Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Requested Motorsport Articles

I'm sure in their own way all these minor squabbles are important but the more important, larger tasks which I'm drawing your attention to involve all the pages which need creating (a lot of them are very notable yet missing): Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports#Motorsports. Officially Mr X (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You've made the majority of these requests. The word agenda comes to mind.

Getting the articles we already do have right is important. New articles are often created from existing similar articles. If we are not careful many existing errors and editting mistakes can be rapidly perpetuated. improving the standard of the articles we do have, and in particular, adding text to articles that have very little other than tables is equally if not more important. --Falcadore (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way Mr X, but none of us work here and we will continue to do whatever tasks take our fancy. If you feel particular tasks are important, please take the time to work on them, but you'll not get very far by trying to tell us which articles we should work on. (Asking for help would be a different matter). There's also little point in creating many of the articles you suggest unless someone is going to put content other than the race results in them. As previously discussed, we are a general purpose encylopedia, not a stats or a results site. 4u1e (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I create pages that I feel are notable or that I am interested in (see my user page for a list). A good example would be Stefan Mücke, who I felt was just about one of the highest profile currently active drivers out there, and so I created his article. Similarly, I looked at 2009 Formula Three Euroseries season, and saw that neither Adrien Tambay (son of a former F1 driver) or Roberto Merhi (quite high up in the standings compared to any other red link drivers) had articles. I have had a look at the list and there is nothing that interests me, with the exception of Mücke Motorsport, which I had intended to do after the Stefan Mucke article. Just because they have been requested, it doesn't mean we need to create them. If there are any articles you wish to create, do them yourself. - mspete93 [talk] 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Road race

I believe that this redirect should point to Road racing (disambiguation) rather than Road racing. A google search produces a variety of results including ones relating to motorsport, cycling, and running races. Looking at what is being directed to this redirect we see a variety of articles which are largely unrelated to motorsport. It seems that the disambiguation page would be the better target here. What do people think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How does the hat note pointing to Road racing (disambiguation) not achieve this? --Falcadore (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sillfolkboy, the term is equally prevalent with bicycles and motorsport. The term should be a redirect to the disambiguation page. I think you should list this at requested moves and leave a message here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling so that consensus will be reached. Royalbroil 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then - a re-direct to Road racing (disambiguation) would save duplication then? --Falcadore (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to disambiguation page - mspete93 [talk] 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article gets renamed, I suggest "Road motor racing", just like Endurance racing (motorsport) should be called "Endurance motor racing". --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Cheever

Someone's gone results-table-crazy at Eddie Cheever and posted a series of big tables detailing every race the guy ever took part in. Do we need this? I didn't want to just take it off because the editor has clearly done a lot of hard work. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While yes it plainly is a lot of work, that should not be a factor in deciding an edits eligibility. Revert. --Falcadore (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd trot out Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information at this point, I think. Point 3 specifically. We're not a stats site, we're a general purpose encyclopedia. And practically we're never going to add that level of detail to more than a fraction of the articles, even if we want to. 4u1e (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

At best it should be simplified into season statistics, as on Michael Schumacher#Racing record. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2005 GP2 Series season

Request for advice. Originally this began because another user loaded up the calendar with pole position and fastest lap information. Information already displayed elsewhere. I reverted it on the basis that FL and PP have no place whatsoever in being in a table displaying and labelled calendar.

The response is this:. I reverted this seemed to me to really be too much and I refered to WP:NOTSTATS. I was told I was WP:GAMING and restored again. So on basis of being accused of bad faith and acting in the hope other editors don't notice, I ask for the advice of this group.

