Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
AOWR Talk: Archive 1 (October 2006-November 2006)

AOWR Talk:Archive 2 (November 2006-April 2007)

AOWR Talk:Archive 3 (April 2007-July 2007)

AOWR Talk:Archive 4 (May 2007-January 2008)


Contents

[edit] Lexmark Indy 300

As Lexmark is no longer the naming sponsor this article should be renamed and any reference in the article to Lexmark Indy 300 (other than past references) should be altered. The race is currently being referred to as the Gold Coast Indy 300 in publications including its own web site [[1]]. I could make the changes to the internal references but, as I am unsure of the best way to change the title, I'd rather leave it to someone more capable than me. Steve turtle (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't change all historic redirects, since race names change so frequently. There are no remaining double redirects, and I updated its use in all templates. Royalbroil 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 4

Moved some older talk material to Archive4...linked above in the box. I left several active discussions. Doctorindy (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Motorsport Library

I've made a suggestion at WikiProject Motorsport for a list of hardcopy references and who holds them, to help with referencing articles. This was prompted by the realisation that I have access to quite a lot of material which I'm not currently using. Please comment here. Cheers. 4u1e 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Podium" for top three in IRL?

Is it appropriate to refer to top-three finishes in the IRL (in the "Career Results" section, e.g., Dan Wheldon) as "podium" finishes? I've never heard a top-three finish referred to as a podium finish in the context of IRL races--is this something that was inappropriately carried over from F1 career results? Instead of "Podiums (Non-win)" and "Top 10s (Non-podium)," should these be called "2nd-3rd" and "4th-10th"? Chuck 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I see now that the IRL's own driver web pages (e.g., [2]) lists "Wins", "Top 5", and "Top 10". Is 3rd an arbitrary cutoff point for IRL finishes, that should be changed to 5th? Chuck 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "podium" has never been used in the IRL, and also has NEVER been used at Indianapolis. A "podium" (1-2-3) was used during the CART years, as early as the late 80s (perhaps earlier) and throughout the 90s. But IRL only celebrates the winner. The best thing to do would be "top 5s" and "top 10s" Doctorindy 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Podium finishes have been referred to at road and street course tracks in IndyCar since their inclusion; as far as I remember, it was briefly stated on the IMSRN that Marco was aiming for a podium finish ("or even win..." etc) at Watkin's Glen last year, before the incident with Cheever. I then applied it to all page references in general because of three reasons:
1) CART. In the end, anything that can refer to the two American open-wheel series' together, with the same kind of references, would be constructive for people seeking to know information about them, per this being an encyclopedia. CART and IRL (and USAC Indy 500s before them), for all the people breathing fire and hate between the two sides, descend from the same ancestor, American open-wheel racing of the 1970s and previous; they have become different only in very specific technical regulations (as opposed to the massive differences between open-wheel and NASCARs), in what kind of courses they emphasize, and in who controls the groups politically. I believe those differences are insufficient to overcome the number of similarities...heck, that's part of our concept of even having the WP:AOWR. Therefore, the question of taste arises, and this is where things get personal, emotional, and non-encyclopedic.
2) The IRL website tries to appeal to Americans, in general. Americans are used to Wins, Top 5s and Top 10s. This, however, is something done more often in America than internationally; internationally, not only do you have the F1 podium standard, you have the source it came from, the gold, silver and bronze of the Olympic Games. Part of what made me choose the F1 as the preference to have is that the F1 template for driver finishes has the gold, silver and bronze colors for the first three; fourth and fifth are the same color, the light green. In F1, it stands for points finishes, and blue is outside, while purple is retired. As I mentioned previously in discussions about the CART system, they have no blue slots anymore: everything is a points finish, now, with less than 20 cars in...in IRL it's even more so, they award given points to everyone who starts. Having the color code go from gold to silver to bronze to green (when Top 5s are supposed to be the American thing, mind you), then to purple, skipping over blue, is simply this, to my eyes: ugly. Therefore, I simply made greens be Top 10s; top 10s are understandable to everyone, they're only two more slots than the F1 template of fourth through eighth being green, and they don't give the ugliness of constant greens before skipping over blues. I tried to make the case at the CCWS discussions on it, but it didn't take. And, in turn, I kept the 1-2-3 color code for one reason, reason #3.
3) WP:MOTOR's goal of standardization. Are we going to create a template for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th? Technically, if you look at the ways the words (or semi-number words) are spoken, first, second and third are disconnected from the others, which all end in "th". Are we going to deviate from the completely rational F1 template to be "different, because we're an American series"? Frankly I think that'd sound rather stupid, as the goal is to standardize concepts for ease of comprehension, and yet not be inaccurate. Reporting drivers as finishing in the top three is not inaccurate, and doesn't jar the eye, either.
4) Fourth point: what colors would you replace it with? Back to the system of Dark Green for the winner, and nothing for anyone else? If so, than between the two the F1 one looks much better (and cooler, to be emotional about it), in every possible way. If someone wants to say "that's because F1 IS better," whatever...the point is to be easy to understand, and eye-catching. And if they are made starkly different, to convey six separate colors (1st-5th, then 6th and back, maybe even a 7th, for cars out?), will that inspire international motorsports fans to basically ask, in their minds, "WTH?", when they see the pages? --Chr.K. 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In looking this over, and the attempt to carefully explain my position, I realize that the details might inspire some of the CART/IRL friction to revive, and the hate to "spew anew." Wonderful choices, mine... --Chr.K. 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I like how the color system is implemented on Wheldon's page: 1=Gold, 2=silver, 3=bronze. It's easy for anyone how knows the Olympics to understand. You said that blue is available. How about using green for 4th & 5th, and blue for 6th to 10th. Then Top 5 will be distinguised from Top 10. We need to be as consistent as possible (point #3). I am fortunately not heated about any of the IRL/CART split issue - I unfortunately stopped watching. I joined the WikiProject because I understand AOWR from the 1970s to the split. Royalbroil 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This leaves the question of what to do with 11th to not running. The purple color in the F1 standard means Out; it is important because finishing low because of mechanical trouble (or even crashing) is different than finishing low due to not being as good as those about you, that day, and gives a decent impression of how good a driver is. A.J. Foyt IV has a lot of blues right now, Tomas Scheckter has a lot of purples...but Scheckter is overall the better driver, because he regularly finishes better when his car doesn't break on him. Therefore, this is a problem. --Chr.K. 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Robin Miller speaking of achieving podiums in IRL.
The difference between any IRL-esque reference is that they are by observers, and not by race officials. Robin Miller talking about "podium finishes" in the IRL is just a synonym for him saying a driver trying to get a "top three." A "podium" finish (as it always has in F1, CART, and the Olympics) means the driver is going to be able to stand on a three-tiered riser after the race is over and be recognized as a top three finisher. F1 and CART even gave out trophies for 2nd place and 3rd place. The status of a "podium" finish has always been known generally as a desireable finish. However, if you watch an IRL race (and NASCAR for that matter), all you see is VICTORY LANE, and the winner. The IRL celebrates the winner only, and everyone else is simply an "also-ran" for the lack of a better term. Only the winner gets a trophy too. Tracks in the IRL do not (or rarely) have a 1-2-3 tiered platform for the drivers to stand onto. I think they did a special podium for the season finale in 2006, but that was for the season championship, not the race itself. We'll see what they do at Watkins Glen this weekend, I'm sure the Glen "has" a platform, but I doubt the IRL will use it. Doctorindy 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
They did not have a platform. Therefore, I support the current IRL system for "look" and standardization method. In other words, why make them different when they can be the same? If there are journalistic references to podium runs, then it can be included on Wikipedia, for people to have a single shorthand to think by, thereby making the searchers' jobs easier. If having podium references is unnecessary, then changing from them also is, due to IRL never actually stating POINT-BLANK that THIS is how we measure things. Then again, neither has NASCAR, so far as I know. --Chr.K. 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand the last post, but I can definitively say that there is no podium in NASCAR. I have attended several NASCAR Busch Series races at Milwaukee and I have watched hundreds of NASCAR races on TV. It sounds like consensus we should avoid mentioning podium finishes in articles just like we do at WikiProject NASCAR. As for the method of marking the finishing positions, it would be nice to use an established standard like the F1 method, but we should only use it if it makes sense within this WikiProject. Is there another color available for 11th to not running? Are we including a legend on all articles like WikiProject F1 does? Royalbroil 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1) I'm against not using podium finishes for open-wheel shorthand when they have been mentioned, "whether or not IRL officialdom concurs," by sports journalists of the two American open-wheel series, when commenting on IRL. Miller has mentioned it, John Oreovicz has mentioned it...even if it's not something that comes up on the website yet, it IS verifiably mentioned in several locations. Why change it, if it is an international motorsports shorthand? (The Sportscar project uses it, too)
2) I do not consider open-wheel and NASCAR similar to each other, in how they do things. Aside from POV angles such as my belief that NASCAR makes **** up as they go, they quite simply have a different Tradition than the open-wheel machines; NASCAR goes back to the beach races on the Daytona sands by stock machines, open-wheel goes back to the first machines of ANY kind (by definition). Just because NASCAR does something a certain way most certainly does NOT mean Americans in general do.
3) So far as I've been able to tell, no, there is not another color. Dividing them between gold/silver/bronze has been specifically tailored to the idea of a top three, not a top five. What five colors (or four, for 4th and 5th) would be used, after all? Purple, in all the other WP:MOTOR projects, in total that I have seen, use purple for out, blue for a lower level finish, green for a "points" (higher level?) finish, then bronze, etc., for third on up. Basically, if we changed the method of identifying the career performances of drivers, we'd be dividing open-wheel from its contemporaries, both internationally but specifically, here, American, not bringing them closer together, when we ALREADY have a link to sports writers calling top three finishes "podiums," in IRL...and, no, we're not using a legend, as basically that would mean we'd need to start from scratch in looking for that new color to somehow fit in. --Chr.K. 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No matter what the IndyCar series do, the Top 3 finishes need to remain gold, silver and bronze since it is an international standard used in the Olympics so everyone should understand it. I agree that stockcars and IndyCars are very different animals that followed very different evolutionary paths. I won't disagree about NASCAR making things up as they go either, but I don't see how that's relevant in this discussion. The only reason to do something the NASCAR way is if it makes sense within the context of this WikiProject. If no color is available, then we should keep things the way they are. I was wonder if we should go outside the box and use another color that is not used in another WikiProject like say orange. Probably not, since as you pointed out, we would need to redo all results. Our time is best spent improving articles. I not a fan of showing all results for a season or a race. Royalbroil 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain this, please. Showing career results in a driver's page is something that WP:F1 has shown to be extremely practical, and useful to anyone who wants to know the entire history of the driver's performances. The history of the entirety of results for every race should in turn be placed in each race's page, or divided up into lower sections as has been done for the 500. I do not understand your saying you're not a fan of what would be verifiable statistics. --Chr.K. 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't much care what colors are used, and I didn't bring up the "podium" issue to challenge the colors used in that table. I was interested in the labels "Podiums (non-win)" and "Top 10s (non-podium)." Even if "podium" is occasionally used by commentators reporting on the IRL, wouldn't "2nd-3rd" and "4th-10th" be clearer, simply for the benefit of readers who might not know what a "podium" finish is? Chuck 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

