Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Driver articles are getting out of hand

@Falcadore, DH85868993, Bretonbanquet, and Tvx1: Pinging some more experienced editors as experience is necessary for this topic.

The rise in popularity of feeder series has led to a ridiculous number of drivers with no notability gaining articles, especially thanks to editors such as User:Formula Downforce and User:KVYTICAL (but not limited to - don't feel personally attacked). Therefore, I want to once and for all flesh out just what constitutes a driver worthy of a Wikipedia article and get a consensus on where the line is drawn - and possibly create a guide article once consensus is reached. I'm fairly sure there was a consensus on this a while ago, but I can't find it and seemingly it hasn't been enforced.

To keep it simple, I'll split this into three categories - if you think these categories should change, feel free to debate before we come to a conclusion.

What IS okay

Drivers that have two or more event starts in the following championships:

What IS NOT okay

Drivers that have ONLY competed in the following championships:

Exceptions

And finally, karting results do not meet WP:NOTABILITY so therefore karting results tables need to be removed from any driver articles. MSportWiki (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am in support of this discussion, with the caveat that we consider being inclusive of some championships in the USAC and WoO-sanctioned dirt racing disciplines of American open-wheel racing.
You have also not considered NHRA drag racing championships. I myself am not very knowledgeable on drag racing, but those competing at the top levels of this discipline are entirely deserving of having articles. RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not across American dirt racing, sprint cars or drag racing; I'll leave that up to others more knowledgeable than I to contemplate. MSportWiki (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay for USAC would be drivers in the any of their three National Championship classes - Silver Crown, Sprint, and Midget, but not the regional feeders to these championships.
Okay for WoO would be the Winged Sprint championship, but not the late-model stock car.
Looking into it, I think okay for NHRA would be drivers at the level currently known as the NHRA Camping World Drag Racing Series, which has four disciplines - Top Fuel, Funny Car, Pro Stock, and Pro Stock Motorcycle. Not okay would be drivers who have raced only in the Sportsmen classes. RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
MSportWiki, I don't just create articles for drivers that aren't notable. I do believe that many drivers from the Formula Regional European Championship are notable but because the series doesn't meet Wikipedia:NMotorsport I always use Wikipedia:Articles for creation when creating an article for a driver that hasn't raced in the FIA Formula 3 Championship or something else from your "What is okay" column. Formula Downforce (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying you "only" create non-notable articles, but you have made some and I have also seen some of the drivers in your sandbox, hence my concern.
Again, this isn't an attack nor am I trying to get you or anyone else mentioned in trouble - as a "community" we're going to flesh out exactly what is acceptable moving forward, and we'll do our best to purge whatever doesn't meet the guidelines afterwards. MSportWiki (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, Wikipedia has moved away entirely from using achievement as a criterium for inclusion, which I personally think is a good thing. Now we do what should always have been done and that is to determine notability through coverage. We don't decide whether something or someone is notable, the sources do. There was a massive discussion regarding N:SPORTS and it was overhauled as result. WP:NMOTOR should give proper guidance on what gets significant coverage and what doesn't. What doesn't obviously shouldn't have articles.Tvx1 09:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Just because something is well-covered doesn't mean the coverage is quality, especially at the low levels - as HumanBodyPiloter5 raised in one of the above AfDs, a lot of the independent coverage is WP:ROUTINE. There's also the problem of the lower level articles tending to receive self-promoting edits (Vivien Keszthelyi pre-W Series is the perfect example). Honestly, I think WP:NMOTORSPORT goes too far the other way in that it's too stringent of a guideline - I'll use Andre Heimgartner and Anton de Pasquale as examples, as no-one would argue against them having articles but neither qualify for one as they don't meet any of the nine criteria in that subsection (technically including Point 4 as rounds were discontinued in the Supercars Championship before they raced in it let alone won races). MSportWiki (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