Am I wrong to belive this is better than this ? --Falcadore (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is better. You have shown just amazing inconsistency in your judgments. Cybervoron (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are the other editor involved, that reply is rather self-interested yes? --Falcadore (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinion (not that its ever mattered before): I much prefer Cybervoron's idea (especially the latest one). Adding a table like that one each GP2/GP2 Asia page plus race reports would be a very good idea and also match what is already done well on all other racing formula series pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is as valid as any other, whether I agree with you or not. Just because you lose some arguement doesn't make it your voice less important. Some you lose, some you win, most end in some variation of middle ground. Despite what you have said, it has never been personal. --Falcadore (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cybervoron argues for table bloating, Falcadore for an extra table. I'd rather we keep one single table, but only with the race winners, not the pole-position and fastest laps. These two are fairly unimportant (even if you get one or two points from them) compared to final classifications. PPs and FLs are already mentioned in the classification table anyway. I'm not sure we need GP2 race reports, but if we must, they have to be actual reports, not just scores. --Pc13 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra table? Which one? Don't think I did. --Falcadore (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems you want a table for the calendar and a table for the race winners. So that'd be +1 table. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 14:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Never at any stage advocated an additional table for the race winners. I said I would rather lose the winners from the calendar table than add pole position and fastest lap. But removing from the calendar does not mean adding a new table for winners. Another editor created a separate table for the winners. --Falcadore (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That didn't make much sense, but OK... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was that a table in the calendar section about the dates should reflect the text it is supporting and not be used as some convenient dumping place for information that is not related. The opposing editor along the lines of "if you don/;t want pole position of fastest lap, why have race winners? to which my response was I'd rather have none of them than include PP and FL. To turn that into wanting a separate table of winners is taking my words a little out of context IMHO.--Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to do

If anyone is looking for something to do over the coming days then my college work is meaning that I don't have the time to update the 2009 FIA WTCC Race of Italy article all by myself. I have so far done the last 3 WTCC reports to a good standard by myself but it is taking too long and I'm sure that they would benefit from some input by other users. When I said I'd be willing to do them I didn't mean all by myself! Thanks - mspete93 [talk] 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Lotus articles

I have started a discussion at WP:CARS about the naming of some of the Lotus car articles. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Motorsport Season Calendar Page

I have a proposal for you all about a new page which I have had a few ideas about. It would be a page for each year detailing the racing calendar for motorsport in general so people can see what series' are racing each weekend. Pages would be called something like 2009 Motorsport Calendar and 2010 Motorsport Calendar and state the date/series'/circuit/round of that series etc. throughout the year. I think if the page is created it should be limitted to only the series' that are continental or international, so about 40-50 series would probably feature. Hope my suggestion makes sense. I certainly think it is equally as useful as the List of 2009 motorsport champions‎ and other such pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a hypothetical template table to give you an idea of what i'm thinking at the moment (the table can be improved):

Date	Racing Series (round)	Circuit	Race Report*
17-18 May	Formula One (9)	Silverstone Circuit, United Kingdom
	GP2 Series (4)
	International Formula Master (3)	ACI Vallelunga, Italy
	Formula Nippon (4)	Fuji Speedway, Japan
	European F3 Open Championship (6)	Circuit de Catalunya, Spain
	Formula V6 Asia (3)	Bahrain International Circuit, Bahrain
24-25 May	IndyCar Series (7)	Laguna Seca, United States
	Formula Nippon (5)	Suzuka Circuit, Japan

* If such a page exists. Officially Mr X (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a good idea - I like it. Before each season I find myself collecting dates for all of the series I am interested in so this will certainly make it easier. I wouldn't bother with 2009 now but you can ceratinly do 2010. It could be included in the relevant "Motorsport in ????" template. I also love the idea of Indycar at Laguna Seca! - mspete93 [talk] 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunately topical in a way the champions list is not. It's a magazine style article, but not really encyclopedic content. What happens once we get to 2010, the article seems a bit pointless. Those who keep tabs on certain series will go to those series pages.

It should be reminded, than Wikipedia is not a news magazine and should not behave as such. I wouldn't go so far as to say delete, but... I struggle to see the point. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually - this article essentially does already exist - or a reasonably close match to it at the Current Events Portal.