People who don't know racing would of course not know that a podium finish is in the Top 3, of course. Using the numbers would be much clear IMHO. Royalbroil 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
How about a page concerning podiums as they apply to racing, and inserting the link into the templates, for people to click and learn about at their leisure? --Chr.K. 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you have enough material (more than a few sentences) to write an article. There is even a category in Wikimedia Commons: [3]. Royalbroil 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
After extremely long consideration on this subject, I propose including both podiums and Top 5s to the drivers' career results tables, and the listing below them that sums up the entirety of the information. Since Americans think of Top 5s because of their own unique motorsports culture, but motorsports writers themselves have alluded to the podium finishes enough to qualify that reference as valid, both can make it in. I will, therefore, develop "a new color" between the five spots after the top five for top ten finishes, and the green currently there will exist for fourth and fifth. Discuss as necessary. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: My suggestion for the Top 10 color, 6th through 10th place finishers, is hexadecimal color code CFEFFF, and is currently being experimented with in the Hélio Castroneves page. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
CFEAFF, the correct light blue to use. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Second Edit, Chr.K. (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Working Solution: An amalgamation between American and International standards of reference. Chose "American Open Wheel" over "IndyCar" due to project name, and part of its vision to avoid potential emotionally-based conflicts between IRL and CCWS supporters. --Chr.K. (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks good to me! It was a good idea to name the key "American Open Wheel" too. Royalbroil 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, then, I'm going to begin changing the driver results templates themselves in accordance with the new aesthetic, including the CART/CCWS ones, as I intend this system to be workable for all grade-one American open-wheel racing events in entirety. If CCWS contributors become upset at the notion of departing the F1 system of green for points, again my own argument is that the American motorsporting community views results slightly differently, and this system is in line with that reality. --Chr.K. (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

At least for the first 3 races this year, the IndyCar Series has used a podium. Eddie Gossage at Texas has said in past interviews that he hates podiums so I don't know if we'll see one there, but I think it's definitely justified that we're using that term now that it appears at least a majority of IndyCar races will use them. -Drdisque (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A "Podium Finish" is a commonly accepted racing term for a top-3 finish. Whether an actual podium is involved is irrelevant, just like a "Pole Position" doesn't involve a pole or a "Maiden Win" a maiden. Kenhullett (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British flag issue once again

Someone unregistered changed the British flags in the 500 winners article (and possibly elsewhere, haven't checked) back to English and Scottish flags. Because of the potential for a revert war, I again propose supra-national, then sub-regional flags to be attached to drivers, if applicable. I know the American state flags for the NASCAR pages look idiotic, but the issue isn't going away, nor should it, since given media (like CBS, in broadcasting the American Le Mans Series) have also used the sub-regional tags, rather than the international license one. Thoughts?--Chr.K. 11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not informed on the topic, so I choose to not comment. We should use the discussion at our parent WikiProject to answer this problem. You can find it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_1#British_vs_English.2FScottish.2FWelsh.2Fetc.2C_aka_.22The_Passion_of_Some_Flags.22. The problem affects other motorsport such as F1 too, which is why the discussion took place at WP:MOTOR. Royalbroil 13:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The concensus choice was to go with the British Union Jack for the drivers in question. And in turn, the British flag was changed back to English and Scottish for the drivers in question. --Chr.K. 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Then revert it back, pointing to the discussion at WP:MOTOR. Urge the contributor who is reverting you to bring up their points at WP:MOTOR. Royalbroil 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yates/Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing needs to be split into two articles.

