Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Historical taskforce?

With all the talk of taskforces, I was wondering whether there is a need or demand for a History of Motorsport taskforce? Or even a separate project? This is undoubtedly my favourite topic, and I know there are a few others on here who also like to get involved with the historical articles. Any interest? Readro 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done significant work with the history of numerous aspects of motorsport in the United States. I don't know if there is a need to organize. If so, I'd join, and a taskforce sounds reasonable. Royalbroil 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll stick my hand up for that. Probably best to start as a taskforce and then see how things go, rather than going for a fully blown WPfrom the off? Also, we'll need to discuss remit; when does current become historic? Pyrope 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
When I saw that title, I thought of you, Readro! I agree that this topic could use a taskforce, not least so that reference material can be pooled and organised. I won't be able to offer much in the way of reference material, but I will help if I can. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just too predictable! Readro 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Just as a related aside, myself and others have been spanking our digital cameras and uploading like crazy lately, and we now have over 150 historical motorsport images in Commons cats 2007 Silverstone Classic race meeting and Donington Grand Prix Collection. If you spot any captioning errors then please fix them/let me know. That is all. Pyrope 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some great photos there! Combined with the flickr photos being imported, we're building up a nice lot of 'stock' photos ready to go into articles. Adrian, are you aware of the WP Motorsport Library? That's intended to do the job of pooling offline reference material but perhaps isn't promoted as much as it should be. I'm afraid I can't be much help with the historical stuff, but my lack on knowledge on the subject means I find these articles among the most interesting on Wikipedia. Anything you can do to help improve and expand on them is a good idea. AlexJ 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen and used some of your photos lately, Pyrope. Some good quality compositions. Adrian M. H. 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Alex: Thanks, I'm aware of the library. I had that in mind at the time, as I think it would probably make sense for each taskforce to build its own library if we find that we have a lot sources. Adrian M. H. 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Each taskforce? I didn't think we had any, do we? Also, I don't think we should have a library for each taskforce as some would interlink, I think it's best just to have one library. Davnel03 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't, yet. I am thinking ahead. Adrian M. H. 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a strong presence on flickr too [1] in order to find Creative Commons images in less popular areas like sprint car racing. I have numerous friends on flickr who have changed to Creative Common licensing so that I can upload their pics to Wikipedia. There are honored to see their images in use on Wikipedia. Check out the "Experimental service" [2] for flickr uploading on Commons. You don't have to download the image to upload it to Commons! The webservers do all of the work! You are limited to 6 uploads per hour though, which is very limiting. Royalbroil 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Great tool! Nice find that one, it will definitely come in handy. Just a word of caution though, if anyone does use it, please remember to fully categorise the images when you upload! That way we should avoid time-consuming duplication. Pyrope 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A change in your sig eh, Keke? :-P. Anyway, I'm pretty interested in the history in motorsport even though most of my interest is on an era that was at least 10-20 years before I was born! --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, only a minor tweak. And hey, I was born in the late '70s but I still wrote about the Bristol 450, and that last raced 20 years before I was born... ;-) Pyrope 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One of my flickr contacts posted this set as Creative Commons. It looks like some are F1 cars. Would someone look at the set to see if anything is interesting enough to upload to Wikipedia? Royalbroil 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think most of them should be uploaded, especially the Ferraris on the first row. BTW, what's this a picture of (yes a racing car!), but what series? Davnel03 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a 1990s Benetton (195-198 vintage) as used by the Ascari Race Academy organisation. Adrian M. H. 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I can most definately use the pictures of the Ascari KZR-1 LMP and KZ-1 GT3 race cars. The359 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of uploading a bulk of pictures from that set, mostly all of the KZR-1 LMP, the KZ1 and Ecosse road cars, and the KZ1-R GT3 race car. The Formula cars I've left alone. They're all available at Commons:Category:Ascari vehicles The359 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's a Benetton B197. The sidepod inlets seem too narrow for it to be a B196. Readro 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is in fact a B197, then Ascari apparently own three of them, according to pictures on their website. They apparently all run in the EuroBOSS series as well. The359 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Official(ish) announcement! Due to the overwhelming sense of nostalgia in this thread, I have created a History of Motorsport taskforce page! I suggest you all have a look. Readro 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! And Doug Nye was good enough to present us with a suitable taskforce motto in the most recent edition of Motor Sport:
“ Ah, nostalgia - The Real Thing ”

—DSJ
Pyrope 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just posted a couple of things on the HoM talk page, if anyone is interested in starting that discussion? Pyrope 11:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing subprojects?

Sorry to expand on the A1GP/taskforce discussion, but I've actually been having this idea lately for the possibility of revamping all of the projects below WP:MOTOR, and this A1GP discussion has brought me to bring it up.

As of right now we have several broad projects and several small specialized projects and some projects that are simply not going much of anywhere lately. I honestly think there are some overlaps in projects that shouldn't be there, as well as some large gaps that we are missing. Therefore I propose that we move around, rename, and possibly even close some projects in an attempt to streamline things.

Here is my proposal for subprojects and task forces that I think would be much better. New projects or retasked projects are in italics.

  • WP:Motorsport
  • WP:NASCAR - Nothing to really change here.
  • IROC Task Force - IROC is no longer running, and their similiarity to NASCAR would make it logical to combine the two together.
  • WP:American Open Wheel Racing - stays as it is due to the unique nature of American open-wheel racing.
  • WP:Sports Car Racing - stays as it is, with possible task forces in the future, but requires more members first.
  • WP:Rally Racing - Expand beyond just WP:WRC to cover all rally.
  • World Rally Championship Task Force - Basically everything from WP:WRC moved here, allowing room for people to work on rallies outside the WRC as well.
  • WP:Motorcycle Racing - Expand beyond just MotoGP to cover all international moto racing.
  • MotoGP Task Force - Just like WP:WRC, moving the main area of the project to a key task force.
  • WP:Formula One - Due to the size and nature of F1, this should be maintained as a seperate project.
  • WP:Formula Racing - Combine GP2, F3000, International/National F3, and other junior series all together.
  • A1 Grand Prix Task Force - As a similar formula series, I believe this would be the proper location for the downgrading of A1GP.
  • WP:Touring Car Racing - This would be a big one. This would combined Australian Motorsport (who tends to concentrate on V8 Supercars) and British Motorsport (who tends to concentrate on BTCC). Adding in WTCC, ETCC, DTM, and a few other touring car series, I think this would make for a nice combination of the two national projects.
  • V8 Supercars Task Force - To take over where Australian Motorsport left off.
  • BTCC Task Force - To take over where British Motorsport left off.
  • History in Motorsport Task Force could be left as a WP:Motorsport task force, as mentioned above.

This is just a rough draft in my head, but what does anyone think about this layout of the projects? Suggestions more then welcome and encouraged. The359 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. The Touring Car idea, and that some smaller projects such as IROC could be better off as taskforces are both things I've been considering to bring up, so I go along with those 100%. The structure you've come up with seems quite neat and moves us primarily to classes of racing rather than the current jumble of classes, countries and individual series. I don't know whether NASCAR's scope should be extended to cover all stock-car racing as that seems to be the only main ommision. That's something others are probably in a better position to decide than me. AlexJ 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That is true about stock cars. However, I think the stock car series you are refering to are so small that just listing them under WP:Motorsport would be enough. Same applies to "Off-road racing" series like CORR, SCORE, and Baja 1000. The359 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In general I like the idea. I was considering suggesting downgrading IROC to a task force as you have suggested, but I disagree with adding it under WP:NASCAR. It should be a task force under WP:MOTOR, since IROC was intented to combine champions in many different genres/disciplines. Off-road racing should be created as a task force under WP:MOTOR IMHO. I would do a lot more work on off-road racing drivers, but I don't have reliable sources. A task force might help that problem. I feel like I understand CORR very well since I've been following it for over a dozen years and it started in my region of my state. I understand SCORE/Baja 1000 somewhat. I don't like how many nationally known and televised series in the U.S. aren't covered a task force or WikiProject. How about adding a task force to WP:NASCAR for other American asphalt track touring stock car series which often feed drivers into NASCAR's lower to mid divisions (ARCA RE/MAX Series, American Speed Association, USAR Hooters Pro Cup, etc). The major open wheel dirt racing should be covered by WP:AOWR already, but what about major American non-open wheel dirt touring series like International Motor Contest Association, dirt track racing, Lucas Oil Late Model Dirt Series, and World of Outlaws Late Model Series? Is the scope of dirt track racing world-wide enough that it should be a task force under WP:MOTOR? There are articles about dirt track racing in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, U.S., and Australia. Royalbroil 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with attempting to make a task force or project for EVERY motorsport is the fact that you're simply not going to get a grouping of people together to work on it and form consensus on methods of style. You work a lot on off-road racing series, but are there any other Wikipedians who work on them a lot as well? The359 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No. You bring up a good point. Royalbroil 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, WP:NASCAR could be morphed into WP:Stock Car Racing, but then keep WP:NASCAR as a project under WP:Stock Car Racing. It's certainly much larger then just a Task Force. This would also better allow IROC to become a Task Force of Stock Car Racing (since it is a form of Stock Car Racing) instead of just placing it under NASCAR, which it technically is not. The359 04:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this looks pretty good! Have you notified all of the sub-projects? Davnel03 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, because nothing is being done yet, it is merely a proposal and discussion. Changes wont come until there is thorough discussion and planning. The359 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AUSMOTOR deliberately broadened its scope to be more than just V8 Supercars, even if much of the present contributions are in the V8 Supercar and touringcar facets. This proposal would split it again across touring, rally, speedway, open wheel and bikes. Australian drivers, officials and fans tend to cover more than one of these. That project is also double-parented as a subproject of Wikiproject Australia. We're a parochial bunch, but aware of what happens in the rest of the world too. So my vote if it came to it would be to keep Wikiproject Australian Motorsport as a subproject under WP:MOTOR. Note that the project talk page tends to be very low traffic, as the members tend to focus on adding content from their own resources still. --Scott Davis Talk 07:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just found out about this through a note left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Motorsport. My personal preference would be to keep the British project, since it seems to work okay, but two more things come to my mind straight away:
1) Where would speed events such as hillclimbing fit in? Because of the huge variety of cars that compete in a single meeting, they wouldn't fit under any of the proposed subcats listed above.
2) Please, please don't use the term "rally racing" for a aub-project. For a long time now the main article has been at Rallying, and that is a far better name. As far as I know, only North America uses "rally racing" on any significant scale, and it's a rather inaccurate term anyway as rallies (in general) are not races. Loganberry (Talk) 12:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine Hillclimbing (and other forms of motorsport without their own project or taskforce) would come under WP:MOTOR. AlexJ 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, motorsports which do not have a large number of editors would simply fall under WP:MOTOR, as they do at the moment. And yes, WP:Rally would be a better name, my suggestion isn't set in stone or anything and can be easily changed. The359 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's that "as they do at the moment" thing that bothers me a little. Since hillclimbing in the British Isles is very different from hillclimbing in most other parts of the world, it fits comfortably under the "British motorsport" banner. I think it's happier there than as a tiny part of the overall WP:MOTOR leviathan. Loganberry (Talk) 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But as I brought up with RoyalBroil earlier, are there that many Wikipedians working on Hillclimb articles? If there are, you could form a Hillclimbing Task Force to cover both British and International hillclimbs. If not...is there really a need to maintain WP:BMS just because of hillclimbs that few work on? The359 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought taskforces would suit most types of racing perfectly. From WP:TASKFORCE - A taskforce "minimizes the bureaucratic overhead of its activities by relying on the parent project to provide as much of the procedural and technical infrastructure as possible." As most of us are trying to write an encyclopedia then minimising beauraucracy maximises editing time! Readro 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are karts racecars?