That‘s why I wrote significant coverage.Tvx1 18:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd like to see a blanket rule introduced against creating articles about Formula 4 (or lower) drivers unless it can be demonstrated that they are noteworthy for some other reason (like playing a leading role in a Hollywood film or something). As it stands the current situation goes beyond just usual Wikipedia issues of verifiability in WP:BLPs and is becoming a child protection issue, given the young age of so many of the competitors in these series. Editors should not be having to concern ourselves with playing whack-a-mole with whatever vandalism someone might start adding to an article about a fifteen-year-old amateur sportsperson, especially when sources are already thin on the ground for that subject to begin with. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    You raise a couple of fair points there. We should be extremely prudent on having articles on minor, if not not having them at all. An that doesn't only apply to European open-wheel racing. Then again, Max Verstappen was still a minor when he started his first F1 race, so there are exceptions. Tvx1 10:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Not a problem I'd thought of, but I wholeheartedly agree and all the more reason why we should work on this. It's worth mentioning that drivers under 18 compete in Formula Regional and other low/entry-level categories as well, but that's a complement to your point on F4. MSportWiki (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thinking about it more, I think a blanket policy of not allowing WP:BLPs about drivers under eighteen who haven't competed in at least FIA Formula Three (if we're talking about the European single-seater ladder) or other similarly high-level events (eg. Nascar Trucks, Moto3 World Championship) or established notability outside motorsport would be appropriate. It's just too much of an ethical quagmire otherwise, particularly given stories of parents pressuring kids to compete in sporting events and the like. After a point I just don't want Wikipedia to become a vector for school bullying, which it very much can be when we have articles about fifteen year olds getting created. I would also note that drivers at such early stages in their careers are rarely notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT (ie. winning a Formula 4 title) which can be covered on the article about the event itself if necessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    If WP:MINORS can be classified as grounds for WP:SPEEDY, then I think this is a good starting point regarding this topic whilst a more permanent solution is found, dependent on the agreement of others. I forsee it being a little more difficult to police than a blanket ban on certain championships, but it's a good stop-gap. MSportWiki (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    I support a ban on articles about minors/under-18s, with the exception of any drivers (Verstappen, etc.) that compete at the top level of a given discipline.
    Does anyone have any feelings against this? RegalZ8790 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't starting a sentence with "The rise in popularity of feeder series.." accept a fair level of notability? The okay/not okay list is always going to be contested, it's a bad idea. I've never heard of some of the okay series (popular stock car racing in Argentina, ?), whilst international FIA championships are not okay.
The three drivers listed above have several contributors, look well written and sourced, seem to meet BLP and are substantial enough and people have taken the time to create quality articles. It's a shame to see destruction when the quality of existing flagship articles under the banner of this project are absolutely dire. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Naturally there will be debate, it's Wikipedia - that's what this discussion is for. As someone who works on rally articles, you can't tell me that WRC-3 is the same level as WRC-1 in driver quality for example. If anything, this will divert the quality editing to the notable "flagship" stuff - so I don't see how that's a problem. MSportWiki (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The debates would be interminable and never attain consensus, there'll never be a good solid rule.
I agree WRC3 is not as notable as Rally1, so probably wouldn't bother myself, but if others put effort into a substantial driver article it tells me others find the driver notable. That's fine. If it's just a table of results or simple statement that "so-and-so is a driver in WRC3", I don't think the article is warranted, and should be removed on that grounds, but don't think this is the conversation we are having with an ok/not ok list. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Posting for two reasons. 1) to state my opposition to including NASCAR Truck Series in the "unacceptable" list as it is a national touring series Just the same as Cup and Xfinity. 2) This entire discussion seems to assume that WP:NMOTORSPORT is somehow above WP:GNG, which is grossly inaccurate. A driver that meets GNG should uave an article regardless if they are Lewis Hamilton or your local Kart also-ran. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to add Trucks to the list of 'okay' as long as everyone else agrees. As I said to Tvx1, NMOTOR is too restrictive. Feeder series and entry-level series competitors don't meet GNG, that's the whole point of this discussion. MSportWiki (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
You might find it too restrictive, but the fact is that it reflects the project consensus and that’s what we have to work with.Tvx1 07:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Why do you say that Auðunn Guðmundsson, an article you created, is exceptionally notable for being Icelandic?
I don't care. And if you remove the infobox and the table of his non-notable results (as WP is not a results database), it is left with 2 short sentences telling me he's a 52 year old businessman in a privateer class cup. How is this guy notable and/or how is this article good quality in any best case?
Please compare this to the articles you have PROD and make some sense out of this. Rally Wonk (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Per the above list, that clearly is an article that should be deleted. Tvx1 07:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