Yates/Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing in NASCAR is a diffrent team then Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing in Champcar. Yates has nothing to do with the CCWS side, and the CCWS team does not bear his name. It would be best to either create two seperate articles, or change the current article to further explain that they are two completly seperate teams. Thanks, Fisha695 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indy 500 Race Report template

Couple of points about the template ({{Infobox Indy500}}. Firstly, the field "Location" seems pretty redundant, if it's required, then surely it's not necessary to be a variable! Second, the TV fields, and some others such as Rookie could probably do with being optional as they don't apply to the early years of the race. AlexJ 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good observations - I agree. Go for it! I do think that the location field should remain, and it should be hard coded to IMS. Royalbroil 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The 1919 Indianapolis 500 was briefly threatened to be held in Cincinnati, Ohio, just so you know, due to Fisher demanding that hotels in the Indianapolis area stop trying to gouge incoming patrons at racetime. Thankfully, the issue was resolved before the 1919 rendition, but for awhile, the International 500-Mile Sweepstakes Race was not necessarily confined to Indianapolis alone. Also, there needs to be a reference to who broadcast it on radio, as, despite the fact that it's "of course" the IMSRN today, for a long time it was the Mutual Radio Network, and back in the early '20s, many different stations gave brief updates live from the track as the race slogged on. Rookie of the Year has existed for over 50 years, long enough that it should read No Award prior to the first in 1952, just like the singer of Back Home Again in Indiana won't apply in the list as a "position" until 1946, even though there should be a reference that the crowd sang it at the end of the race after Wilcox won in 1919. Thoughts, these. --Chr.K. 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you really know your stuff! Royalbroil 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In case it went unnoticed, I added a "chronology" line on the bottom for quick foward and backward navigation, as well as adding the "honorary starter" line, since it seems to have become an expected position for a celebrity (every year since 2004 now). Still no word yet on the 2009 Indianapolis 500 logo, so we can leave the infobox off of that page until it's released. Doctorindy (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "chronology" part is necessary, since it duplicates the functionality of {{Indy 500 Walker}}, which already exists at the bottom of each Indy 500 race report. DH85868993 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indy 500 Race, Official Results templates...

...should be written in the format that I think I've finally got pretty much perfected in the 1911 page. I will shortly begin work on getting 1912 and 1913 to equal format, but the current 1911 page has the best, and "correct," version. --Chr.K. 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The correct version now also contains the use of cross footnotes (†) followed by mathematical sub-notation if necessary (1, 2, etc.) after the flags of the nationalities of participants who were born in separate countries than their accepted nationalities. I submit this as the format to be used for all future similar notations. --Chr.K. 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
1912 now complete, and with the Qualification Results template established. --Chr.K. 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem with what you have done, I want you to become aware of an ongoing discussion on using flags in articles at Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles. Check out the article's talk page too. Royalbroil 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
While I respect their position on not wanting to over-clutter articles, I find that enough questions concerning drivers' nationalities and birthplaces are posed to Donald Davidson on the annual WIBC talk show The Talk of Gasoline Alley to warrant the methods used in the tables, namely the nationality they identified with at the time of victory, but a footnote detailing their place of birth, if such was different. On the whole, I believe it is a duty of this project to compile statistical information regarding the racing in question that people have shown interest in. The current system is an expression of that perceived duty. --Chr.K. 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wish me luck: I'm going to begin applying the new format to every single Indianapolis 500 race page. Also, if at all possible, the stat format of such detail could be established for all other forms of American open-wheel as well, but that would likely require discussion and/or consensus. --Chr.K. 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to link to chassis and engine manufacturers. -Drdisque 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the chassis and engine manufacturer links have flags preceding them, to identify the nationality of the make, as is done in several WP:F1 examples? And, if so, merely copying the F1 format, or developing one of our own? --Chr.K. (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IndyCar article, new section "History of the IndyCar name"

User:GoldDragon started this new section in the disambiguous page. Please check it out and comment on its talk page. I bring it up because it is unusual to have a much text in a disambiguous page, and now there is a large section of text. It will probably get challenged, so we should determine consensus now. Royalbroil 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] We need a centralized listing...

...on all the races and drivers in American open-wheel racing history, so as to determine which still need to be gotten to. The scope of either is vast, and getting to them in a catch-as-catch-can basis is, to put it brutally, an incredibly simplistic (read: naïve) mindset. In fact, we need a centralized listing, and rating levels given to each article, of what we've gotten to and what we haven't on basically ALL the subjects involved in the project...as opposed to having, as we currently do, a "To-Do List" (EDIT: open-task list). Discussion obviously invited, here. --Chr.K. (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - great suggestion. WikiProject NASCAR made a list of every driver with a start, and we should do the same. What should be the scope of this list? I suggest that we only include drivers from the premiere open wheel series - AAA, USAC, CART/Champ Car World Series, IRL. We should (at least initially) skip drivers from sprint cars, midgets, Indy Lights, etc. The races should include all Indy 500 races and tracks from these premiere open wheel series. I suggest that the location of this list should be in a subpage of WP:AOWR. Any thoughts for this location? Where can we find this information? Is there an online database/website that can be used to create this list? Before someone would decide to create this data manually, I'd like to look over these location(s) to see if that data can be created with computer assistance. I have lots of background with data manipulation and some with programming. Royalbroil 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
After about a month, my reasoned suggestion[s] would be to title the page as WP:AOWR's Project Progress Report; in a fashion similar to the good article template shown on the main project page (which itself is based on the even more impressive WP:F1 original), I propose going still further, and establishing, likewise on the main project page, a template (actually templates, plural) that defines all the parameters (on the top, classifying row) of what is needed for the pages' improvements, and for each to be color-coded (eventually absorbing the information from the notable pages section) according to what rank of article it is...and color-coded, in my thinking, in accord with the ranking levels of the season statistics templates.
I.e.,
  1. Purple=Stub: Unacceptable lack of information, required that the article be improved.
  2. Dark Blue=Start: Bare minimum achieved, but article can be extremely improved.
  3. Light Blue=B-class: Acceptable degree of information, article can still be greatly improved.
  4. Green=Good Article: Good degree of information, improvements of writing style and extreme detail remain achievable.
  5. Bronze=Great Article/A-class: Excellent degree of information, covering all bases to resounding degree, but deeper links to similar pages and overall sense of the subject still possible.
  6. Silver=FeaturABLE Article: Current Great Article that is going through or has gone through, even if not winning, nomination for Featured Article Status; these must rank among the best motorsports-related articles on the entire Wikipedia.
  7. Gold=Featured Article: Self-explanatory; has achieved Featured Article status on the Wikipedia, and articles that have been placed on the front page as the feature should have a star, of whatever sort, attached after their name, stating when the event occurred. This/these would be the equivalent, for our project, of winning one of the ultimate motorsports events.
In conjunction with these color-codings in the background, like currently seen in green on the main page Notable Articles section, we should then divide these templates up according to overarching subject matter (alphabetical where applicable) :
  1. People (Drivers, Miscelleneous prominent individuals, Owners, Race Officials, et al)
  2. Events (races most prominently, whether sanctioned or outlaw, points paying or not)
  3. Facilities (tracks of all series in question, private testing locations, and team business headquarters, to name a few), and
  4. "Technology" (articles relating to the science of automobile racing, name is optional and open for debate)
The list can continue where needed, obviously.
These, thoughts on methodologies to use for WP:AOWR. Comment invited as always. --Chr.K. 13:44, 14 Februrary 2008 (UTC)