Noting the recent creation of Category:Australian Go-Kart drivers, I'm considering creating a parent "Kart drivers" category (and possibly renaming the existing category to "Australian Kart drivers", for consistency). My question is: Do we consider Kart drivers to be "racecar drivers", i.e. would Category:Kart drivers be a subcategory of Category:Racecar drivers (and likewise, would Category:Australian Kart drivers be a subcategory of Category:Australian racecar drivers)? DH85868993 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I reckon so, yes. Karts are racing vehicles, certainly (just not very car-like in a strict sense) and "racecar drivers" is just the US term for "racing drivers", and karters are racing drivers. Adrian M. H. 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I say yes too. When I go to kart races it has the same look and feel as car racing. It is competitive racing using a different vehicle. Many kart drivers move up to cars when they get old enough. DH98968993, why don't you propose merging the categories and let's see what wikipedians as a whole think? Royalbroil 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Racecar drivers should itself be renamed. Motorcycle racers would better fit under racing drivers instead of racecar drivers. The359 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Motorcycle racers wouldn't fit because they are riders, not drivers. Readro 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a neutral term to encompass all people who race some sort of motorized vehicle so we can name a parent category to all of these categories? There are people like Ricky Carmichael who span the gap between motorcycles and racecars. How about racers? Or would that term include runners/skiers/etc.? Royalbroil 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. You'd probably have to name a parent category something like "Motorsport participants". Readro 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
But then some could argue that it could include notable team personnel, etc. "Motorsport competitors" would, I think, sound more specific to those who are out on the tracks. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "Motor racers"? Just a thought. Pyrope 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a latter-note on this subject, it should be known that Karts are considered the primary starter-class for open-wheel racing[3]. They are most definitely "cars," in the original sense of a car being a motorized "carriage." They just happen to be extremely low to the ground, and highly compact. --Chr.K. 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chr, and I would expand it to call them a starter class for every genre of motorsport. I like Adrian's term "Motorsport competitors". Royalbroil 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 7 September - expires 12 September
    • 'Green Issue' in Motorsport (PROD by User:Recury; "The 'Green Issue' in Motorsport is an issue surrounding the whole of auto racing to reduce it's Carbon Dioxide emissions contributing to Global warming.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Added a few references to show that he is notable. I'm not that familiar with Drift Racing, but I'm pretty sure the D1GP is among the top levels of the sport, and he is also the head of Proton Motorsport. AlexJ 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy collection of 1990s racing news stories

(Edited) I've found a collection of useful news reports from throughout the early 1990s. They appear to be part of an archive. Often "fresh" news reports include minor elements not widely remembered in later years.

Series events described include CART, Formula One, British F3, rallying, Marlboro Masters and Eurocars. Largely oriented toward British motorsport. It offers statistical goodness for races long forgotten.

The main link is http://www.teamdan.com/archive/almanac.html. Readro has kindly informed me this is all from the GEL Motorsport Information Page

I have added information to the following articles including references:

  1. Jan Magnussen - details of his dominant F3 season with Paul Stewart Racing.
  2. Kelvin Burt
  3. Argentine Grand Prix, 1994 Formula One season and 1994 European Grand Prix - there was apparently an aborted 1994 Argentine Grand Prix, causing the race to move to Jerez under the Euro GP banner.
  4. Damon Hill - official test driver for Williams in 1991, not just 1992.

and I am considering creating 1994 British Formula Three season as a stub - but then again these go back only to 2004 British Formula Three season so it would be an odd duck.

-- Guroadrunner 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of motorsport championships created

Hello. Created a new list called List of motorsport championships. I have a feeling it will need to be renamed, and significantly expanded, by editors with better knowledge of the subject than I. It is my hope that this list can be wikilinked from the "Best finish" line of the Template:Infobox racing driver to help stem insistent revisions to driver infoboxes by folks who don't understand, and don't bother to research or read the hidden comments, that this field is about the championship finish of the driver. Please see diffdiffdiff and discussion Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people in the United States will not recognize the word "championship" to mean "racing series" - I didn't. I had to look at the article to see what you were talking about. What criteria would be used to determine which series should be included in the article?
A better approach IMHO would be to rename the field so that the field name clearly indicates that the field represents the highest points position that the driver attained in a particular series. How about we discuss better field names? A bot or WP:AWB should be able to update all articles. Royalbroil 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But we have been over that ground. With field names needing to be pithy, there is nothing that is any more suitable. The UK specialist press usually uses the term "best finish" as well. I have seen "best DC pos." used once or twice, which makes sense to me, but I know it would not be a practical option. I was surprised to read that the US does not use the term "championship"; I'm fairly sure that I have seen it used in US-derived media (including websites). Adrian M. H. 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do not see how Americans don't know the term Championship. The359 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Really, the term we don't use in the States is "motorsport" and considering that motorsport redirects to auto racing, the article might need to be renamed "List of auto racing championships". I think NASCAR fans (predominant motorsport in the States) understand there is a championship race (e.g. NEXTEL Cup), just not that other motorsports don't necessarily have it segmented from the regular season like a playoff series. As for the driver infobox field "best finish", Adrian and I already went in circles about this - there is no excellent solution, the wikilink option seems the most viable at this time. ZueJay (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, this WikiProject isn't "WikiProject Auto Racing". Okay, a slightly mischievous comment there, but that being so I don't see what's wrong with "List of motorsport championships" provided appropriate redirects are in place. Loganberry (Talk) 00:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. ;) ZueJay (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm slightly bothered by the necessity of points to determine what is a motorsport championship, because the USHRA Monster Jam series of monster trucks uses a final world championship event to determine things, but that's minor. I've added NHRA and IHRA to the drag racing section. -- Guroadrunner 03:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Formula One up for FAR

Discussion here. Davnel03 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Does this project's scope include F1 Powerboat Racing and other forms of non-land based motorsports? 84.64.25.108 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not at this time. The workload is so unbelievably enormous as it is that I don't think we could widen our remit any further. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for "motor racing" categories

I've proposed the following category renames:

on the basis that "motorsport" is the more commonly used term within Wikipedia. Feel free to add your comments here. Thanks. DH85868993 02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also added:
to the list. DH85868993 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see any major issues with that. Apart from the workload for you, of course! ; ) Adrian M. H. 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the beauty of {{Cfr}} - if the consensus is for the renames to proceed, it all happens by magic (well, a bot actually), with no effort from me! DH85868993 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub sorting

As part of the process of sorting motorsport/auto racing stubs, I have created Category:Motorsport stub templates for existing stub templates. If you're looking for a suitable stub template, you can check there. If you find any that have not yet been added, please include them. In due course, I think we should get more organised with stub categories so that they are easier to track. Adrian M. H. 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport

I recently created Category:Motorsport and made Category:Auto racing and Category:Motorcycle sport subcategories thereof. Having already done the deed(!), I thought I'd better check that my understanding of these terms is consistent with the general view. My understanding is:

  • "Auto racing" is essentially equivalent to "car (and truck) racing", and doesn't include motorcycle racing
  • "Motorsport" is a broader term, which covers both "auto racing" and "motorcycle racing" (as well as other things like snowmobile racing, etc)