With regard to participants in lower formulae and the dozens of feeder series currently operating, I think it's naive to think a flat notability guideline or policy could be worked out. There isn't much precedent here for thrashing out good quality operating procedures without resorting to arguments and ultra-long drawn out discussions. As people have said, some articles about drivers who are just starting out, or who have not yet attained any great results, are actually pretty good – well written, referenced and balanced. There's no sense in throwing these out in favour of a one-size-fits-all policy. If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it should stay. I'm willing to bet many don't get anywhere near that threshold, and we should be thinking about deleting them, regardless of what series the driver is in. Articles can always be recreated if someone wants to write one properly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said to Rally Wonk, having a restriction would move the quality edits to the more important articles that have needed it for so long - that cannot be a bad thing. MSportWiki (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
That's wishful thinking. People contribute well to what they know, have an interest in and also care for, not what needs doing. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding BLPs of very young competitors

To split things off from the above conversation, which has gotten a bit unwieldy with multiple threads forming within it, I would like to address my concerns regarding this specific area of article creation. Many of the WP:BLPs that are being created (and often subsequently nominated for deletion) are of WP:MINORS, sometimes as young as fourteen or fifteen, and to me this raises many additional ethical concerns when compared to the creation of articles about dubiously-notable adults. Having an article about them might make a kid more likely to become a subject of school bullying, or may attract the attention of unsavoury characters towards someone who is still at a vulnerable stage in their development, and as such far more care needs to be taken in determining whether or not it's appropriate to create articles about these very young competitors. There is also the issue that exists in many sports where parents pressure their children into competing, meaning there's a concern that many of the kids may be going through this additional attention not entirely of their own free will.

Additionally, at such an early stage in these careers, most of these competitors can only really be said to be noteworthy for at most WP:ONEEVENT (such as winning a junior formula championship), and the effort expended on creating biographies of these competitors would be better put towards improving the articles about said competitions instead. Obviously there are cases where young competitors are easily notable enough to warrant having an article (with Max Verstappen in 2015 being the obvious example), but I think a very high standard needs to be held and that these BLPs of competitors under the age of eighteen should not be created unless sustained significant coverage from prominent independent sources (ie. national newspapers and not Formula Scout) can be demonstrated. As a rule of thumb this would mean that kids competing at a level below FIA Formula 3 in the European single-seater ladder shouldn't have their own articles, while at the FIA Formula 3 Championship level and above things will be more circumstantial.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I think some of the ethical arguments are slightly OTT (especially when there are Wiki users who are minors), I am in agreement regarding WP:GNG. As stated above, I am in favour of a ban and encourage that WP:MINORS becomes grounds for WP:SPEEDY if it isn't already. MSportWiki (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Denis Lian

(@GhostOfDanGurney, HumanBodyPiloter5, SSSB, DH85868993, X750, A7V2, and Tvx1: Pinging a few recently active users for assistance) I have received a rather incredulous message from the subject of this page after I made a significant effort to clean it up and enforce Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality. I have attempted to get the page pre-emptively protected to avoid what will inevitably become an edit war, but my requests have been turned down (as a side note, I believe that not taking action against potential problems in advance is the wrong attitude to have). Can we please be vigilant about activity on this page and come up with a longer term solution in the process? MSportWiki (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@MSportWiki: Not sure about me being a recently active user, this is my first edit in weeks... anyway, I'm not expert on this matter. It seems as though they haven't made any further edits to the article, but for reference, see WP:BLPEDIT. If there's issues in the future you might have more luck seeking advice on WT:BIOG as no doubt many there have experience with this kind of issue. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Color Code for ranking

I noticed that every major racing series somehow uses a different color scheme for the race results in the results overview table.

Formula 1: light green up to 10th place IndyCar: light green up to 5th place and light blue up to 10th place NASCAR: silver up to 5th place, bronze up to 10th place, light green up to 20th place