[edit] CART race infobox

Is there a race infobox useable for CART races? The present Champ Car box works only for seasons since the creating of the OWRS. If not, does anyone mind the creation of one based on the CCWS infobox? --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I counter-propose the creation of an American Open Wheel race infobox, which could then be split into covering the four main sanctioning bodies, AAA/USAC/CART(CCWS)/IRL(ICS). The boxes already there should in turn be compatible with such a universal standardization. Also, given its considerable "über-standing" among its fellow events, Indianapolis 500 races should receive a special kind of box, to contain the kind of information regularly given throughout and at the end of the IMS Radio Network broadcasts. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Helpful, and yet not closer to a conclusion. In the lack of conflicting arguement I will create one. --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race abbreviations, and other matters

Not sure if I brought this up before, but I think we need to decide on a universal set of abbreviations for the locations that have been competed at already, and a set of standards to determine them for any future occasions. As it stands, the CCWS and IRL contingent driver results templates have got to have at least ten different examples in which the three letter assignments given are either slightly or markedly different; i.e., FTW for "Fort Worth," for CCWS, "TXS" for Texas, with IRL...both describing the venue of Texas Motor Speedway; SUR for Surfers Paradise, Australia, by other CCWS writers, SRF by, admittedly, me, when writing the 1980s information for Michael Andretti and others (trying to flow as closely as possible with the sound of the words that are spoken, my reasoning). Likewise, should names be after the facilities, or after the locations? RIC could stand for Richmond, but then it looks more like the sound "Rick" (as in Mears, etc.). RIR is the letters used on the facilities webpage...thereby being one of the major reasons I prefer RIR over RIC for the abbreviation.

In the end, my call for standardized format is simply that keeping them separate, between the two series, defeats the point of universality/respect by the project toward anyone, be they pro-IRL or -CCWS or both...as well as defying the overall intentions of the parent project, WP:MOTOR, which I can hopefully assume with safety would have little if any emotional, subjective outlooks on the AOWR split. Thoughts as always invited. --Chr.K. (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to have a standardization. Would you expand start the table below with all of the tracks listed so that we can discuss? Let's keep them alphabetized. As a starting point, I agree, in general, with using the abbreviations that the track uses to describe themself (like RIR). Royalbroil 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Added Las Vegas to the table. Both Champ Car & the IRL ran at the Las Vegas Motorspeedway and Champ Car ran on a street circuit in 2007. --Apmiller (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track abbreviations

[edit] Table of track abbreviations

Track Final abbreviation Proposed abbreviations
Assen, Holland ASS, ASN
Charlotte, North Carolina CHA, CHR
Houston, Texas HST, HOU
Indianapolis Motor Speedway IND, IMS
Iowa Speedway IOW, IWA, IA
Laguna Seca, California LAG, LGU, LGS, LS
Las Vegas, Nevada LAS, LVG, VEG
Long Beach, California LBH, LGB, LB
Monterrey, Mexico MON, MOT, MTY
Montreal, Canada MON, MTL
Richmond International Raceway RIR, RIC
San Jose, California SAN (same as Sanair, from the 1980s)
Surfer's Paradise, Australia SUR, SRF
Texas Motor Speedway TXS, FTW

[edit] Table of track abbreviation preferences

Venue "Abbr." Support Rationale Consensus
Assen, Netherlands ASS Current predominant form
ASSen		 ASN
ASN 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. Apmiller
5. ZueJay		 Avoids obvious negative associations
ASseN
ANL Assen, the Netherlands
Charlotte, North Carolina CHA 1. Royalbroil CHArlotte
CHR 1. Chr.K CHaRlotte
CLT 1. Drdisque
2. ZueJay		 City airport code
California Speedway
Auto Club Speedway		 FON 1. Royalbroil
2. Apmiller
3. Chr.K.
4. ZueJay		 Current predominant form, CCWS pages
FONtana, California, location of facility
CA State postal abbreviation CAlifornia
CAL Current predominant form, IRL pages
CALifornia Speedway
Houston, Texas HST HouSTon
HOU 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil
3. Apmiller
4. ZueJay		 HOUston
Indianapolis Motor Speedway,
Indianapolis 500		 IND 1. Drdisque Indy. The.
IMS Facility name.
INDY 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil		 Indy. The.
Instant visual-recognition;
Has been used by WP:F1 for 1950s driver results tables.
500 Instant visual-recognition.
Indianapolis Motor Speedway,
other events		 IND Same location as the 500.
IMS 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. ZueJay		 "...only one Indy."
Other facility events...simply held there.
Iowa Speedway IA 1. Royalbroil IowA, state postal abbreviation
IOW 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. ZueJay		 IOWa
IWA IoWA
Laguna Seca, California LAG LAGuna Seca
LGU LaGUna Seca
LGS LaGuna Seca
LS 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil
3. Apmiller		 Laguna Seca
Las Vegas, Nevada
Downtown street circuit		 LVG 1. Chr.K. Las VeGas
LAS Las Vegas
VEG Las VEGas
LVS 1. Royalbroil Las VegaS
(Street circuit, as well, at end)
Las Vegas Motor Speedway
 LVG Las VeGas
LAS Las Vegas
VEG Las VEGas
LSV LaS Vegas
LVO 1. Royalbroil Las Vegas Oval
LVS 1. Chr.K. Las Vegas Speedway,
facility name
Long Beach, California LBH Long BeacH
LGB 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil
3. ZueJay		 LonG Beach
City airport code
LB Long Beach
Monterrey, Mexico MON MONterrey MTY
?
MOT MOnTerrey
MTY 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. Apmiller
5. ZueJay		 MonTerreY
Avoids confusion with Montreal, Canada
Montreal, Canada MON MONtreal MTL
?
MTL 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. Apmiller
5. ZueJay		 MonTreaL
Avoids confusion with Monterrey, Mexico
Phoenix International Raceway PHX 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil
3. ZueJay		 PHoeniX
International airport code
PHO PHOenix
PIR Used by track Web site, also popular initials used.
Richmond International Raceway RIR 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. ZueJay		 Initials used on facility's website RIR
?
RIC RIChmond
San Jose, California SAN SAN Jose SJO
?
SJO 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. Royalbroil
4. ZueJay		 San JOse
Avoids confusion with
1980s Sanair, Canada race
Sonoma, California,
Infineon Raceway		 INF 1. Royalbroil INFineon Raceway
SNM 1. Chr.K.
2. Apmiller
3. ZueJay		 SoNoMa
Location instead of a corporation
SPT Sears Point, the track's former name.
Surfers Paradise, Australia SUR 1. Drdisque
2. Apmiller		 Current predominant form
SURfers Paradise
SRF 1. Royalbroil
2. Chr.K.
3. ZueJay		 SuRFers Paradise
Texas Motor Speedway,
first seasonal race		 FTW Current predominant form, CCWS pages
ForT Worth, Texas, location of facility
TMS 1. Royalbroil Texas Motor Speedway
TXS 1. Drdisque
2. Chr.K.
3. ZueJay		 Current predominant form, IRL pages
TeXaS Motor (S)peedway
Could avoid confusion with
Texas World Speedway, competed on,
by AOWR, in previous decades
Texas Motor Speedway,
second seasonal race from 1998-2004
Removed when Ferko lawsuit forced NASCAR to abandon the Southern 500,
replacing the second IRL race with a second Sprint Cup race at TMS.		 TXS Same as first race
TX2 1. Chr.K.
2. Royalbroil
3. ZueJay		 TeXas Motor Speedway, "2nd" race
Watkins Glen International WGL 1. Chr.K.
2. Apmiller
3. ZueJay		 Watkins GLen International
Third word used far less than the first two
WGI Watkins Glen International
Full facility name
WAT WATkins Glen International
Used, as of 03-27-08,
in the Rick Mears driver results table