Is that how everyone else sees it? DH85868993 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My Midwestern (Northern) U.S. perspective: "auto racing" is racing automobiles / trucks. "Motorsports" is racing anything with a motor. The term is not specific to what medium they race on, so it could include airplanes, powerboats, snowmobiles, etc. The term "Motorsports" most commonly used by motorcycles, quads (4 wheelers), snowmobile, and jet ski resellers. I don't see the term "Motorsport" used, but using it for all of these groups make sense. Royalbroil 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Today I saw an television advertisement for a national airplane race, they described the sport as "Motorsport". Royalbroil 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, basically. My only problem is that some of those "Motorsport" or "Motor racing" categories only have car/truck racing articles in them (Category:Motorsport by country is probably 99% auto racing and I think Category:Motorsport terminology and Category:Motor racing by year are 100%). So if we are going to do it that way, they should probably be renamed, right? Recury 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
From my British perspective, "motorsport" tends to mean "racing with land-based things with wheels" - basically cars, karts, motorbikes and trucks. I believe that the long-running British weekly Motorsport News (which could do with an article, btw) doesn't cover planes or powerboats other than very incidentally. We almost never use "motorsports" in the UK, simply because British English refers to "sport" rather than "sports" for general coverage (cf BBC Sport). The FIA confuses matters further by spelling it as two words, as in "World Motor Sport Council"... Loganberry (Talk) 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As does Motor Sport magazine, and Motor Sport News in Ireland. A quick web search also reveals that newspapers as far afield as Australia and Singapore also use "motor sport" to refer simply to terrestrial, wheeled-vehicle-with-engine competitions. Even in the USA, the Virginia Motor Sport Club have nothing to do with aerial or aquatic racing. I have never heard the term used to refer to boats or planes except on Wikipedia. Odd that. Pyrope 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely common in the UK to use motorsport to only describe land-based wheeled engine sport but I notice The Guardian put the Red Bull Air Race under their motorsport section, and Red Bull themselves advertise it with "get ready for high performance motor sport at the Red Bull Air Race". Rather confusing... AlexJ 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Copywriters and journalists obviously struggle as much as anyone to find the perfect definition for "combustion-powered airborne or waterborne vehicles that are used in competition". Adrian M. H. 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever makes the most sense in the world view is what should be used. I wonder how the terms are viewed in other English-as-a-primary-language countries like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc. I saw the television advertisement again, and it is about the airplane world championships in San Diego. I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I wouldn't have commented without being asked first. Maybe it was just marketing using a term to catch people's attention. Royalbroil 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Here in Australia, in my experience, the term "motorsport" generally refers to car, truck and motorcycle sport, rather than, say, air racing or motorboat racing. Some other points to consider:
  • If we do decide that air racing and motorboat racing should be included under "motorsport", then it wouldn't just be a matter of putting Category:Air racing and Category:Motorboat racing into Category:Motorsport. For completeness, we should also include air racing and powerboat racing venues in the "motorsport venues" category, and include air and powerboat racing events in the "Motorsport in <country>" and "<year> in motorsport" categories, etc [I'm not saying this would be a good thing or a bad thing; just that it's something we would need to do]
  • Until recently, I considered "motorsport" and "motor racing" to be pretty much synonymous terms. But as pointed out here, there are some forms of motorsport (such as Freestyle Motocross) which aren't actually "racing" per se.
I think we need to decide (or confirm) what we want to include within the scope of "motorsport", and then how we want to divide things up within. DH85868993 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae

In light of the recent tragic events last Saturday, it's no surprise that Colin McRae's article has been given a major over haul (and about time too ;-)) but of course that can also start an edit war (and the subject is one that you guys could probably guess) and I've already been called accused of "disrespecting the dead" for trying to keep the article in-line and consistent with other Motorsport biographies. Anyway, as well as the infobox, I've also tried the following which works on the other bios:

  • I've tried the tried and tested, Colin McRae (DoB, PoB) is a British [...] from Scotland. See here [4].
  • And I've also added a hidden note to try and fend off the mis-use of the Scottish flag in the nationality field. [5]

So my question to you guys is this: What have I done wrong to be accused of "disrespecting the dead"? Have I've been doing everything so far correctly? What should I do now? Thanks guys. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't done anything. I think it might be best to let this one lie for a couple of weeks, let the raw nerve edges soothe down a bit. The death of a prominent Scot is always going to get the ScotsNats knickers twisted. I fully agree that his nationaility is British, not Scottish (which doesn't exist), but I see no harm in having him described as Scottish in the lead. No point in starting an edit war with the fly-bys right now though. Pyrope 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, your right. I'm just a little obsessed with everything being consistent with each other (the way of the "Aspie" ;-)). Besides, if it keeps up than it'll turn from an Edit War into a War of Personal Attacks, or even worse: Legal threats. :-(.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not the only one who wants consistency. I tried to formulate a policy about utilising "British" and the Union Flag instead of the constituent countries' flags in infoboxes, but it was shot down by the nationalists and accused of all sorts of things - needless to say I'm not going to be taking part in any more policy discussions. I don't mind talking rationally with people but when character assassination is brought into a discussion it just isn't fun any more. Readro 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Readro's first taste of guideline development was not a friendly one, unfortunately. I have rarely seen that many talk page posts in such a short period of time. I hope it won't put you off completely, though, Readro; it's not normally that bad! As for the McRae article and others; I agree with all of you about how it should be presented, but nationalistic fervour is very strong. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear... I may have unwittingly fanned the flames on this one just now. I saw that the McRae article's infobox was entirely missing its "Nationality" field, filled it in (as "British") and then noticed that there had been some controversy, so I made a Talk page post there pointing out that what people wanted the status of Scotland to be was irrelevant; what it actually is should inform our choice, and as of this moment it's part of the UK. Oh well, too late to change that now, though I stand by what I said. Apologies if this causes people trouble. Loganberry (Talk) 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter Loganberry. Fact is, we have the "evidence", as it were, to back up our theory that McRae is British. Besides, what your doing is in line with WP:BB, yes? ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The nationalists are out in force again - Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice_board#Nationality POV-pushers reach a new low. Readro 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I was ready to point out the rally tables are fully of wrong flags. I've actually had to revert two people twice about "nationalities" in the WRC championship tables (more because of McRae than anything else). It was actually kind of funny to see people reverting Matthew Wilson from British to English, considering his father Malcolm is a Welshman. And if that's not a clear case of an ambiguous "nationality" inside the UK, I don't know what is. --Pc13 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion at Template talk:WRC driver#Addition of parameter which will hopefully satisfy everyone. John Hayestalk 09:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Official forums

The webmaster at over 120 official forums (from local drivers to NASCAR drivers) is objecting to WP:NASCAR's removal of his forums from driver's pages. He claims that we are not following guidelines because "Links normally to be avoided", is not "Links ALWAYS to be avoided". The discussion is happening at Talk:Johnny Sauter. Royalbroil 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

EL problems such as this are far too common. Sometimes, you can explain things until you're blue in the face (or have RSI). Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the EL guideline is too soft and woolly. For example, official sites are encouraged, particularly in biographies, but fora are discouraged. Which, of course, leaves official fora in limbo. I'll keep an eye on that discussion and chip in if I think it will help. Adrian M. H. 11:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Forums are essentially conversation in nature. If there is content in a forum of a significant nature then that content should be placed on the site concerned. Even if the driver is quoted directly, it can frequently by the driver's PR spin doctor writing the quote on the driver's behalf, because he drivers can't be trusted to voice an opinion that might cause problems with a commercial relationship. Using the tag official does not make a forum, not a conversation in nature. -- 11:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Actually this is me. --Falcadore 08:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

We should have an active role in all of the motorsport categories at Wikimedia Commons, the shared media (mainly image) repository for all Wikipedia projects. Category:Motorsports and its children categories are of great interest to this WikiProject. I know it's not technically part of this WikiProject's scope, but it certainly affects us greatly. I have done many edits helping organize this structure, and many of us have uploaded images. User:Morio has taken a very active role in helping organize there, and is no doubt knowledgable about motorsport. Morio has listed his/her English as basic. We should reference this structure someone prominent in this WikiProject's scope. Thanks to User:Barno for bringing up this topic on my talk page. Royalbroil 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that User:Morio is active here on the English Wikipedia too. That's not my point. My main question is wondering if we should have a listing of Commons category here at WP:MOTOR for reference. Royalbroil 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A1 Grand Prix race articles and downgrading continued....

We discussed a month ago about the possible deletion of all A1 Grand Prix race article, and possible downgrading of the WikiProject to taskforce status. As of now, the first race of the new season has yet to be created. This suggests to me that the notability of the series has decreased, and therefore the race articles should be deleted. The WikiProject is inactive at the moment also, the last topic on the talkpage was the topic I brought up a month ago! So, back to the subject, should the race article be deleted and should the project be downgraded to taskforce level? Thanks, Davnel03 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of their member list, two users are still active in the project. User:Peanutter67 has contributed to a few A1GP articles, while User:Rollof1 has been updating the 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix season article. Rollof1 has also been contributing to various A1GP articles since he registered in August. Don't expect race reports to appear immediately - the race was run a mere two days ago. The359 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You need about ten - fifteen members for a WikiProject. Two people is nothing - thats why it should be a taskforce. Davnel03 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That rule would eliminate all but WikiProject F1 and WikiProject NASCAR most likely. The WikiProject Proposal page suggests 5-10 participants to start a Project. There is no page that I've seen suggesting how many are required to maintain a project. The359 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
...and the first race report has just arrived! Pyrope 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's potentially a dangerous road to go down. Lots of F1 race reports do a worse job than the A1 ones at implying notability. Even though they will eventually claim notability, at present the same argument could (and may well) be used against the F1 ones. Assuming this happens, we'd then have to re-create the results tables for each report as we write them, plus go thorough articles and remove red links etc. Think carefully about the potential knock-on effects of what you're suggesting before proceeding. On your argument about the article not being written yet, remember that there is no time limit for us to finish Wikipedia by. As someone once said "The world does not end tomorrow, and if it does then we're wasting our time here." AlexJ 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully the word won't end tomorrow! Yeah, you have a point. Davnel03 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding or not adding new content doesn't determine the notability of all prior race articles - that's faulty logic to me. I do not support Davnel03's conclusions, although WikiProject's articles should be monitored occasionally. I don't see a reason to shut down the WikiProject as long as someone is keeping the project's articles maintained except if it is part of sweeping changes. An interested Wikipedian could start contributing and energize the WikiProject. Remember, one race does not make a season. I would support changing the IROC WikiProject to a taskforce of WP:MOTOR since the series appears to be ended (at least for now). Royalbroil 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have updated all(or at least most) of the A1 GP articles to include information from the first round. Peanutter67 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review

I have listed the Motorsport Portal for peer review at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Motorsport/archive1. I think we could get it to featured status. Adrian M. H. 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After working on it over the last few days, it's almost ready for a request for that coveted little gold star. I have re-jigged just about everything, rewritten bits and pieces, found a host of great photos (12 included now, and I was holding a few back even then), and it now has three pages instead of one! Although one of those needs a bit of work yet. I hope you all like it so far. Shuffles off sleepily. Adrian M. H. 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan Kulwicki peer review