Portal:Current events/Sports. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Targa Rallies

What should be done with this template {{Targa Rallies}} is there some connection with Targa Florio to these other rallies? --Typ932 ^T·C 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried to raise this a year ago. The connection appears to be tenuous at best. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

GP2 Series champions

I don't think that we need write in season's articles: "Reigning champion will not defend the crown", because the reigning champion not eligible to participate in the next season and it is written in the sporting regulations. 19.1 Any driver who previously won the GP2 Series Championship or any driver who completed a full season in the FIA Formula One World Championship will not be permitted to participate in the Series. Cybervoron (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Formula Three

Out of boredom, what you guys think?

cDelpi (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well aside from the whole flag issue... half of these championshions are done already aen't they? --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just trying to merge all Formula Three seasons, but I think is useless as there is already one template for all motorsport series. cDelpi (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, only the 2009 Formula Three Euroseries season features on Template:Motorsport in 2009 and I still don't understand what is wrong with having flags: nothing as far as I am concerned - they add a lot. No objections from me to this navbox being on Formula Three pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the British championship has international rounds, the German series is a cup, not a championship, and the Spanish series is the European Open now, with more than half the races outside Spain. --Pc13 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. X: It's the hornets nest that subject always stirrs up. The anti-flag edittors do have legitamte points. --Falcadore (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As do pro-flag editors, but let's not get into that here. Pyrope 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is there no reason for the flags, but I see no reason to abbreviate the titles of the series to 3 letters. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this one?

cDelpi (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A 2009 Masters of Formula 3 page has been created. Presumably a Macau GP page will be created as well. It is beginning to sound like a good idea. We can't have Template:Motorsport in 2009 overrun with F3. - mspete93 [talk] 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What do we think of that. I think (dare I say it) that having a template for the whole of motorsport with just selected championships doesn't work, with the amount of series we now cover. Either we need different templates like this or we need to divide the main template into little templates like this, with different collapsable groups (see Template:Navbox with collapsible groups). - mspete93 [talk] 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

A bunch of motorsport-related redirects are up for discussion here. Please feel free to add any comments you may have. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed template merge

Hello all. I have started a discussion about the possible merging of the F1 driver infobox with its more generic racing driver equivalent here.--Midgrid(talk) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Valencia permanent circuit page rename

I believe that Circuit de Valencia should be moved to Circuit Ricardo Tormo. If anyone has any views on this idea, please raise them Talk:Circuit de Valencia#Requested move. - mspete93 [talk] 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Emmanuel Collard

Hi, the article Emmanuel Collard is not very informative. There is a better biography section in French Wikipedia which should be translated. The only problem is I don't speak any French and so I can't do it of myself. Could someone translate it, please? --84.171.62.13 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of work needed for that. My French is a bit rusty (and infected by Quebecisms now) but that article seems to make an awful lot of unverified claims (in fact it provides only one ref, and we can't use another Wiki as a reliable source!) and is a bit "peacocky" in places. If you are a Collard fan and desperately want a bigger article you would be better off using that one as a checklist (and Babelfish is enough for that) and finding proper references to produce a better English text. Pyrope 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Try using Driver Database as a reference. - mspete93 [talk] 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GP2 codes

User:Cybervoron has been changing the codes to certain events in certain drivers' complete GP2 results, with the reason of ISO 3166-1 being used. For example, Romain Grosjean's results have been changed from:

Year	Entrant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	DC	Points
2008	ART Grand Prix	UAE FEA 1	UAE SPR 1	IND FEA 4	IND SPR 4	MAL FEA 9	MAL SPR 2	BHR FEA 1	BHR SPR Ret	UAE FEA 1	UAE SPR Ret	1st	61

To this:

Year	Entrant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	DC	Points
2008	ART Grand Prix	ARE1 FEA 1	ARE1 SPR 1	IDN FEA 4	IDN SPR 4	MYS FEA 9	MYS SPR 2	BHR FEA 1	BHR SPR Ret	ARE2 FEA 1	ARE2 SPR Ret	1st	61