[edit] Discussion

Added "other matters" to the original section title, to bring up the fact that in the Justin Wilson page, which I'm currently working on, flags exist alongside (or soon, on top of) the abbreviations, marking the nations they're taking place in. I'm not sure if we want this or not...because, while in something like CCWS, showing the numerous countries could be a good thing, in IRL they'd almost all be (barring the current highly-publicized discussions of reunification in the works) American flags. Also, WP:F1 does not use such flags for their driver templates, despite the fact that any two races in the same country is the extreme exception rather than the rule for them. In any case, the flags issue is now "in play." --Chr.K. (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags appear to be frowned upon by many Wikipedians, so we should remove all flags. Royalbroil 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not ALL flags should be removed. Having them before a driver's name in a rundown, (1911 race), is a practice employed, and which should be employed, by both WP:F1, ourselves, and etc. Also, take a look at the Justin Wilson page again; now that I see it THAT way, I am wondering if it would be better to have them in. But, again, up for debate: where and when to "deploy" them. --Chr.K. (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on the abbreviations: ASN because of the obvious connotations of ASS. Rather than CHA or CHR, I suggest CLT (their airport code). IND for Indy 500's, IMS for the Pro series races on the road course. IOW to reflect the dominant syllables in the state's name. I suggest just LS for Laguna Seca. LGB, again for the airport reason, but I can see using LB. MTY because it avoids all confusion with Montreal. MTL to avoid confusion with Monterrey. RIR as it is a very common acronym for the track. SJO for San Jose, SNR for Sanair. SUR because I can't see any confusion on that. TXS, virtually nobody calls the track "Fort Worth". -Drdisque (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When we had the "standard race abbreviation" discussion at WP:F1, we set up a table so editors could vote for their preferred abbreviation. It seemed to work well enough. You may care to employ the same technique here. DH85868993 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think for AOWR, we're going to need to take into account a combination of several naming conventions, given that the races are divided by city or venue, and less by nation (somewhat obviously, being American-based). The tables for voting, though (and already beginning to be used, here), are a good idea. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the IMS abbreviation, I think that the 500 should have something different for it, than any of the other races. By the time we go WAY back (someday) to the 1909 and 1910 seasons, there's going to be a LOT of meets in the lower classes for IMS. IND, on the other hand, would allude in my mind to "INDy," as references in the Rationale section. Thoughts, anyway. --Chr.K. (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm won't be upset if my first choice doesn't get used - if CAL gets used instead of CA, IND instead of IMS for the 500, etc. I love this voting table concept! Royalbroil 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion/don't care about Surfers Paradise and Watkins Glen. Royalbroil 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I've commonly seen Texas written as "TMS." Doctorindy (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, so I changed by vote. Also, SUR reminds me too much of the country Suriname. Royalbroil 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that California Speedway just changed their name to Auto Club Speedway last week Doctorindy (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed my vote accordingly, and more in line with concensus thus far. This list is soon going to get a whole lot bigger, I've found plenty of other conflicts... --Chr.K. (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I want to change the three-letter IND abbreviation to four-letter INDY. It would immediately bring the eye there when looking for it, and would be only one extra letter to bypass any confusion, or ambiguity about how it should be worded. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POLITICS, to keep everyone appraised:

A "major announcement," concerning something, is scheduled for this Thursday, February 21, 2008, apparently just announced on WFNI, 1070 ("Home of the 500") SportRadio, Indianapolis. This could be It; bulletins as events unfold. --Chr.K. (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to update things... --Chr.K. (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's about time! Royalbroil 14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so fast... Chuck (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, story has changed. Hooray! Chuck (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - Champ Car merger into IRL deal signed

http://www.indycar.com/news/story.php?story_id=10557

Confirmed primary source, not second-hand from a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unification!...of the driver results legend for all the AOWers thus far up...

The list from Archive 2 is merged into one standard. The remainder of the 2007 500 field to follow, but a template listing for drivers, in alphabetical order, I'll soon introduce either here or on the main project page. --Chr.K. (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template Merger Requested for Template:Champ Car World Series --> Template:IndyCar Series

As we know the 2 series has merged with each other as we now have this problem with a template for the 2008 season of Champ Car World Series that list all the teams and track of the 2008 season. However becasue the IRL merger this season wont happen in that style so I suggest that the Template:Champ Car World Series should be redirected to Template:IndyCar Series . The Template:Champ Car World Series seems pointless to have right now in its current Format. If that template is to be kept without a merger to the other one then please suggest what to do about it. My rationial is to merge it with Template:IndyCar Series. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Nom and Support Merge Per Above Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If anyone can find a template to add to those template pages that this discussion is taking place can you please put them up there on those 2 templates. I had brought this here first as RoyalBroil has been giving me grief about placing stuff in mainstream discussions without discussing to the projects first. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support after removal from CCWS pages. Thanks for bringing it up! Another way to deal with WikiProjects would be to leave a message at the relevent WikiProject that you want to merge the templates, and provide a link to the main discussion at the template. My main problem was that you were doing things at affected many WikiProject NASCAR articles without bringing it up at the WikiProject. Discussing things to determine consensus is very important at Wikipedia. Royalbroil 13:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The reality of the name of American Championship Car Racing going back to well before the term "Indycar" (roughly about the late 1970s-early 1980s) will eventually cause a confusion about pages that relate to drivers of far past decades, and how they technically weren't "Indycar" drivers in the strictest sense of the term...and judging by how SOME fans of the CCWS side continue to absolutely despise Indycar with a passion approaching that of the Eastern Front...I think it might be necessary to make sanctioning body subsections to an overall "Template:American Open Wheel." Thoughts? --Chr.K. (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Template:IndyCar Series only refers to current IndyCar Series teams, drivers, and tracks. The name of the series is the IndyCar Series, so it's completely factually correct. If anyone has a problem with calling a series by its correct name they need to really get over what happened the last 12 years and just start enjoying racing again. -68.31.49.201 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Suggest putting the teams and drivers who only competed at Long Beach on a separate row, or in a different colour or something. I would also suggest not including the cancelled Champ Car races (e.g. Champ Car Grand Prix of Spain) in the merged template. DH85868993 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As the Long Beach race paid points just as much as Motegi or any other ICS-sanctioned event, I support such a separation of rows only in the event that we develop the same or a similar kind of technical-spec details to the driver results tables as are currently being employed by WP:F1. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temp:AOWR up for possible speedy deletion...