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same color schemes for all? --Mark McWire (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The points systems are different from so they have to be at some level different (btw, Indycar gives points way below 10th).
F1 follows what is usual to find in "european" motorsports like WRC (I know its a World championship but it was created in europe by europeans with euro centric vision).
I don't see any benefit to change the colour systems and force them to be more similar. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
IndyCar gives points up to twelfth position currently, that’s not way below F1. I any case we use way to many different colours for IndyCars. The focus should be points, not position groups. Three colours for the podium, one for points scoring position, on for other flagged results, one for retirements. There is need to differentitiate top 5, top 10 and non-top 10. Tvx1 23:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Small correction on the side, IndyCar (Indy Racing League) gives points up to 33rd place, as this is the maximum number of starters allowed per race. There have only been a two exceptions with more than 33 cars, the 2011 Las Vegas race with 34 and 1997 Indianapolis 500 with 35. But agree with the assessment. Three colors (gold, silver, bronze) for the podium, one color for all other ranks with points (light green or light blue), one color for all ranks without points (dark blue) and one color for all DNFs (dark purple). --Mark McWire (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry, it seems I accidentally looked at the Indy Qualifying table.Tvx1 01:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Basically, NASCAR and IndyCar are very similar. In NASCAR there are points up to 40th place. So only 7 places more than IndyCar. At least these two series should therefore use the same color scheme. --Mark McWire (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mark McWire Before the discussion moves further, would you consider adding pipes/links for this discussion to the respective WikiProjects you are proposing changes for? It is a good faith move that ensures members of those communities who may not regularly frequent WP:Motorsport are able to contribute to a new consensus. :) RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Done. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I will support retaining the status quo unless there is some deeply moving argument to enforce consistency across different disciplines. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we should retain the status quo. The colour code needs to be meaningful in the context of the information actually being displayed (Formula One results are not the same type of information as Nascar results). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favor of using the colors gold, silver and bronze only for the podium places, even in NASCAR. If a distinction between the top 10 and top 20 is so important, we could use the light blue color like IndyCar. So 4-10 in light green, 11-20 in light blue, 21-43 in dark blue, DNFs in purple. --Mark McWire (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Driver result summary tables

Given an essential part of motorsport is the CARS, I find it ludicrous that cars are left out of drivers' results summary tables. Clearly there is some sort of consensus on this that I can't find, but frankly it needs to be changed as it only appears to be lazy on our part.

Therefore, I propose that we replace the existing tables with these kind:

Season Series Position Team Car
2004 Australian Formula 3 Championship 10th Team BRM Dallara–Spiess Opel F301
Australian Formula Ford Championship 29th Ben Fitzgerald Van Diemen–Ford RF01

It covers all the necessary bases (year, championship, standings position, team, car). If people want detailed results, they can go to the DriverDatabase link at the bottom of almost any driver article or the championship article – and it saves us from filling the result columns with useless question marks if information is not available. It's a lot narrower than the existing format making it easier to read (and if it's still too wide we can always use the <div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0"> scrollbar option as demonstrated here), and it's a lot less time consuming to keep up-to-date. MSportWiki (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how this we would be an improvement. Certainly when you go down to junior series, the chassis are barely notable. All drivers use the same car there any way. Adding this would be undue.Tvx1 23:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Have to agree with this. Could also run into WP:PROMO issues in categories where manufacturers dominate. Articles on a driver should focus on the driver. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Both of those are clutching at straws. Single-make series make up only a small percentage of total championships, and modern drivers don't spend whole careers at a single manufacturer anymore, let alone in single-make series. We don't have to spend time babysitting viewers with columns of results when other websites already do that. MSportWiki (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the car is less important, but it is the make that might be considered important. The point about spec-series is also valid. Therefore, I do think the best approach is to specify the car in the vent breakdown (not overall summary) so that the information is only presented where it is actually relevant. SSSB (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
"If you are clutching at straws or grasping at straws, you are trying unusual or extreme ideas or methods because other ideas or methods have failed." I think this is an egregious mischaracterization of the arguments presented. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Bluntly, your WP:PROMO argument is ridiculous. Stating the facts regarding what vehicles a driver has used in their career is not equal to Wikipedia endorsing a manufacturers' product. Using a manufacturers' promotional material or mentioning a brand slogan in a drivers' article would be subject to WP:PROMO. Including lines of trivial figures regarding fastest laps, podiums, etc. is a waste of time when they can be found elsewhere and are usually linked to driver pages anyway. MSportWiki (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
When we have entire series' that base themselves off of the concept of "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" amongst their OEMs, then no, I don't think bringing up WP:PROMO is at all out of line here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
"Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" hasn't been relevant since the 1980s at the absolute latest, especially when modern motorsport is focused on entertainment - moot point. MSportWiki (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
[1] Here's an entire article from the AP about Ford using the Mustang GT3 car as a marketing tool, citing Porsche's success in selling 911's. There's a reason why OEMs have flocked to IMSA and the WEC lately while IndyCar has been on the street corner for a decade trying to get a third and it's because they see the former two as their best opportunities to market their brands and products. The fact that you've used hyperbolic rhetoric from the get go here then come up with this assertion is honestly really funny. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
What I find funny is you genuinely believing that people will come to a Wikipedia article and be convinced to buy a Mustang or 911 or whatever just by looking at a list of vehicles driven by someone. Your argument is a foolish one - just say "I oppose this proposal" and be done with it. MSportWiki (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
All drivers using the same car is a relatively recent trend. The change proposed is not recent/current driver specific. Motorsport has an extensive history of junior formulae where only the engine was controlled as well as several categories where it was not. -- Falcadore (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Please can you post an example of an existing table? Rally Wonk (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Look at Kimi Räikkönen#Racing record for instance. Tvx1 20:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Formula racing / consistency