How ironic - 2 peer reviews requested in less than 3 hours! I have just posted a request for a Peer review of the Alan Kulwicki article (Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Kulwicki/archive1). This is the first NASCAR driver article that has been prepared seeking Good Article criteria, and I intend to improve it until it meets Featured Article criteria. Please review and comment, especially you F1 contributors who have taken numerous articles to FA. Royalbroil 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion: John Haugland

John Haugland at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Haugland (2007-10-07 –)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Update -- the AFD failed, and the article was kept. It is now firmly at "stub" or "start" status. Guroadrunner (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question seeking some consensus

Japanese Formula Three Championship was created recently. I would have named this All-Japan Formula 3 or a variant thereof to reflect its proper title, which it has had since its creation (as far as I can remember). The article's title was presumably chosen because of the usual pattern for F3 series, although "usual" is probably not the right word, since we have only two three that fit this pattern and they two of them have a matching history. So should it be renamed? I am asking this here because the article's talk page is likely to be a very lonely place. Adrian M. H. 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From memory, the MOS says to go with the most common name. In this case, this would be All-Japan Formula 3, with a redirect from JFTC. To give an example of this guideline in action, the usual pattern for international rugby teams article is "Country national rugby union team". However New Zealand are more often referred to as the All Blacks so that is where the article is located. My suggestion would be to move it. AlexJ 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Alex's points all sound fair to me. Pyrope 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, guys. Much appreciated. I'll go ahead and make the move, and have a go at improving the article as well. It's essentially unsourced. Adrian M. H. 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Motorsport library: SCR and DBSI added

  • I've added 1984-94 and 1998-2001 issues of Stock Car Racing and 2000-04 issues of Dick Berggren's Speedway Illustrated to the library at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Library. That's just the issues retrieved from various storage so far. My father had SCR going back to 1965, but I don't know how much of that collection got auctioned off when he died. These will be useful mainly for NASCAR and short-track USA drivers and events (including big dirt races that didn't get much other national coverage), so I'm cross-posting this mention at the talk page for WikiProject NASCAR. Barno 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Formula Atlantic

Formula Atlantic and Formula Pacific are currently redirected to the Champ Car Atlantic page. This ought to change really, shouldn't it? Readro 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Formula Atlantic is Champ Car Atlantic. The name change alone isn't enough to warrant two articles. Formula Pacific is not jogging my memory right now. Adrian M. H. 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Formula Atlantic actually started in the UK. As well as the American series, there were Australian, Canadian, Irish, Japanese, South East Asian, New Zealand, South African and British Formula Atlantic series. Formula Atlantic should be for the formula, Champ Car Atlantic is just a series which happens to be the only one currently running to the formula. Formula Pacific was very similar and was in New Zealand and Japan. Readro 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that it had more than one series at one time (although some of those that you name are surprises to me; Irish?) but the North American series is and was the most notable of that category. It's the only one that stuck around. If you are confident that you can gather enough verifiable material to write about the formula as a whole, then by all means go over the redirect, but I wonder whether that would be possible. Adrian M. H. 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles in Autoweek, Road & Track, and other magazines covering mainly the USA side of it for decades, but most are print-only and not online. (I assume there are other print mags that gave substantial coverage to other nations' Atlantic series.) Examples found through a quick Google search: [6] from Road & Track; [7] from Autoweek via findarticles; [8] in Deep Throttle's history section (probably not a reliable source for notability but provides historic details for deeper searching). Once enough good sources are located, I would support a separate article for worldwide Formula Atlantic, with the US stuff summarized briefly there and a "main" tag pointing to Champ Car Atlantic with more details. Barno 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Also, modern Champcar Atlantic has evolved quite some way beyond the global version of Atlantic (known at various times and places as Pacific and Mondial as well). The global era was dominated by a Ford Cosworth two litre while the US survivor has since adopted control engines, Toyota and more recently I think a Mazda based engine? So there is more than enough to support seperate entries for Gloabl version and Champ Car version. Perhaps the global version might be title Formula Mondial as the name was created to overcome the Atlantic/Pacific nomenclature clashes and explain the mergin in the initial paragraph? Suggestion only. --Falcadore 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Swiss U-turn

Hi. Just in case you haven't noticed, the Swiss have changed their minds about overturning their circuit racing ban. I know a few articles were changed earlier in the year when the first vote appeared to show that they would, and I have altered the most obvious (Swiss GP, 1955 Le Mans, etc.) to reflect the new info, but there may be more that I haven't spotted. Please keep your eyes peeled. Pyrope 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Race to the Sky

I started its article today. I noticed on the hillclimbing article that someone said that the race is now defunct, and their website is down. Can anyone confirm? The tense of the article needs to change if its defunct. Every winner of the climb already had an article! Royalbroil 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. This article has quite a bit of information, although it's six months old. The domain racetothesky.com expired 10 days ago, and I can't find anything about the 2008 event on archive.org. Prolog 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the link. I updated the article about the event's uncertain future. Royalbroil 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible merger of two articles into the Oval article

I have mooted the idea of merging the Superspeedway and Roval stubs into dedicated sections of Oval so that we can have one good article about regular asphalt ovals. Short, board, and dirt tracks are much bigger individual topics and I think that the oval article could and should be as good as that. Adrian M. H. 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also notified WP:NASCAR. Adrian M. H. 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Oval about the shape at present? An disambig article at Oval (Racetrack) (for example) would probably work better. But I agree, Superspeedway and Roval could be too narrow for a dedicated article but be good sections within a larger article. AlexJ 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Doh! There's already an article at Oval track which for some reason isn't on Oval's disambig page. I'll change all the links over now. AlexJ 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the merge links, Alex. I had Oval track open in one tab but still typed "oval" in the next three tabs without thinking! Adrian M. H. 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose 2 articles. One should be named Oval (racetrack) or I prefer Oval track, and it should the definitions plus encyclopedic information of oval tracks, rovals, triovals, and superspeedways down to short tracks since they are all types of oval tracks. The second should be called something like asphalt track racing or oval track racing. It should cover local up to non-national touring series' racing on asphalt tracks, just like dirt track racing covers the same topic but on dirt tracks.
I wrote much of the dirt track racing as it exists now. Most of the dirt track article would also apply for local asphalt oval racing. At initial construction time a vehicle could be set up to race on either surface, and the vehicle is constructed/optimized for the surface that it will be used for. There are different sanctioning bodies, so that section would be somewhat different in each article. The race program section for local races is the more or less the same for either surface. Should the race program section be duplicated in both articles, or should there be a separate article? I experienced a wide variety of programs in the 41 events at the 26 circuits that I attended so far this year, so I feel qualified to write about what is happening in the United States. Royalbroil 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to use {{main}} for short sections about the subjects covered in the other three articles (dirt, board, and short track). I'm not sure about the idea of having just two articles. Adrian M. H. 12:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I understand your thoughts then. Are you saying that you want to keep the separate articles for the different shapes and sizes of tracks as they exist now, but you want to make a new article like what I suggested as #2? Royalbroil 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No. We need one article for regular asphalt ovals and their most obvious sub-categories (the ones that do not currently or may not in the future support separate articles): Oval track needs sections for Superspeedways, Rovals and Tri-ovals without any separate articles. Then sections for dirt ovals, board tracks and short tracks, all with separate articles and {{main}} links. These separate articles should have more content about the racing, not just the circuit configuration, because they are – to my mind – more distinct in many respects from regular NASCAR/IRL-style asphalt ovals. Adrian M. H. 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to go from here would be to move Oval track to Oval track racing. Superspeedway should be merged into it, but Short tracks should have just a small section with a link to a main article. I think rovals are different enough in terms of the cars and drivers racing on them to warrent a different article. Mustang6172 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are we with this now? I think the structure should be as follows:
  • Oval track (or Oval circuit if that is deemed more suitable?) with sections for:
    • Superspeedways
    • Rovals
    • Tri-ovals
    • Short tracks
    • Dirt tracks
    • Board tracks
With {{main}} links to be added for one, more or all of the last three in that list. I believe that the first three are best served only by sections in the parent article. Short track motor racing has some worthwhile content, though I am not sure about the worth of all those tables – I'd like some feedback about that. I think that Board track racing (could this be expanded?) and Dirt track racing are distinctive subjects that deserve their own articles, as they have now. Each of those two articles have their good points and warrant investment on our part. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Oval track racing would be the best title because it's more in line with Road racing's title, and makes it easier to talk about the nature of oval racing rather than just the track. Mustang6172 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That depends on what we all want from these articles: articles about the type of circuit or articles about the racing that occurs on them? Obviously, they cannot be mutually exclusive, but the weight can go either way. Adrian M. H. 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the optic is primarily North American (right?), it should not be named oval circuit. I prefer the title "Oval track racing". As for the scope, I think what Adrian has proposed is reasonable, but there needs to be a section on intermediate tracks (from 1 mile to less than 2 miles). I have written almost the entire board track racing article, and I would appreciate some help expanding it. It's hard to find sources since it was so long ago and I usually use web sources. Was board track racing a worldwide phenomenon or just American? The table in the short track racing and dirt track racing in the United States should get removed as impossible to maintain. See discussion below. Oval track racing should have links either in the text or in a "See also" section to road racing. There have also be a few circle tracks like Langhorne Speedway. I know I've watched a nationally (U.S.) televised race at some other circle track. Royalbroil 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If "circuit" is not used in the US, then it makes total sense to ignore it. I'm happy with that. There are only, to my recollection, three ovals currently in use for racing outside the US, plus two well-known old circuits that are now proving grounds (Brooklands and Avus). I wish I could help with the board track article, as it's a good little article, but I don't have any sources for it at all. I think there was some board racing in Europe. Circular tracks and any other lengths not covered by the other sections can and should be included in some way when any rewrite/expansion is done to the oval article. Adrian M. H. 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Shame on you Adrian, you forgot Monza. There are a few short tracks in Canada, at least one (r)oval in Mexico, and at least one oval in Brazil. I'm ready to move the article to oval track racing. Any objections?Mustang6172 05:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to a lack of opposition, I've made the move to oval track racing. Mustang6172 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but nobody considers that to be an oval, just because it once was. I was writing about tracks that are still ovals today. Anyway, if there is no objection, I will start merging the tagged articles later today and add sections to summarise the longer articles that are not being merged. Hopefully that will be the best solution. Adrian M. H. 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dirt track racing vs short track racing