...I think I dealt with it in the way they were calling for, but be ready to fight over this issue, please. The F1 template information is NOT sufficient to deal with all the AAA/USAC/CART/IRL ways of thinking on car classification, finishing, points allocation, etc., most of it in fact preceding the development of, say, the modern motorsports podium. --Chr.K. (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USAC article NPOV

An anon has brought up concerns about how the articles bashes the IRL in the IRL/CART split. I commented and stated that I would bring it up here. Here's the discussion: Talk:United_States_Automobile_Club#CART.2FIRL_split. Royalbroil 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template Former Champ Car driver infobox

What's the point behind {{Former Champ Car driver}}? It's link to few articles. A new contributor attempted to "fix" the Al Unser article to include his starts before 1979, but they ended up making a complete mess. User:Inamino, with several hundred edits, made a poor response by deleting the whole infobox since it was a redlink. We don't appear to have a driver's standard infobox. Are we using {{Infobox racing driver}}? Royalbroil 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been using Infobox Racing Driver because it is much more flexible and can be adapted to refer to for example Both CART/CCWS starts and can be used to separate CART/CCWS, IRL, and USAC stats. It also has optional fields meaning that if you leave something out the line item disappears. The Champ Car Driver templates are not written that way and are very restrictive to use and look bad if they aren't fully filled in. I personally suggest abandoning the Champ Car driver templates and using Infobox racing driver for everything. -Drdisque (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indy Lights/IPS

As you may know, today the league officially announced that the Indy Pro Series will now be known as Firestone Indy Lights. As you also may know, there was a different and completely unrelated CART-sanctioned Indy Lights series that ran from 1986 to 2001. Should we merge these two articles? Should we treat the series as one unified history (which is more doable because they don't have any overlapping years, unlike IRL/CART)? This should probably be taken care of rather quickly, so I'd like to reach a consensus. My personal feeling is that the the pages should be merged, but written so as to make it clear that they were two completely different series that now share a common name and that the IPS/Firestone Indy Lights was not simply a continuation of CART Indy Lights. -Drdisque (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't merge and disambiguate They are separate topics, 2 unrelated series, in my opinion. Too much time has elapsed. Other articles need to link to the correct series, and a merge defeats that capability. The current use should be placed at Indy Lights with a WP:HATNOTE to the former series. Royalbroil 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So what do you suggest for the old series? Indy Lights (1986-2001)? Indy Lights (CART)? -Drdisque (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, with slight preference to the second one. I will abide with consensus/majority, of course. It's good to see you around here in Wikipedia, Drdisque! Royalbroil 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I say for simplicity, MERGE Keep them in two seperate sections, and clearly explain the differences. Breaking them into two (really 3 w/ disambig page) different pages just makes more too many clicks to get to the info. The reasons are this....
1) Yes, they are different series, but, they are to the everydayman, the "same" thing....the lower-level support series for the Indy cars.
2) Since the 86-01 Lights actually came to an end (and do not still exist), the series we know as the IPS is indirectly a new replacement for it. Kind of like the Washington Senators that moved away, and were replaced by a "new" Washington Senators.
3) Note that IRL bought the rights to all of the former CART/CC/CCWS historical records, so don't be suprised if IRL doesn't start collectively adding the stats together anyway.Doctorindy (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the first race of the season is a day away, I'm going to go ahead and move Indy Pro Series to Firestone Indy Lights Series and add a hatnote to Indy Lights. We can decide to merge the rest of them later. -Drdisque (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that consensus says that you should merge (despite my position), so you can merge if you have the time. Royalbroil 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On that note do we support the mergification of Category:Indy Lights drivers and Category:Indy Pro Series drivers? -Drdisque (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes. Mergification? sounds like a word that comedians would attribute to George W. Bush!. Royalbroil 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I took a stab at combining the seasons infobox...splitting them up into seperate groups accordingly...This can be used for all CART years ARS and CART Indy Lights, IPS, and IRL Indy Lights years Doctorindy (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have combined the articles into a single page at Firestone Indy Lights Series. Feel free to edit as needed. -Drdisque (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It ought to be at Indy Lights as per WP:COMMONNAME. Readro (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


v • d • e
Indy Lights seasons
CART American Racing Series
1986 · 1987 · 1988 · 1989 · 1990
CART Firestone/Dayton Indy Lights
1991 · 1992 · 1993 · 1994 · 1995 · 1996 · 1997 · 1998 · 1999 · 2000 · 2001
IRL Infiniti/Indy Pro Series
2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2007
IRL Firestone Indy Lights Series

[edit] TrueSports

I'm going to start working on pages for Truesports and Jim Trueman. I have several sources to work with. Doctorindy (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Petersburg photos

Flickr has a nice album of photos from last weekend's St. Petersburg event, including pictures of the IRL, IndyLights, and ALMS. They're all licensed under CC-BY-2.0, so we can use them. I've already gone through most of the ALMS pictures for Commons, but I figured you guys probably know how to handle the IndyCar photos better, so I thought I'd point them out to you.

Unfortunately a lot of the shots of the IndyCars are through fences, but at least it's something. The359 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was able to use a few of the pictures, especially of the Indy Lights cars. -Drdisque (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Career results subsections

The "Career results" sections of numerous ChampCar/IRL driver articles (e.g. Dario Franchitti, Sébastien Bourdais, Danica Patrick) contain subsections entitled "American Open Wheel" (or "American Open-Wheel"). I propose that these subsections should be changed to "American Open Wheel racing" because (to me) the words "American Open Wheel" on their own don't make sense (Consider that this project is called "WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing", not just "WikiProject American Open Wheel"). But before making the changes, I thought I'd consult with others about the preferred capitalisation and hyphenation of the words "Open Wheel", i.e. should it be "American Open Wheel racing" or "American Open-Wheel racing" or "American Open-wheel racing" or "American open wheel racing" etc? Bearing in mind what WP:MOS says about use of capitals in section headings:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

Also, if a driver has only been involved in one form of American open-wheel racing, do they necessarily need the "American Open Wheel [racing]" heading at all, e.g. could Sébastien Bourdais' career results section look like this:

6. Motorsport career results
6.1 Career summary
6.2 Champ Car
6.3 Formula One

rather than this:

6. Motorsport career results
6.1 Career summary
6.2 American Open-Wheel
6.2.1 Champ Car
6.3 Formula One

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the MOS American open wheel racing would be the most correct heading and no, I don't see why a driver who has only competed in one type of AOW has to have that heading, although I also don't see the problem with leaving it in articles that have it. -Drdisque (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Drdisque articulated my thoughts. Royalbroil 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to combine the templates of all Open-Wheel forms, namely AAA, USAC, CART/CCWS and IRL/Any-new-name Tony George has been considering of late, so that it gives the name of each series in each year (sometimes both in one year) but not by dividing them up. Michael Andretti's lower results table (after the chronologically-based template break of his departing for F1 then returning) is an example...even though I don't yet have it precisely the way I've figured would be best, which would be the merging of the annual year numbers into one, and the sanctioning body links taking people to that individual year in each series; that and the presentation of results with different teams in single years, like done with the A.J. Allmendinger results template. Discussion on these aspects invited (including whether the column lines should remain or not).
Regarding the Motorsports Career Results section, I was calling it AOW instead of AOWR because it felt redundant to say "Motorsports" and "Racing" in the same section; what else would it be, if it's in a motorsports section? However, if I had a choice between changing the overall MCR title and changing the AOW to AOWR, I'd choose the latter, as the former can encompass everything the way it's currently written, ranging from F1 to AOWR to MotoGP, etc.
(Inserted after post)
On putting all the CART/CCWS or IndyCar subsections underneath American Open-Wheel (or by the new title I suggest herebelow), the idea was Standardization; if any driver had CART/IRL separated underneath AOW, I decided to do so to them all. The reasoning, that simple.
Regarding spellings, I've usually seen it written "open-wheel" rather than "open wheel" in most of the die-hard serious publications I've seen...but, that said, I've also seen it written as the "American formula" cars, by European entities used to formula as a name for the 'metal thoroughbreds'. To choose between ALL of them? "American formula[e]" would be my choice; this, when combined with merged templates, would unify (wonderful word, that) all in proper fashion. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champ Car race categories

Now that we're starting to get quite a few individual Champ Car race report articles, I propose the creation of race-based categories into which to group them. There are some races where I think the category name is fairly obvious, but others where there are several options to choose from. Please indicate your support for the various options in the table below (and feel free to add other options). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Race report articles Corresponding generic race article Proposed category name Support
2007 Belgian Champ Car Grand Prix Belgian Champ Car Grand Prix Belgian Champ Car Grand Prix DH85868993
2004 Centrix Financial Grand Prix of Denver

2005 Centrix Financial Grand Prix of Denver
2006 Grand Prix of Denver

 Centrix Financial Grand Prix of Denver Grand Prix of Denver DH85868993
2007 Bavaria Champ Car Grand Prix of Holland Dutch Champ Car Grand Prix Dutch Champ Car Grand Prix DH85868993
2004 Gran Premio Telmex/Tecate

2005 Gran Premio Telmex/Tecate
2006 Gran Premio Telmex
2007 Gran Premio Tecate

 Gran Premio de México Gran Premio de México DH85868993
2004 U.S. Bank Champ Car Grand Prix of Cleveland

2005 Grand Prix of Cleveland
2006 Grand Prix of Cleveland
2007 Grand Prix of Cleveland

 Grand Prix of Cleveland Grand Prix of Cleveland DH85868993
2006 Grand Prix of Houston

2007 Grand Prix of Houston

 Grand Prix of Houston Grand Prix of Houston DH85868993
2004 Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey

2005 Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey
2006 Tecate Grand Prix of Monterrey

 Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey Grand Prix of Monterrey DH85868993
2004 Molson Indy Vancouver Molson Indy Vancouver Indy Vancouver DH85868993
2007 Las Vegas Grand Prix Vegas Grand Prix Vegas Grand Prix
(Note that "Category:Las Vegas Grand Prix"
already exists for the Formula One race)		 DH85868993
2004 Molson Indy Montreal

2005 Molson Indy Montreal
2006 Champ Car Grand Prix de Montreal

 Grand Prix of Montreal Grand Prix of Montreal DH85868993
Indy Montreal
Champ Car Grand Prix of Montreal
2004 Champ Car Grand Prix of Portland

2005 G.I. Joe's Champ Car Grand Prix of Portland
2006 Grand Prix of Portland
2007 Mazda Champ Car Grand Prix of Portland

 Grand Prix of Portland Grand Prix of Portland DH85868993
Champ Car Grand Prix of Portland
2004 Molson Indy Toronto

2005 Molson Indy Toronto
2006 Molson Grand Prix of Toronto
2007 Steelback Grand Prix

 Steelback Grand Prix of Toronto Grand Prix of Toronto DH85868993
Indy Toronto
2005 Taylor Woodrow Grand Prix of San Jose

2006 Canary Foundation Grand Prix of San Jose
2007 San Jose Grand Prix at Redback Raceway

 San Jose Grand Prix San Jose Grand Prix DH85868993
Grand Prix of San Jose
2004 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach

2005 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach
2006 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach
2007 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach

 Long Beach Grand Prix Long Beach Grand Prix DH85868993, Royalbroil
Grand Prix of Long Beach
2004 Bridgestone Grand Prix of Monterey Monterey Grand Prix Monterey Grand Prix DH85868993
Grand Prix of Monterey
2004 Grand Prix of Road America

2006 Grand Prix of Road America
2007 Generac Grand Prix

 Champ Car Grand Prix of Road America Champ Car Grand Prix of Road America DH85868993, Royalbroil
Grand Prix of Road America
2005 West Edmonton Mall Grand Prix of Edmonton

2006 West Edmonton Mall Grand Prix of Edmonton
2007 Rexall Grand Prix of Edmonton

 Edmonton Indy Edmonton Indy DH85868993
Grand Prix of Edmonton

1995 Indycar Australia
1996 Bartercard Indycar Australia
1997 Sunbelt IndyCarnival
1998 Honda Indy 300
1999 Honda Indy 300
2000 Honda Indy 300
2001 Honda Indy 300
2002 Honda Indy 300
2003 Lexmark Indy 300
2004 Lexmark Indy 300
2005 Lexmark Indy 300
2006 Lexmark Indy 300
2007 Lexmark Indy 300

 Gold Coast Indy 300 Gold Coast Indy Grand Prix DH85868993, Royalbroil
Gold Coast Indy 300
(existing category)
Champ Car Mont-Tremblant 07 Mont-Tremblant Champ Car Grand Prix Mont-Tremblant Champ Car Grand Prix DH85868993
Mont-Tremblant Grand Prix
2006 Time Warner Cable Road Runner 225

2005 Time Warner Cable Road Runner 225
2004 Time Warner Cable Road Runner 250

 none  ???
ChampCar races held at Las Vegas Motor Speedway:

2005 Hurricane Relief 400
2004 Bridgestone 400

 Hurricane Relief 400  ???
(Should these races be included
in [Category:Vegas Grand Prix]?)
I haven't followed things lately close enough to comment. Whatever gets decided is fine with me, except if I comment. Royalbroil 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't followed those either much, but just an observation...why do some of the Champ Car races even have individual "report" articles. I know the F1 races have had them (and that's more significant), but having them for the (now-defunct) CC series seems rather superflouos. If anything, perhaps the content should be merged into the CC seasons' pages, and the "reports" articles themselves removed. They have an aura of "orphin-ness" nowadays. Just 0.02... Doctorindy (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As the main author of most of the recently created Champ Car race reports I'll pipe up here. I took up the project to go back into history after helping to contribute to the 2007 CCWS race reports, the 2006 race reports having been in existence when I set upon this task, months before the "merger" happened. As a self-admitted "fanatic" I'd rather not see the history of what was once the most significant North American open wheel series lost to the ages when the ccws.com website inevitably goes off the air. To show I'm not a hopeless fanatic, I'll admit the post-CART era was generally less significant than the IRL. I myself always thought the IRL-style of putting top 5 summaries of each race (save the "only race that really matters" (Indy-centrism being but one of the things that made me a "fanatic")) in the season page was rather stingy in the details and much preferred the F1-style full results format. As per the race reports "orphanness", note that I am linking the race report to driver result tables as well as adding new result tables for old Champ Car guys who didn't have tables before (ala Patrick Carpentier or Michel Jourdain, Jr.), so these pages don't exist in a vacuum (or won't...note that i have yet to finish off the links for the 2004 reports). Apmiller (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (Re-edited for clarity) Apmiller (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Know that I didn't intend it as a criticism per say, as I am always apt to "allow" on Wikipedia more than others. There's nothing I hate more than people getting power-hungry and abusing the "pages tagged for deletion" tools. I will chime in about the IRL top-5 boxes, which was discussed a bit in late 2006/early 2007. For previous years, as well as the "Such-and-such Year in NASCAR," the history had been a top ten of each race in list form. List forms to me are very sloppy for applications such as box scores, etc. I suggested tables, and we came to a quick solution to do so (note that NASCAR editors quickly copied the good idea, I started it, not them ;) ). But showing the top 10 for every race made the page very long...in addition, with only a lowly 17 cars per IRL race at the time, finishing in the top 10 was seem by some as...well...not such a notable accomplishment at the time. Finishing in the top 5 at least meant you beat a dozen cars. So we came to an agreement to only show the top 5, then link to the official Indycar.com box score for the rest. Unfortunately, some people got behind (or lazy) and stopped linking to the official reports. It doesn't seem to matter. Anyway, carry on. Doctorindy (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Commentary from another (admitted fanatic). American open-wheel racing, regardless of the sanctioning body, goes back a LONG time, and a lot of people (specifically a lot of ancestors, these days) have been involved in given races throughout the decades, et al. For any of those descendents, nevermind the proverbially random researchers interested in this or that given race, wouldn't it be nice if a detailed race report/page were to exist someday for the races their so-and-so participated in, if it was a National Championship level event, so long as the page was completely factual, sourced, etc.? Maybe I'm being influenced to the Talk of Gasoline Alley callers-in to Donald I hear each year, but the notion of such and such a race "not mattering", not being notable, is something I can never agree with. With this in mind, CART/CCWS races should be treated with the same integrity as any AAA-sanctioned event: it happened, it was significant for the top tier of American open-wheel motorsports, and authenticated detail should always be welcome. It is only subjective opinion that could claim all F1 races to be important, but given AOWR races not, no offense likewise intended. Chr.K. (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but is Wiki the place for it though? Major races such as Indianapolis, Daytona, Le Mans, etc. are all universally "notable," just as World Series games, Super Bowls, Stanley Cup playoff games, etc. But we don't typically see regular season baseball, football, hockey games detailed unless they are playoffs, or part of universally accepted Lore. But again, I almost always ways favor a "save" position for Wiki, and feel those could find themselves somewhere. Doctorindy (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As precedent for major American race series, I'll point out that individual race result pages for every ALMS event dating back to 1998 (at present) have been created. Apmiller (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lakewood Speedway

A relatively new user started an article on the track. That track has a lot of history! I have nominated it for DYK after greatly expanding it. It should be featured on the main page in about 2 days. Would you add information about the USAC history/races of the track since I don't have sources? Royalbroil 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would be very greatful if anyone could find a reliable source for the speedway's role in the film Smokey & the Bandit. I can watch the movie, but that's not enough. I'd love to see one of my favorite movies on the main page! It would be even better if you could propose the alt hook at T:TDYK. Check out an article on DYK that I co-authored in the next Wikipedia Signpost (Wikipedia:FCDW/April 28, 2008). Royalbroil 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sid Collins

Some obvious know-little proposed speedy deletion of the Sid Collins article. Granted it does need some expansion, but I'd appreciate a little backing on this one. We need to KEEP and EXPAND. Doctorindy (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just commented on the page discussion, since I don't see the link to the SD discussion itself. --Chr.K. (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AfD

Hi there, WPAOWR. I recently closed this AfD as keep. He's a driver, competed once at Indy. Passes notability, but the article is unsourced. Being a BLP, I thought I'd bring Tom Klausler to your direct attention to see if you had any good sources/quick fixes that could verify the info, and perhaps expand the stub? Thanks in advance, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disregard, did it myself. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IndyCar vs. Indycar

User:Cmjc80 made a request for an "uncontroversial" move and an admin moved it over the redirect (it had a history). The article's talk page was not notified of this move. I disputed this move as controversial and wrong, so I moved it back. You can comment on this move on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moves

As you may have noticed User:VNAF Ace has moved the 2004 to 2008 IndyCar Series seasons from 200X IndyCar Series season to 200X IndyCar Series. I oppose this move as the precedent for including the word season has been instituted by WP:F1 and affirmed by WP:NASCAR to a point where it is now customary on WP to do so. I would like others opinions. -Drdisque (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree on this. I'd recreated all the moved pages as redirects, since for some reason they were deleted during the moves, since I figured there were going to be a bunch of broken links. But I don't think the change actually made any sense, and have no problem with moving them back.-- SonicAD (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Move them back. The moves don't make sense to me. Royalbroil 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"200X IndyCar Series" already refers to the 200X season. 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, for example, doesn't have "season" at the end of the title. It seems redundant to add "season" to the end of "XXXX IndyCar Series" or "XXXX Champ Car World Series." VNAF Ace (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
However, the difference is that the official name of the series is IndyCar Series while the official name of the NASCAR series is Sprint Cup. If you leave nothing after the name of the official series name, then the NASCAR article would be 2008 Sprint Cup which sounds odd. I (and and the others that agree with me) tend to feel that just saying "2008 IndyCar Series" sounds odd and that there is no good reason to move all the articles, especially when you don't do the move properly in that you blanked the old pages and did not fix any of the double redirects. -Drdisque (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Check the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series logo. The official name is "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series." Why to we have to add "season" to the end of "XXXX IndyCar Series" or "XXXX Champ Car World Series." Again, it seems redundant. VNAF Ace (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series refers to the series, but does not refer to non-series races like the Lowe's All Star race for example. A 'season' tag encompasses every race meeting and associated event throughout the calendar year. --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The move was wrong. A title such as "2008 IndyCar Series" does NOT have the definitive meaning as, for instance, Super Bowl XLII. The name of the competition entity is "IndyCar Series," therefore a descriptive noun of what the article represents is missing. WP guidelines offer little insight, however, it seems to be a LONG established WP guideline in all other sports to use the word "season" in their titles. 2008 NFL season, 2007–08 NBA season, 2008 Major League Baseball season, are just a few examples. The without the word "season," it implies a different style of sports organization, perhaps as if each season does not represent continuity from the previous. IROC I, II, III, etc. is the only motorsports exception to speak of. Doctorindy (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] American Indycar series

I'm trying to collect some information and stats about the old American Indycar Series (AIS) which was founded by Bill Tempero. Buddy Lazier, Jaques Lazier, Johnny Unser, etc., were all graduates of that minor league. I might serve as completement to the Indy Lights information. It's not longer in operation, and information is scarce, but anything is helpful. I'm putting together stuff on my sandbox. Doctorindy (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)