Can anybody provide a source that this is a common phrase/term? The article Formula racing provides none and is poorly referenced generally. It says "The origin of the term lies in the nomenclature that was adopted by the FIA for all of its post-World War II single-seater regulations, or formulae." Says who, why this?

Meanwhile on Auto racing, the preferred term is open-wheel racing, but the main article is Formula racing.

On which, it says, "Common usage of "formula racing" encompasses other single-seater series, including the IndyCar Series and the Super Formula Championship." apart from the question of 'what common usage', the link is to American open-wheel car racing. This is also the name of the Wikiproject whilst there is no Formula racing project.

There are three terms being used to all mean the same thing:

  • Single-seaters (used by the FIA ISC, Motor Sport magazine, Wikipedia to define the next two...)
  • Open-wheel (used by Indycar, motorsport.com...)
  • Formula racing (used by Wikipedia and any rip of.)

Is there any desire to have a conversation on consistency? Rally Wonk (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally would support a move to Open-wheel racing, but this is not the venue for that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Basic question for Wikiproject Motorsport

It's bizarre that Auto racing is the flagship article for what in other languages is called automobile sport. Who uses the term auto racing outside of Wikipedia? The article has no supporting sources! Not all automobile sport is racing, I'd be disappointed to hear arguments that this is a good title.

Consider the other major languages:

  • fr Sport mécanique > Compétition automobile
  • es Deportes de motor > Automovilismo
  • it Sport motoristici > Automobilismo
  • pt Esporte a motor > Automobilismo
  • de Motorsport > Automobilsport
  • ru Моторные виды спорта > Автоспорт
  • pl Sport motorowy > Sport samochodowy
  • etc, meanwhile en is Motorsport > Auto racing (but < in quality)

I'm not proposing a move to automobile sport because I don't expect it to be supported. But does anybody support the notion that motor sport is the historic term encompassing cars, motorcyles, boats and planes; whilst motorsport is the common word for automobile sport even if it includes motorcycles? The FIA affiliated national sporting authorities of UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa and USA all use motorsport (Canada: autosport). Although these are official, there's no doubt in my mind motorsport is the common use.

See this ngram. Motorsport became popular in the second half of the 20th century, long after boating and air sports had found their own terms. Newspapers.com may agree but is down at the moment.