The oval track discussion brings up another problem: there is an article called Short track motor racing that talks a little about short track racing, then has a very incomplete list of dirt and asphalt short tracks across Canada and the U.S. There is another article called Dirt track racing in the United States which has another very incomplete list of the dirt tracks in the U.S., which is a subset of the short track article (minus the asphalt tracks). Any thoughts on how to proceed? Royalbroil 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see how useful those lists would be (combined or not). It would probably be best to cut those loose. Then we can just put the rest of the information into Short track motor racing and if that article grows until it needs to be split, we'll cross that bridge when we reach it. Mustang6172 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with either moving the list of dirt track to the short track motor racing article or deleting it altogether. What should the content of the dirt track racing in the United States artice be then? If the list is kept: a few sentences, then a link to the the short track racing article? If not kept, then what? Royalbroil 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought I made this clear. The dirt track article would just redirect to the current short track article. Mustang6172 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sounds reasonable except for one thing - the short track motor racing article then doesn't take a world view - it's only about the U.S. Royalbroil 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is not a directory, the lists should be dropped. Text (not a table) in the short-track article, and in the dirt-track article if kept, should have a few facts, referenced to the National Speedway Directory: number of tracks in number of states, state with most tracks, min and max track lengths, if there are outliers then something like "98% of US dirt tracks are between one-quarter mile and one mile in length". The dirt-track article, for which I can find enough book references in the Coastal 181 catalog to keep, should have a few sentences of history of the biggest dirt sanctioning bodies such as AAA, IMCA, USAC, NASCAR, DIRT, and WoO. Maybe bits on the more notable regional Midget and Late Model touring groups. Definitely it should have (though harder to cite) a section about trends in car classes (such as the boom in Midgets right after WWII, followed by the boom in stock cars), speedway construction/closings, and technologies. I'll add some book listings from the catalog to the dirt article's talk page, so people can look in libraries. Barno 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the direction that Barno has proposed. Sounds like we all favor removing the list of every track in every state. It's impossible to upkeep, and falls outside of the bounds of an encyclopedia. Royalbroil 02:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

BTCC lacks images (so here's a source)

I don't have time right now, but the British Touring Car Championship page has no images. Here is a source with lots of nice images to choose from, all free licensed : http://www.flickr.com/photos/gluemoon/sets/72057594110758877/

Action desired -- add images to BTCC page. Also, in theory, Jason Plato and other top drivers.

-- Guroadrunner 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend using the "Experimental Service" on Commons for a MUCH quicker download. I brought it up here. Royalbroil 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of those are already at Commons, I think, but I have added the link to the touring car taskforce in case any are missing. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jay Penske

Penske co-owned a race team that raced at Indy this year. An anon from Waterford, Michigan (near his high school), who has obvious strong feelings against Penske, has complained that the article is written from biographies on Penske's website, so I rewrote the article from scratch using only reliable sources. An anon opponent claims an article from yahoo is wrong. He/she supposedly talked to everyone from a librarian at a state school to the dean at a university, at all disagree with the article. Please review the article to see whether or not what I did is proper, and comment on its talk page. Everything that I put into it gets disputed. Royalbroil 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The first task is to identify the reliability of all pertinent sources. If the opponent rejects information that is consensus-agreed to be a reliable source, then the opponent is in the wrong, and the matter can be taken to an arbitration committee. --Chr.K. 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison article(s)

Before I go into details, I'd like to mention that this is a very rough idea and may be controversial.

I was reading over some of the sports related articles on Wikipedia. I noticed several articles that compared sports with common origins (ex: Comparison of cricket and baseball, Comparison of American football and rugby union, Comparison of rugby league and rugby union, etc.). Those articles seem very good at helping people familiar with one sport learn about another. It would seem logical to propose we try something similar motor sports. Something along the lines of Comparison of Formula 1 and NASCAR NEXTEL Cup or a more vague Comparison of open-wheel racing and stock car racing would seem appropriate. Thoughts? Mustang6172 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem I forsee is that there are so many different forms of motorsport, that which ones do we pick to compare? The359 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why stop with two? A bulk comparison of a dozen major categories with tables? --Falcadore 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting an article that consists of a table comparing most major types of motorsport, along with some text? Royalbroil 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This topic has been brought up at WP:American Open Wheel Racing. We would like to have an article comparing the two IndyCar series. Royalbroil 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Per request for my opinion and revival of this issue, I think we need a breakdown of motorsports in a fashion resembling the scientific breakdown of biological life, which (currently, and for the foreseeable future) holds seven classification rankings based on the scope of the definitions involved...the Animal Kingdom different from the Plant Kingdom, among the most basic (see Taxonomy, as well). As this sort of breakdown could apply to all manner of subjects, I think we need to begin construction of one here: though NASCAR and English Touring Car racing are quite different, they are more alike to each other than they are to assorted open-wheel, "pure" racing cars. If this goal is approved, our first task would be to determine the most fundamental ("kingdom") technical regulation differences in motorsports branches, and then work outwards. --Chr.K. 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone recognise....

....this car? Driven by Geoff Lees, apparently a RALT, but I don't know the chassis model, engine supplier or series. Adrian M. H. 16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the car, but with Nigel Mansell at the wheel. He debuted with the car at the 1980 Marlboro Trophy, 6th round of the European F2 Championship. Nige also drove it in the next round at the Limborg GP in Zolder (most likely place for the photo), and later in Zandvoort. Tom Gloy drove it fo two rounds, and Lees took over for Hockenheim, final round of the series. --Pc13 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That would presumably make it the RT2-Honda F2 car that Lees ran at Hockenheim, at the end of that year? That car was certainly #34. If it were the 1981 model I would have expected the Honda-dominated livery. Pyrope 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice work guys. The European series, Honda motor, RT2, 1980. Excellent. Off to upload it to Commons now. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Portal:Motorcycle racing defunct?

Also posted at WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing

I have just found this while wandering around the portal sub-categories. It has not had any edits since 2006! Would anyone consider reviving it? Adrian M. H. 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(also posted this at the other talk page) I added info in all the fields and I think the portal can "go online" hopefully more people will find out about it and contribute to it then I will also be adding more info in the next few days. My motorcycle racing knowledge is limited to circuit racing (motoGP, superbikes etc...) if the portal scope can be limited to that I would be happy to maintain it by myself otherwise I can handle that but others must handle the rest (off road etc...) Chris Ssk (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Formula One no longer a featured article, demoted to B-Class status

Cross posted to WP:F1

The Formula One FAR has ended, with the article being delisted, as the required improvements were not made to the article. Davnel03 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...And? I'm not exactly seeing the reason for declaring this here? The359 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Because WP:MOTOR is WP:F1 parent project, so I need to notify both projects. It doesn't change the fact that the article has been delisted. Davnel03 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not contesting that, but what is there to announce to WP:MOTOR? It's a clearly WP:F1 subject? And if you were going to notify all involved projects, why didn't you notify WP:MOTOR when the article was up for review, not after it had already been delisted? The359 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I did notify this project. It's not fault if no action was taken. Davnel03 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can post a comment about anything that they think is relevant or of interest, as long as it relates in some way to the project, which this does. Davnel's previous post about the review didn't raise much interest in me, admittedly, but only because I don't do anything related to FAC or FAR. It was certainly relevant to us. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I had scrolled back to see if there was a note about it and missed it because there had been no replies. Withdrawn. The359 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Track marshal vs. Auto race workers vs. rally marshal, etc.

All of these articles talk about the same thing: people who volunteer or work the corners at a circuit/track. We need to come up with what to name to use for a combined article for these terms and redirect the others to it. The article should talk about the different uses of the like terms. "Auto race workers" is not a common name. "Marshal" is a common name that most English speaker understand. There are some other terms like "corner worker" or "safety worker" that should be considered too. What does everyone think? Royalbroil 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Marshal (auto racing) or Marshal (motor racing). Adrian M. H. 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Marshal (motorsports) or Marshal (motorsport) would be better.Mustang6172 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think, to keep with the main article's name, we should go with Marshal (auto racing) and have redirect links from the other suggestions of course.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Motorsports officiation, which then allows for division down into all terms used. --Chr.K. 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Marshals do not officiate; stewards, scrutineers and race directors could be considered to officiate. Adrian M. H. 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
But they're workers who answer to the officials/organizers, and hence are part of their "offialdom." I'm sure the fan in the stands sees them as part of the authority system of the race/race course. Motorsports organization? Sounds either redundant, or people could ask "Which one?", defeating the point. --Chr.K. 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A marshal in the UK is viewed as an official (although not licensed). Also - corner worker is not an appropriate name, there are plenty of marshals who have to do their job at a point on a straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.124 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I propose we call the article Marshal (auto racing) since it is agreeable to the most contributors. I agree with Phill's comment about using the term "auto racing" instead of "motorsport" to be consistent with the main article. Marshal is the term used in F1, right? None of the proposed names have widespread use in the United States but they all make sense. There should be sections on all of the officiation positions. There appears to be differences in the precise use of the terms, so the merged article will need to reflect the various terms. Any more comments? Royalbroil 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Only to say that the spelling should use a single L and that whichever term is not used should become a redirect. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I meant to use the single "L", so I updated the link. Since both the single and double L are used in the United States, I meant to use the version with wider use worldwide. Royalbroil 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Motorsports officiation would still distribute into lower-tier levels such as course workers, race marshals, and so forth, in the way this very project distributes into the sub-projects on the more specified forms of the discipline. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page from the Rally Marshal page to see how the two roles were described. Interesting discussion about the name. In Australia they are called Officials which can lead to to some ambiguous wording - I think I like marshal better. However, I digress. The purpose of this posting is to propose an improvement to the Rally Marshal paragraph on this page. Would anybody have any objection if it was worded as follows:

A similar role called a rally marshal is used in rallies. Rally marshals are located along the course of a rally, at road junctions to keep non-competing cars off the course, at spectator points to control spectators, and to perform time keeping duties at time controls. They can come to the aid of a car that has a crash, but this would be unusual due to the length of a rally stage and the low probability that a crash would occur just near a marshal.

