to driver skill and safety.Mustang6172 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel word usage
"Some pundits" claiming the supercession of Daytona over Indianapolis; while such is true (that some believe it), the emotional reaction it can draw from many fans (personally attesting to this myself, in fact) lends to my requesting that these individuals be identified, along with any who might disagree...or, the removal of the passage entirely from the article. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)