Wonder if anybody supports moving Auto racing to Motorsport (automobile sport)? Or if Motorsport should cover both purposes. Rally Wonk (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The biggest single reason is because in English, Auto Racing does not include motorcycle racing because in English Auto refers specifically to cars and not bike. Motorsport does not discriminate as to the nature of the vehicle. Not only does it include cars and bikes, but also includes boats and aircraft.
Additionally Auto Racing does not generally include Rallying and any other time trial based competition like Time Attack, Sprinting or Motorkhana. They are not including because time trials are not racing. You are not on the track at the same time, so it is not a race. Then there is also Drifting which while it has a racing component frquently the result in a drift is one win each and the result is dependent on a subjective judgement of artisitic expression. --Falcadore (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The biggest single reason for what? You make some great points here but I'm not sure of your overall point, other that Auto racing omits many disciplines and motorsport is not specific to automobiles.
I think the latter point can be overlooked, because the common English term for what is called in other languages automobile sport, is motorsport. To answer my own original question above, I have been accepting motorsport should cover both purposes.
Boating and aircraft sports ceased to commonly be motorsport 70/80/100 years ago (or so). I cannot find current or recent usage of the word with these contexts, therefore they don't belong on Motorsport IMO except in #History. I accept motorcycle sport also has motorsport context, but I have no desire to duplicate full content where it has its own article. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused by what this is asking for. Your n-gram is showing different spellings of motorsport, but if you check versus "auto racing" you'll see that the "auto racing" term is very popular in English and continues to be, even though "motorsport" as a term is gaining popularity. The Motorsport page exists and talks about motorsport as a whole, while the Auto racing page covers … auto racing, and only auto racing. It does exactly what it says on the tin, which is discuss a category of sport that's perceived—and talked about—as distinct in English.
So what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve here?
Kalany (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Look at other languages, hierarchically they are Motorsport > Automobile Sport > Auto Racing. Automobile sport and Auto racing are not the same thing, as not all automobile sport is racing.
Those other language articles for Automobile sport link to the English Auto racing. It's not correct IMO.
But what is the best way to be correct? Automobile sport is not a common name in English. Motorsport is! But not all Motorsport is Automobile sport. Or is it? If there is Motorcycle sport and nothing from the last 80 years to say that Boat racing and air sports are types of motorsport, then how long do we insist on living in the past?
I asked if Motor Sport included the bikes, boats and planes and motorsport was just cars, but I now believe that either also includes motorcycles, and there is no distinction in the terms. That is why the ngram.
Some time has passed since I wrote the above and a lot of changes have been made. I think around the time of that post, I had searched 'motorsport' online and was given the result linking to Auto racing. It's not correct. I also removed some non-racing content from Auto racing, I think it was outside the scope.
As a direct question to you, what do you call automobile sport? Motorsport with cars that include all disciplines: racing, rock crawling, rallying, drifting, autotesting, trials ... ... Rally Wonk (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I would say that the translation of Automobile Sport is Motorsport. Look at FIA website. The world is motorsport (either together or two words) and we know that FIA has nothing to do with motorcycles, planes and boats. So if I was to a world that covers all forms of sports with a car, I would call it motorsport. Maybe autosport could be more accurate but motorsport is the common used term. Rpo.castro (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed.
But therefore, should fr:Sport_mécanique and fr:Compétition automobile both point to en:Motorsport? Rally Wonk (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Not even possible. Tvx1 22:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

WRC championship standings table for 2024

There is an ongoing discussion reagarding the WRC championship standings tables at Talk:2024 World Rally Championship as the championship would feature a new points system in 2024, which is rather complicated. Inputs are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

IndyCar schedule tables 2

Pinging various editors who were active in the last (now archived :( ) discussion or who regularly edit the relevant IndyCar season articles. @Mark McWire, RegalZ8790, Tvx1, Mikulitsi, HotMAN0199, H4MCHTR, Migiditch, Glman, Finn Shipley, Cs-wolves, Vin28rol, MasterAlSpain, and Wildarms007:. Feel free to ping more.

For those maybe unaware, there was a discussion (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 24#IndyCar (schedule) tables a few months back about the use of (for lack of better term I can think of) icons used as a legend for schedule tables, specifically on those for American open-wheel car racing season articles (eg. 2024 IndyCar Series, 1988 CART PPG Indy Car World Series, 2006 Champ Car season etc.). The discussion was started by me on Mark McWire's talk page (later moved here), due to my opposition to him adding a new "icon" denoting street courses. The discussion ultimately went nowhere, with no consensus reached for anything.

Since that discussion ended, I've reflected on it, come to agree with many of Mark McWire's points, and have changed my opinion. Where there is a lack of secondary sourcing in regards to differentiating of track types, I think it should be okay to use the primary sourcing. Additionally, we can easily find secondary sourcing, especially within the last 10 years, describing how this style of racing is incredibly diverse in terms of track types, such as here.

Additionally, post-discussion, the fact that no consensus was reached was used as a reason to change (as far as I've clicked) all past season articles. No consensus should have meant that everything was left as-is, to be fair, but I probably should have also realized that starting such a discussion was going to be so all-encompassing, but at the time my main concern was the recent articles. If we are going to discuss a proposal that is going to affect such a large number of articles, I believe we should strive to achieve some sort of consensus either way. I am debating starting a Request for Comment on this matter, but I think we can still handle this ourselves. Hope everyone's having/has a good holidays! ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

For visibility this should also be posted to the American Open-Wheel WikiProject talk page.
RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should the "schedule" table in articles listed in Template:American Championship Car seasons have a separate icon denoting street circuits?