Perhaps it could also be moved to the end of the introductory section. This is a page about Track Marshals after all. And if it's too wordy, how about just the first sentence and readers can use the link to inform themselves further. Ghodgskiss (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Timing and scoring clock discussion, revived

Comments made some archives back, concerning the degree of accuracy of the measurement then made, I agree with, with one provision. The original idea, for an automatic template to always show measurement to a certain degree, was to show standardized format; by extension, this would also mean that the 0.0635 second difference between Hornish and Marco Andretti made (and subsequently published) by IMS timing and scoring after the 2006 finish, would be rounded. Since many do not like the idea on three decimal places for older races basis of accuracy, could it be noted above the box score, the degree to which the accuracy was recorded? Examples of this, thus far, in the first three Indianapolis 500 pages. Rather than doing away with 0:00:00.000, identify the times when the final two numbers were not calculable. --Chr.K. 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My argument at the time (to save people checking through the archives) was that we should always give them to the accuracy they were recorded, "0:01:31.15" is not the same thing as "0:01:31.150" and "0:01:31.150 (accurate to hundredths of seconds)" looks silly. Also why would we want to be less accurate when tenthousandth second accurate times are available to us? Surely we should stick with the published result (however accurate it is) each time. No extra digits, no rounding. AlexJ 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It would not read the accuracy of measurement at the time beside the digits, but just above the template/box score in italics, as in the case here. Also, on why we'd want three digits rounded: technically, clocks today are capable of getting technical subjects down to numbingly exact measures, but for some reason (back in high school in my case), I was often told that people didn't want measurements down to the tenth+ decimal place, even though I preferred such if possible. Later, I came across articles like this, among others (look up "three decimal places" through Google), indicating that three is a number that begins to express critical values in scientific studies. Perhaps my conclusions are wrong, but in my experience, three is a standard method; would that we could apply such notion of "international standard" to motorsports. --Chr.K. 08:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The standard scientific method (and having just been through a PhD viva voce exam I am intimately aware of this at the moment!) is to quote data to the precision which is reasonable for the method and instrumentation available during the measurement. AlexJ is spot on in his answer. If, as in many pre-WWII races, times were only taken to the nearest second then you simply cannot include any decimal places when quoting them. The number of places implies the precision. That 1911 Indy 500 article is a shambles, and whoever decided to quote all the times to three dp needs a swift slap with a wet haddock. If you really can quote to the tenth decimal (assuming that you have a figure in the first position) then you are effectively claiming a precision of ±0.00000001%!! Utterly unreasonable for even extremely expensive, professionally maintained instruments. To put it into context, in my lab our top-performing balance (for weighing samples) measures to five dp. My mass spectrometer (I say my, but you know I don't own it!) will comfortably measure to parts-per-million (i.e. ±0.0001%), and with some whizz-bang electronics and and happy music playing on the radio we might occasionally get this into tens of parts-per-billion (i.e. ±0.000001%). But here we are talking about a piece of kit which cost over $1.5m and is the size of a moderate family car, operating in a shielded and climate-controlled lab, not at the side of a dusty, oily, climate-come-what-may race track. As far as building a template, I suggest that you check out templates such as {{Auto kg}} or {{Auto cc-cu in}} which include a function to change the number of decimal places to which results a quoted. However, as you would have to input the time, the template formatting and the correct number of decimal places, this would actually take more space and time than just writing it out yourself! So, what's the point? Pyrope 12:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The times are actually provable by mathematics based on the 3dp to which the Indianapolis 500 programs measure speed averages to. 74.602 is what is given, so three decimals is what I have taken the times to (to those who'd claim such a thing would be OR, it isn't, due to the logic of mathematics predating human existence). More accurate numbers than .000 could have been arrived at by taking the mph given in the official materials (74.602 mph, Harroun's pace stated for over 20 years now), multiplying that by 3600 (number of seconds in an hour), and then dividing 500 (miles) by that product (or, 500 / 0.0207227777777777777~ miles per second). The result comes to, showing the degree my computorial calculator takes it, 24,128.039462748987962789201362799 seconds. Minusing 21,600 (number of seconds in 6 hours), then 2,400 (number of seconds in 40 minutes), 120 (number of seconds in 2 minutes), and you have 8.03946~~ seconds left over. Check programs, and 6:42:08 is the exact time Harroun finished at. THEREFORE, if the Speedway programs and so forth state the official mph average to 74.602, rather than merely 74, mathematics can backtrack the exact thousandths of a second of that time (.039), can it not? ...And, so that you know, all the rest of the hypothetical numbers are not actually made up: I backtracked that pattern for each finishing driver (and subsequently recorded them); that they always came to agree, precisely, with the exact times written in the program proved to me that I had the equation correct.
*Concludes of explanation for the "shambles" of the timing measurements that he should apparently be so brazenly attacked for.* --Chr.K. 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: My reason for putting in .000 was to keep to WP:MOTOR's goal of standardizing all such templates and pages, not just informationally but aesthetically. If the 2006 has such decimals, I believe the older races should as well. ALL older races; if needing to go to 6:42:08.039, then I'm willing to do so. --Chr.K. 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You're asking a reasonable question: I don't think that anyone is attacking you personally. This discussion appears to be confusing "number of places after the decimal" with significant figures. 74.602 miles per hour has 5 significant figures 7-4-6-0-2. Any calculation is accurate only to the least number of significant figures used (which is 5 significant figures in this case), not the number (3) of digits after the decimal place. The calculation of "0:01:31.150" claims too much accuracy because it has 6 significant figures 1-3-1-1-5-0, so the results of this calculation should be rounded to 5 significant figures 1-3-1-1-5 (0:01:31.15). I have a college degree in mathematics, and we talked about this topic at length. Our conclusion unfortunately needs to be that asthetics has to take a back seat to accuracy/significant figures. Royalbroil 13:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
6:42:08.039. Eight significant figures, and provable by math itself as exactly accurate (do the equation written on your own, and you'll get the same answer). --Chr.K. 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't 74.602 miles per hour the given speed? With 5 significant figures given, you should not be claiming 8 significant figures in the result - only 5 significant figures. Royalbroil 13:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The hours and minutes are not the "figures" aspect, the seconds at the end are; otherwise, if the race had slogged on for ten hours, it would be necessary to round the last second to the nearest ten, which would be stupid. Thousandths of a mile an hour/thousandths of a second. --Chr.K. 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or wouldn't the winner's average speed have been calculated from the race time (i.e. 500 miles / 6:42:08 hrs = 74.6021220159... mph rounded to 3dp --> 74.602 mph), in which case it seems a bit odd to me to try to use the average speed to calculate a "more accurate" race time. DH85868993 13:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought so. To give an example of how this can give inaccurate times, say the race was 190.238miles long and lasted 1:29:41.181 (these figures are from 2005USGP) - that's an average speed of 127.269MPH (to 3 d.p.). Going the other way, we can find that 190.238 miles at an average speed of 127.269MPH would take 1:29:41.175 - that 0.006seconds less that what we started off with and means that we can't quote the time correctly to that degree of accuracy if we're working from already rounded figures (which we assume the av. speed to be). AlexJ 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I concede, per logic. Thank you, incidentally, for not claiming mathematics to be OR if it were included, but rather the math to not be guaranteeable as precisely accurate. I will concede only on the first two races, though, because this site has the AAA stats on the races, and starts going into decimals as early as 1913. --Chr.K. 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both AlexJ and Pyrope on this topic. I have experience with race timing and scoring, with historical race statistics, and with scientific standards of accuracy and precision (two words not the same in this context). Barno 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, I think I'm right in saying because clocks don't measure anything beyond what they measure they don't round in the scientific sense where e.g. 0.4 is somewhere between 0.35 > 0.44(9) but instead don't increment until the next fraction of a second, e.g. 0.4 is somewhere between 0.40 > 0.4(9) i.e. it's 0.4 until it reaches 0.5 rather than being 0.4 until it's closer to 0.5. Such complications only add to the reason why we should stick to the official published times. AlexJ 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Racing team timeline

I'm actually working on A1 Grand Prix, Formula 3000... racing teams and involvement series timeline is sometimes not easy observable. So what did you think about timeline like this one I made with DAMS team :

1988 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007
International Formula 3000 GP2 Series
24 Hours of Le Mans Euro FRV6 WSbR
FIA GT ALMS A1 Grand Prix
FIA Sportscar

Maybe with various colours/row according to motorsport type (GT, endurance, rallye...), in template if it's possible... - Rollof1 13:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How would we include a team that only ran a partial season in series? Say, just showing up at the 12 Hours of Sebring? Would you add the whole ALMS season to that year? The359 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You missed FIA GT, but the idea sounds great. --Pc13 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
12h of Sebring is a major race, so its possible include as 12h of Sebring and not ALMS. Meanwhile ordering series is essentials: 24h of Le Mans in the same row than FR V6 Eurocup don't seem logic. (nb:FIA GT added) - Rollof1 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the above, great idia Rollofl! Just one point, for a team such as Williams or Ferrari who have been an one single category, in this case Formula One, for a long time. However, both have ventured into minor side projects, with my "specialist knowledge" being Williams the BTCC and Le Mans team quickly comes to mind for them, so how would one go about trying to fit a table 20 years long with a 2 year spanning bar underneath and still have enough room for one to see what the small two year bar reads? Sorry if it sounds complicated, just ask me if you don't understand ;-).--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My point was actually more about teams just doing one-offs in a series. For instance, JetAlliance Racing, an FIA GT team, running one race of the Le Mans Series. Would you include the Le Mans Series on the chart even if it was just one race? The359 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a timeline for a fictional racing team to introduce possibles situations :
The name of the series depend on the square lenght (Formula Renault V6 Eurocup could be FRV6E if necessary).
This fictional team ran only on F1 until 1981, except 1975/1976 in F2, so we can reduce timeline when there only F1.
A color code can be used following series sort.
Empty square should be merged (I don't know if we can merge two different lenghts empty row).
In this example, all involved series are registered even if the team race only in one event (to be exhaustive), we can use reference (like WRC/ALMS here).
The order of appearence depend on the historical order of commitment in series, trying to fill first empty row (probably not the best solution).
Width of yaer square can be reduce if the timeline is very long.