Now, having consulted User:Midgrid, who has the original tables on his reference page, and is opposed to the changes (thoughts below):

1. The predecent from previous seasons is for GP2 rounds to have the same codes as the F1 races they support (so MYS should be MAL, and the races at Yas Marina should be ABU).
2. The F1 codes themselves are not based on the ISO codes, but are the result of a vote a while back at WT:F1 (which should be visible in the archives).
3. It is unnecessary to distinguish between different rounds at the same circuit, as the table is arranged in chronological order anyway and it's obvious which one comes first. Adding "1" or "2" to the end of the code breaks down the principle that each code should be three letters long, and makes the table more unbalanced.

I feel it may be a discussion that should be considered on the project page, to (re-)acquire a consensus. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is more than one wrong here. The reason Formula 1 races are identified by nation is because of the strong nationalistic flavour of the events name - Nationian Grand Prix. These issues are not present in the GP2 Asia series, and thus if anything the three letter abbreviation should reflect the name of the circuit rather than host nation. There are no Phillipino Grands Prix in GP2 Asia. Using circuit names is the widely adopted practice in most other series. This is a problem which has spawned from the primary GP2 series where country codes have appeared even though the nationalist names refer only to the F1 race and at times have been applied in a contradictory nature.

Additionally, using a circuit abbreviation allows to skirt away from the always contentious issue of flags, because if left as country codes then sooner or later a new editor will decide the tables are not colourful enough and add flags to them. --Falcadore (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So with your proposal, you would like to see something like this:

Year	Entrant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	DC	Points
2008	ART Grand Prix	DUB FEA 1	DUB SPR 1	SEN FEA 4	SEN SPR 4	SEP FEA 9	SEP SPR 2	BIC FEA 1	BIC SPR Ret	DUB FEA 1	DUB SPR Ret	1st	61

Or would you change the code for Bahrain International Circuit to something other than BHR? Cs-wolves(talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would have no problem in changing the codes to being circuit-specific (as has already been done in the case of International Formula 3000).--Midgrid(talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You could use the three letter code the circuit themselves actually use, BIC. --Falcadore (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I was thinking that as the most appropriate replacement for BHR. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Bahrain, I would prefer BHR, as the "International Circuit" part of the name is not unique to the circuit. Sentul and Sepang have similar names, yet their abbreviations are derived solely from the distinctive part of their names.--Midgrid(talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that circuit-specific codes work best for events that aren't actually a country's full GP. And Falcadore's suggestion that this would deter the flag-merchants is a very good one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On another note, should we list both Valencia races under VAL, or split them into different codes for the street circuit and the permanent circuit? Cs-wolves(talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm aware the 'IC' moniker causes probelms with Sepang and Sentual, but neither circuit is named after the nation they came from, they have an identifiable name of their own. BHR suggests Bahrain as much as it does Bahrain International Circuit. And as I stated above, BIC is the abbreviation the circuit itself uses, and there isn't a clash with another venue that I'm aware of. --Falcadore (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Codes to use?

Circuit	Code
Abu Dhabi	ABU
Algarve	ALG
Bahrain	BHR/BIC/SAK
Catalunya	CAT
Dubai	DUB
Hockenheim	HOC
Hungaroring	HUN
Imola	IMO
Istanbul	IST
Losail	LOS
Magny-Cours	MAG
Monaco	MCO
Monza	MOZ
Nürburgring	NÜR
Sentul	SEN
Sepang	SEP
Shanghai	SHA
Silverstone	SIL
Spa	SPA
Valencia (Ricardo Tormo)	VAL/VRT
Valencia (Street)	VAL/VSC

I've probably missed some obvious ones out, so feel free to change it. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously until Abu Dhabi build a street circuit, perhaps we can refer to the name YMC for Yas Marina Circuit? --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)