  • Yes as above

― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, because the sanction body considers these track types separately in her calendar files (primary source) and also in the marketing of the racing series. --Mark McWire (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes Migiditch (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No, because the current Oval/Non-Oval system is the only one I see that is broad enough to fit all the various types of circuit that Indy/Championship cars have competed on. There are circuits comprised of, or designed to mimic, the conditions challenging an average person driving through town or country; there are closed circuits designed to feature speed, spectator viewing, and side-by-side action.
    The current sanctioning body can market the series as it wants, how it wants, when it wants. If people want that they can visit the IndyCar website. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't create new icons, tables, charts, etc, based on the whim of marketing and news sources. Encyclopedias aim to be empirical, and they aim to be holistic.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  • No, because the different bodies of IndyCar racing (maybe with the exception of late Champ Car) have, almost always, grouped together "road and street courses" as a combined different discipline when paired with ovals, and the media coverage has done so accordingly. We could also make the point that, whenever IndyCar has categorized the stats on road and street courses VS the ovals beyond marketing purposes, it has done so without separating the two types of "road racing". While this was some time ago, the "Mario Andretti Trophy" awarded in the early 2010's encompassed both styles. On their 'IndyCar 101' sub-page, they do mention road courses and street courses in a separate fashion, but they also do it with "short ovals" and "superspeedways". Beyond that, both types of ovals do have separate aero configurations, but not the road and street courses. Not to mention the former categorizations of some racetracks as "temporary road courses", which wouldn't necessarily fit in any of the two considerations.

MasterAlSpain (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, NASCAR articles have started to further diversify the labels attached to the venues — in particular have had a Dirt icon next to the spring Bristol race for the last few years, and a Street for the Chicago Grant Park race. Agree also that the series has marketed road and street courses as distinctly separate disciplines in the last few years as the number of oval races have declined. It also helps for some of those tracks which are not blatantly obvious from the naming scheme as to what style of track they are — tracks such as Exhibition Place or Tamiami Park are not obviously street tracks at first glance. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
We have the articles of these circuits for that.Tvx1 13:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, While there has never been a specific championship for street courses in particular like there was , I find it generally helpful to know if something is a street circuit or not. Sometimes that is obvious from the name of the circuit (like Detroit street circuit, Streets of Nashville, Streets of Long Beach, and Streets of St. Petersburg) but others have less obvious names that can be a bit confusing as to whether or not they're street or road courses. I think it ultimately does not prove terribly harmful, and can generally prove beneficial. I think the potential for some confusion for the years that they were running the discipline titles with the Mario Andretti Road Course Championship, if there is confusion over the street courses counting towards the road course total, but I think that the general added information is more helpful than that potential for confusion.

TartarTorte 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment, Please take a look at the results table for the 1916 season. Would we consider a new column, and color-shaded rows in present-day seasons which allow us to see what the track type is, while also indicating the balance between oval and non-oval circuits?
    Failing that, I would like to propose that any changes that add a Street icon will affect only CART-sanctioned seasons to the present. The only outlier track I can think off would be Burke Lakefront. IMO that track raced closer to a road course than it did a street.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment, (@RegalZ8790:) The change would only take effect from the 1983 season onwards anyway. The first official "street circuit" in American OpenWheel history was the Long Beach Grand Prix in 1983. Technically, some Grand Prix of the 1910s and 1920s on public roads between cities also count as "street course". But these were mostly just point-to-point races, which are a separate category in themselves anyway. In Formula 1 for comparison it looks a bit more complicated. Many earlier race tracks were really just modified public roads, like Reims, Rouen or Spa. --Mark McWire (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    All due respect, but you are mistaken. The only point-to-point ever sanctioned by the AAA as a major race was the 1909 running of the "Cactus Derby," a race between Los Angeles and Phoenix.
    Aside from the 1905 season which was all ovals and was a publicity disaster for the AAA (several deaths, and the champion, Barney Oldfield was publicly at odds with the AAA), the following seasons in 1909 and the 1910s started out with a large number of courses which were road and street.
    Even if the terminology was different, street courses existed long before the 1980s - look at the image. That's a posed shot from a race run in the 1915 and 1916 seasons through San Francisco. For several reasons, spectators grew more interested in ovals during the 1920s. Also, same as today, local citizens and governments didn't always care for the inconvenience/cost of hosting a race. Accidents were much deadlier then, and were horrible PR.
    History lecture aside, other disciplines and series of motorsport should not really be the driving factor in changes to the IndyCar/AOWR WP. Any changes still need to continue indicating the balance between non-oval and oval racing that has ebbed and flowed (and acted almost as a cultural issue) since the 1900s. Simply adding a Street Course icon with no other changes will obscure that aspect of history and culture fairly unique to IndyCar racing, and will create an issue where we then need to create icons for all other types of track (beach, board, hill climb, point-to-point, hybrid, short oval, super speedway, dirt, etc) for consistency reasons. This is why I think we should consider another solution. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
From a historical perspective you are of course right. I would only separate the street circuit and road course for CART / IndyCar. Furthermore, it doesn't need its own background color. We'll use the current blue, but with an "S" instead of an "R". --Mark McWire (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mark McWire, I think your idea is an excellent and flexible compromise; it addresses my historical concerns. Provided that for the time being it applies to the 1979-present seasons only, I support the idea. I also believe that as the IndyCar WP works to better standardize all of the season pages, your solution could be flexible enough to apply to the 1905-1978 pages.
Requesting comment from @GhostOfDanGurney, @Migiditch, @MasterAlSpain, @TheChrisD, @TartarTorte, and @Tvx1.
RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is fine by me. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No Not as a general rule. Only if there was a specific championship for a specific type of circuits or specific technical rules applying to one set of circuits. Other than that this is beyond the scope of a season article calendar.Tvx1 13:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Speedway race format - p6