1950 1951 ... 1975 1976 ... 1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007
Formula 1
Formula 2 International Formula 3000 WRC [1] Drift racing
NASCAR Nextel Cup
ALMS [2] British Formula 3000 [3]

Color code used (need to be discussed) :

- Rollof1 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't bother with different colours for different racing series - I'd just use one colour for "filled in" squares and one for "blank" squares - that's the system most (all?) the timeline templates in Category:Automotive timeline templates use. Also, I'd like to see all the years filled in in the top row, so readers don't have to count. DH85868993 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the DAMS table inspired by Category:Automotive timeline templates with same rules I've suggest above. Series are differentiate between Formula series, Sports car series, Touring car series, Rallye series and Others series. All years can be linket to Category:YEAR in motorsport. Same timeline can be used with racing series like Formula Renault than have several series (NEC 2.0, UK 2.0,...).

Type 1980s 1990s 2000s
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Formulas International Formula 3000 GP2 Series
FRV6E WSbR
A1 Grand Prix
Sports car 24 Hours of Le Mans
ALMS
Sportscar

Rollof1 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Geobox for Race Tracks

Copied from WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing/WikiProject NASCAR's talk pages since it involves all circuits (by Royalbroil 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

I have been working with Caroig in creating a better box off to the right for race tracks. For now, Chicagoland Speedway has been the test for fields that are needed to be included. I am looking for thoughts on this, and/or suggestions on how to improve. I feel that this one presents all the info the old infobox offered, but with some other perks. It will look better with a bigger article, but this was just the first test.--Kranar drogin 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Caroig has left the following reply on User:Royalbroil's talk page:
  • Hello, you've put a meassge on my talk page concerning the suggested use of the Geobox template for racetracks. I'm just the author of the technical solution, the Geobox template. Kranar drogin asked my for help in implementing this template for racetracks but that's where my involvment ends, whether the Geobox will be used or not is up to the editors participating on the project. Kranar drogin just made a suggestion which I guess is fair. – Caroig (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it started with someone asking me for a infobox that had a map for Washington Park Race Track. So I went to Caroig about making a geobox, and we started to include from other race tracks. If you see something that isn't on this one, that we should incorporate it wouldn't be al that hard at all. That is why this is a test.--Kranar drogin 15:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that testing is important. All tracks/circuits need to be using the {{Motorsport venue}}. I didn't know if you were aware that this template is used by circuits/tracks throughout the world. Will the geodata/mapping work for any circuit/track? If so, it sounds like a great improvement! Royalbroil 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that template is currently being used by almost all the tracks in the world. The mapping I think will work with all the tracks in the world. The only question that comes to mind is if other nations have coordinates maps for the placement of a GPS dot. Metric can be used rather than imperial for track size. Basically, we took that template and worked in everything that could be worked in. If it couldn't be, that is what the Free Fields are for to include what you want. I suppose it will have to be looked at more for worldwide use also, and a few more tests done. I will double check the fields today to make sure we did get everything. The geoboxes are set up to be worldwide when they are created.--Kranar drogin 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Would the new infobox support multiple track layouts? If not, it's hugely flawed as that was one of the main criteria in the development of the current one. AlexJ 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you can do it, you simply have to put a 1, 2, 3 etc after each layout you want. Would you like me to do one as an example? Any suggestions?--Kranar drogin 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a terrible idea. We should focus more on whether the infobox provides accurate information rather than if the reader can find it on a map. I'm sure that it might look nice on large articles, but there's a chance it could force editors to move images around to fit the bigger box. And then it would still look akward on stubs. If this were something like Wikimaps or Wikiatlas, maybe this would be appropriate. And odds are, if there's a wikilink to the town the race track is in, most of that information will be there.Mustang6172 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The exact location of the track is an encyclopedic piece of information and I find it one of the most useful things about track articles. The coordinates at the top right don't look awkward on stubs, there are many on stubs for football (soccer) stadia.
As for the idea, I must ask about the Chicagoland Speedway that is refered to as a test article above; the co-ordinates in that article appear twice, once in the infobox and once at the top right of the page where they usually go. Surely it should only be in the article once (at the top right)? - MTC 06:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the GPS coordinates is something that appears in almost all location articles such as cities, towns, and becoming something newer with buildings, etc. What I mean by that is that you put the coordinates into the Infobox/Geoboxes now and they automatically are put in the top right corner. Heck, even if you put them in the article now they are being added to the top right corner. Maps are also something readers are asking more and more for. You could remove the national map at the bottom to give yourself some more room, and even actually that won't always be the case. Heck, if you don't want the maps with an auto dot on it, you don't have to have it either (since it isn't a Wikimap or Wikiatlas). I personally like to see in an article right away where something is in relation to where I am. Not having to click this link here, followed by that link there, but if overall length is the problem the maps could be removed.
Now, if I am following your question right MTC, I hope I answered your question. I could see if maybe they could be hidden on the Geobox if they aren't liked being shown twice, but this is just something that is added when GPS is added to Geoboxes and even Infoboxes now.--Kranar drogin 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Mustang6172 and completely object to this box. If someone wants the location of the track, put in the town name and let them find a map on that article, or use the simple coordinate system and put it at the bottom of the article, down with the categories and interwiki links. Having two seperate maps as well as the track's coordinates and the city in which it resides is simply too much redundant information. The359 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, this has just been created to help you. You guys keep saying "redundant information", but really that is all that infoboxes/geoboxes are. They are a quick reference so you don't have to read through the entire article. You can use the geobox or not. I know that the Illinois Project supports geobox use, and will geoboxes as a whole for the state. Its up to your projects what you do/don't want to use, I was just presenting another option. One more thing, you don't have to use the maps if you don't want too. You just remove them.--Kranar drogin 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for quick access to important, relevent information about the subject. The exact location within the state and within the United States is not important information relevent to a race track. That sort of information is secondary and belongs elsewhere. Including this sort of secondary information that can easily be gained by just clicking on another page that is already linked twice creates far too much information and takes up far too much space. A written city and state is more than enough. Attempting to include exact, mapped information for the location of any sort of structure in the world is, quite frankly, foolish and far too in-depth. The359 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
For me, the maps are overkill. The coordinates are displayed for many racetracks in the top right corner, and if one was to click on those a whole host of map sources is provided to allow the user to get maps, satellite images or whatever they wish to. I'm also concerned with the way the Geobox template works. It provides lots of freeform 'define your own' fields, which requires each field to be defined before using it, and will lead to similar but not quite identical parameters in articles. For example:
| Broke_ground = September, 1999 | Opened = July, 2001 |
becomes
| established_type = Opened | established = July, 2001 | established1_type = Broke Ground | established1 = September, 1999
That for me removes part of the convenience of having a template which does most of the work for you. I think the primary purpose of the infobox should be to provide information on the race facility, as opposed to provide information about the location of the facility. Therefore, I see {{Motorsport venue}} as the more appropriate template. AlexJ 23:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Motorsport templates

The previous discussion brings something up: We should create a comment (computer programming) at the top of each template that were created by this WikiProject. The note should discuss that the origin of the template (if needed: the templates that it replaces, a link to its creation discussion, etc.), a link to WP:MOTOR noting to discuss major changes here, etc. The comment section warns anyone who wants to update the template to not make changes so that they know that changing it affects a large number of articles. Royalbroil 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If the templates are in peoples watchlist, then any ham-fisted changes will be spotted and reversed quickly, so I'm not sure its really necessary. --Falcadore 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a waste of someone's time if they do good faith edits to the template not knowing what it affects. A paragraph of a few sentences is all that I'm proposing. Royalbroil 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Something like... <!-- Please note that this template is maintained by Wikiproject Motorsport and its daughter project (insert appropriate). Any edits not conforming with project protocols will be reverted. If you would like to discuss changes to this template, please leave a comment at (insert appropriate talk page). Thank you. --> ?? Pyrope 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - well put. Royalbroil 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"Not conforming with project protocols" makes it sound like the projects in question own the pages in question, even templates. They do not, so long as the change to the template is in line with the mission of Wikipedia as a whole. Hate to split hairs, but I've had them split enough on me. --Chr.K. 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought the same Chr.K. - as an alternative we could just add the {{Intricate template}} to the documentation which mostly does what Royalbroil requests, in a standard style but minus the assertion of ownership. AlexJ 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't start this thread thinking that WP:MOTOR has ownership, just that major changes to the templates should be discussed here first. I suppose the later half of my last sentence implies ownership. The template was created by this project to standardize the infobox because many circuits host races from multiple series. This WikiProject coordinates things that affect all motorsport series. The sentence "Any edits not conforming with project protocols will be reverted" should be toned down significantly or even better deleted altogether. Otherwise we could request that any changes to the template be discussed on the template's talk page. If someone has a proposed change, then the first person to notice should leave a note here noting the discussion. That plan would require that contributors in this WikiProject should put all of these template on their watchlist. It would be nice to inform any updater to the template that consensus on this template was discussed by contributors belonging to numerous WikiProjects so that they know to discuss major changes to the template. The "Intricate template" doesn't talk about discussing changes to the template at all, so I don't see its relevance here. Royalbroil 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes for winners of individual races

We currently have a series of succession boxes for the "Winner of the 24 Hours of Le Mans", "Winner of the Indianapolis 500", "Winner of the Bathurst 1000", "Macau Grand Prix winner" and "Brands Hatch Race of Champions winner". Recently, succession boxes for "Winner of the Australian Grand Prix" were added to a couple of articles. I'm wondering whether we want to set some guidelines for which events we do/don't have winner succession boxes for. Otherwise we could end up with succession boxes for the winners of every national Grand Prix - just imagine the effect that would have on Michael Schumacher's article! Thoughts? DH85868993 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should only have succession boxes for "one off" races, ie events that aren't part of a championship. For example the Le Mans 24 Hours, Macau Grand Prix, FFord Festival, etc.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... but wasn't/isn't the Indy 500 usually part of the CART/IRL season, as well as having been part of the World Championship until 1960? Although I set up th Le Mans ones, I have a feeling these could get out of hand! Pyrope 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Got me there, Keke! How about a race that is either not part of a series or has become a famous race in it's own right? Although I do feel there is going to be some backlash for that suggestion. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, once you start getting subjective then people can always disagree. Pyrope 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Indy 500, Le Mans and Spa 24 Hour, and even Bathurst, should be fine for that sort of thing, because in those instances the races are considerably bigger than the series they are a part of, and are thus noteworthy of respect regardless of series honours.
I am the miscreant responsible for the Aust Grand Prix boxes, but I'd only added them to pre-F1 era drivers when the AGP was virtually a stand alone event, and even then I was further selective, not adding the wins scored by Jones, Prost and Moreno in the Atlantic eras, or the 60's guys from the Tasman era, basically any of those who had had an international career, intending only to highlight those local drivers who had achieved the feat during eras like Formula 5000 or Australian Formula 1 which preceeded Tasman, and those pre-war. --Falcadore 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been our intention at WP:AOWR to provide individual pages, someday, for all races of American Championship-level format, in the same fashion as WP:F1's successes. If this occurs, it would mean that a list of succession boxes for each such race would be navigational links, and would only create, as new pages, those individual succession templates. With that the case, I fail to see the problem in allowing such to be created, if they are created "correctly." --Chr.K. 21:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I referred to "winner's succession boxes", I was talking about rows in the "Sporting positions" table at the bottom of driver articles, like the two "Winner of the Australian Grand Prix" rows in Graham McRae's table. DH85868993 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Future motor sport

Do we really need this? Does it offer any advantages over {{Future sport}}? Looking at Category:Temporal templates, no other sports seem to have their own version of the template. DH85868993 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to change its category into a motorsport sub-cat of future sporting events, which would actually be quite useful. Adrian M. H. 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"Keep" - personally, I like it, but I can understand they overlap and can cause redundancy. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was ment to get rid of the soccer ball since motor sport are not about soccer. The Tramp 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tramp (talk • contribs)

Uh, except the soccer ball is used for ANY future sport, including golf, hocket, American football, rugby, baseball, swimming, cycling, anything. So the soccer ball logo is not meant to imply that it's only for use on soccer articles. The359 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Math question

Update - Done! check it out, we have two images now:
Graph 1, by Cronholm
Graph 1, by Cronholm
Graph 2
Graph 2

The goal is to show the differences between the AVUS' 43-degree banking at the Nordkurve ("The Wall of Death") and the turns at the Daytona International Speedway (31 degrees) and Indianapolis Motor Speedway (11 degrees). Guroadrunner (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the first one looks much better and easier to read. The359 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely #1. The X axis and Y axis are critical for reference. Royalbroil 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is a cross-post of my question at the Mathematics RefDesk. I would like to make a graphical representation of the AVUS' 43-degree banking ("The Wall of Death") in comparison to other major race tracks, such as Indy's 11-degree banked turns.

Mathematically, I want accurate representations of lines that would graphically represent a 43 degree angle, a 31 degree angle and an 11 degree angle, basically to look like this: Image:Avus banking example.JPG.

Any help or software recommendations to generate this image? Guroadrunner (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


P.S. -- Gosh I need to visit this area more often (I didn't know Kulwicki is up for GA, for example). My apologies. Guroadrunner (talk)

Kulwicki is not up to GA standards yet. Several of the things brought up in its Request for Comment need to be addressed yet. I don't plan to have it evaluated against the GA criteria for a while. Royalbroil 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AVUS revisited

Which do you like better? This is to indicate the banking of the Nordkurve in contrast to two other well-known tracks. Note that because they are SVG, they can be modified further. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

option one
option one
option two
option two
I'd stick with Option 1. Less cluttered and easier to read. The359 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with The359. Option 1 is easier to read. But your information is wrong. Indy is banked at 9 degrees 11 minutes, not 11 degrees. You might want to change that before putting it in an article.Mustang6172 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
9 degrees 12 minutes. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I also prefer Option 1. But note the two minor errors: "Tack" should be "Track" and the end of the word "Indianapolis" is cut off. DH85868993 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for Option 1, other than the other issues raised here, could you make the text smaller to accommodate "Indianapolis". Willirennen (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Conversely, I'd prefer option two, but with the circuit names made a touch smaller, the degree annotation moved to the end of each line, and the external key ditched. Pyrope 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of both. Start with #2. Add the heading "Track Banking" or "Track banking comparison" or "AVUS track banking compared to Daytona and Indianapolis". You don't need the label both underneath the line and in an external key. I prefer the label below the line because it gives enough room to spell the entire name out. The full name of each track needs to be spelled out for readers less familiar with the tracks. Units are important, so the degree symbol after the number needs to be used. The X axis should be labeled 0 degrees (on the right) and the Y axis 90 degrees (on the top). The "0" at the origin should be removed if possible. Otherwise you could place a white box in a higher level over the "0" to remove it from view. Royalbroil 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, a title is a must! As for axes, the problem here is that radial data is being shown on a cartesian plot. Arguably, "x-axis" and "y-axis" are spurious terms to use in relation to this plot. It might just be better to ditch the y-axis altogether and rename it a "schematic diagram". Just a thought. Pyrope 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your input on this. Pyrope's comments are especially important because I had used a line chart generator to create those plot points, meaning the lines "look" accurate but I'm not sure if they actually are. With this in mind, I'm working with a buddy who's an engineer (and thus understands math better than I do) to do this up in Excel or another charting program. Watch this space sometime next week. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this part has been mentioned, but it would be even better if the graphic included banking data from more than just three tracks. Bristol for instance, a short track, is 35°, two more than Talladega and four more than Daytona. Comparing all the major world tracks might be best of all. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Chr.K.'s last post. Having more than three tracks would make the graph more difficult to follow. Daytona & Indy are probably the two most well-known tracks in the U.S. overall. The reason for having the graph is to show that AVUS has very high banking compared to other tracks, not to have a graph of all major tracks. Royalbroil 13:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree Royalbroil, if this is just being used for a limited comparison. In addition, if one were constructed to compare a number of tracks, I would prefer that a proper track cross-section be used. Many banked tracks (e.g. Monza, Brooklands) used a parabolic profile, while some are a relatively flat bowl, and others (e.g. AVUS) use a flat upper section, and a parabolic apron. Set these against the tricky convex shape of the Nürburgring's Karussel and it would make a fascinating diagram. These profile differences make or made quite a difference in the way that drivers approached the banking. Pyrope 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1911 board track racing
1911 board track racing
Good points. A few tracks in the United States use progressive banking. Progressive banking means that the outside racing lines have higher banking. This allows for side-by-side racing all of the way around the track since the cars on the outside keep higher speed through the corners. I don't know the exact shape of the tracks (if they are parabolic). For an image of a parabola in this context, see Parabolic trough. Board track racing circuits regularly had 60 degree banking! Royalbroil 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Brooklands
Brooklands
I'm pretty sure that many were intended to be parabolic, even if it was only as exact at 60' wide concrete can be made. Brooklands (left) is noticeably steepening toward the rim. Pyrope 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with adding Bristol because they just changed the banking into a progressive, cup-like track. Monza's banking isn't in use (although thankfully not torn down yet) and many casual readers wouldn't have recognizance of it. Brooklands, maybe, but Daytona and Indy are two of the biggest epicenters in racing. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Race succession box

2007 was the first season where WikiProject NASCAR contributors did individual race reports. There were a few races in 2006 with race reports. Right now there is no race report navigation box for NASCAR and one needs to be created (as discussed here: WT:NASCAR#2006 Race_results). I'm wondering if we (at WP:MOTOR) should create a standard race report succession box that could/should be used for all racing series? The differences between existing templates is relatively small. Some one of a kind races might eventually benefit from a generic nav box, so a generic nav box should be built for them. A list of current templates: F1 uses {{F1_race_report}}, A1GP uses {{A1GP race report}}, the 12 Hours of Sebring uses {{Sebring nav}}, Sportscar Racing use {{Sportscar Race Report}}, V8 uses {{V8 race report}}, and old Grand Prix use {{Grand Prix race report}}. I suggest starting with {{F1 race report}} because it has everything that might want to be added to a race. It has 2 templates in one: the same event last and next year plus last and next race in the current season. Royalbroil 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

China Formula Renault Challenge?

  • I just saw on WP:DELT that the article China Formula Renault Challenge has been proposed for speedy deletion. Is this series real, and if so, can someone find a source to meet WP:V? If so, please slap a "hangon" tag on the article until it can be cited. Barno (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is already deleted, but its a real Formula Renault 2.0L series : frdsports.com. I'm working on all Formula Renault series and I generate probably the Asia Formula Renault Challenge page in the near future than include the China Formula Renault Challenge. The page was deleted but its content wasn't pertinent so it's no big deal. - Rollof1 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you! Barno (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominating motocross to WikiProject Motorsport

I would like to add motocross to the articles under the WikiProject Motorsport banner. I've also created a List of motocross world champions.Orsoni (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a major contributor to WP:MOTOR, but I can agree with this, especially if MotoGP and World GP are under WP:MOTOR. Guroadrunner (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to ask, wouldn't it have been better to create an article on the World Motorcross Championship before you made an article listing the champions?
As for including motorcross, that's certainly fine, we pretty much allow anything on two or four wheels. The359 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The World Motocross Championship is covered in the main article on motocross. You're right about the need for a separate article but for now, we just have the main article. I'm hoping we can attract some more contributors if motocross is included under the Wikipedia Motorsport banner.Orsoni (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I support the nomination, but am not well-versed regarding the discipline, thus unable to be a sub-project member of any legitimate standing. --Chr.K. 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It was added a few days after the original post. Royalbroil 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)