Template:Speedway race format - p6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Joe Gibbs Racing

Some editors have removed all tables from the Joe Gibbs Racing article. This edit was needed, as the article was certainly too large, but the tables should be removed to separate pages, like we've done over at Hendrick Motorsports and Hendrick Motorsports in the NASCAR Cup Series. Input in the discussion and help editing new articles would be great! glman (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Input needed in a discussion on the scope of the Motorsport and Auto racing articles

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Motorsport#Motorsport regarding whether the Motorsport article should only cover sports involving automobiles or sports involving all types of motorised vehicles, and whether the Auto racing article should cover all types of automobile sport or only those disciplines where drivers race directly against each other. Also part of the discussion is whether Automobile sport should redirect to Auto racing or Motorsport. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Carfan568 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

May I add that Motorsport is written in British English and this conversation has occurred before as seen on Talk:Auto racing and in the archives here. It may be helpful saying where you are from if you have a suggestion. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bristol Motor Speedway

At Bristol Motor Speedway article, under "Races" section, I added a "Other races" subsection with these two entries.

After adding, this content was reverted - @Glman with the Edit summary of no clear reason to add two specific years of races. I understand that not every Bristol event has its own article, but I think it would improve this Bristol article to include a few one-of races. Given track's history since 1960, it would be nice to add a few races maybe from each decade? At this point, I'm asking for discussion and thoughts here about adding the "Other races" section? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2010 Food City 250". Retrieved August 20, 2010.
  2. ^ "2010 Scotts Turf Builder 300". Retrieved March 20, 2010.

JoeNMLC (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to add specific year's events to the main page. Users can visit the event page (Food City 300 and Cheddar's 300) and every single running is linked there. Why would it be helpful to randomly include specific events? glman (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I've linked these races from the 2010 Nationwide Season article. glman (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done - Thanks @Glman for doing these improvements, a good place for these links. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jan de Rooy (rally driver)#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jan de Rooy (rally driver)#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Assistance appreciated

A "list of Australian Touring Car Championship/V8 Supercars drivers" page is currently being constructed here, any assistance to help fill out the page faster (and accurately) would be appreciated. I do ask however that stats up to the end of 2023 are used, with 2024 (or beyond if it takes longer) stats/debutants added after it becomes an article. Please do not move to the draftspace as it's a broken system. MSportWiki (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Call for comment: Autocross

I am in process of improving Autocross. There is no such thing as 'British Autocross', 'Australian Autocross' etc. Autocross is autocross with usual differences across borders and there is no need for multiple articles. However, as usual there is a slight difference with autocross in the USA, where it is trade marked as Solo or NASA-X by the different bodies. I would expect to upset people with a bold move with this, and on wikidata Autocross (USA) is already down as comparable to autoslalom elsewhere. I invite comments on whether to:

Related with hope to improve language links:

I hope this all makes sense. I'm not entirely sure of the technical process either so would appreciate comments. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_25&oldid=1221892633"