Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archiving

Decided to archive the talk page, as it was 57K (recommended size is 32K or smaller) That, and it was a touch too long to be useful. It is still available here, and as its template states, feel free to "revitalize" any topic, by copy/pasting here. -slowpokeiv 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Another archive here. Recury 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another archive here. Y'know, it's gotta be a good thing when the length of time covered in the Archive keeps getting shorter and shorter. -- DiegoTehMexican 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Driver Infobox Template

OK, it has been a while, and is now done. {{Infobox NASCAR driver}} now exists, but needs to be used. All should be able to be migrated with little effort, but be aware that all stats must now be series specific. (That is, Cup_Wins must be used, not Wins) -slowpokeiv 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked this on slowepokeiv's talk page, but I should ask it here too - should we develop a "joint" infobox template with WikiProject Formula One, for drivers like Juan Pablo Montoya and Tony Stewart, who have raced in F1, NASCAR, and/or IRL? -- DiegoTehMexican 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk, I disagree with the melding of the two infoboxes, for the main reason that I don't want to say that one is more important than another. (I do however think that discussion is good, and agree with bringing it up and discussing it here.) Also, the list of crossovers is relativly short. (I only know 2 or 3 drivers to have done the sunday double (Indy 500, Cocacola 600) and I think just as few who have raced F1 and NASCAR. -slowpokeiv 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with melding the infoboxes for the same reasons as Slowpokeiv. I would have posted it last night had my Wi-Fi been working better. The only infobox combination that could possibly make sense in my mind would be IROC, but I think they should remain separate. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge request on NASCAR Canadian Tire Series

Someone has requested a merge of the following four articles: NASCAR Canadian Tire Series, CASCAR, CASCAR Super Series, and NASCAR Canada. I suggest all comments be left on the talk page for NASCAR Canadian Tire Series. Would someone please point all of the merge discussions to my comment there, for my Wi-Fi internet connection is nearly dead with rain moving in. THANKS! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Erin Crocker

I read what happened to the article from the anon user. I totally agree with consensus that the anon was WAY out of line. I think that the history of the article should be permanently erased, else someone could read about the libelous non-encyclopedic material. I think that anon should get a long-term band. Nearly all anon edits are suspect in my opinion, which is why I think that registration should be mandated. I'll step off the soap box now. I think that Crocker's talk page should also be edited and permanently erased for the same reason. I wonder if this problem should be brought to the Living person's Biography problem board. They were prompt and extremely thorough with the problems with Wayne Taylor's biography! Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If the anon comes back and starts attacking again, I certainly will take this to the problem board, as well as the Admin noticeboard and (again) the requests for page protection. I refuse to let this troll continually vandalize and abuse. And as for erasing history and/or the talk page, are we allowed to do that? -- DiegoTehMexican 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The erasing is done by admins depending on the severity of the libelousness. It's up to non-admins to propose it. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this was probably a less serious case than the Wayne Taylor one we were dealing with. The info being added to that article was totally untrue, unsourced and potentially libelous, whereas the info added to Crocker's page was just what was being reported elsewhere. It was pretty obvious, however, what the anon's intentions were and that they weren't very interested in making a better encyclopedia article. Blanking the talk page might be a good idea though; that's what Jimbo does to keep stuff like that from showing up in Google searches. Recury 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The page shouldn't be deleted or anything like that. In case of another series of adding the info, it will be important to have a record of the consensus. Also, I don't agree with the statement that it was unsourced, as he did have a source that stated Mayfield's statement. That said, I don't think it should be added unless some fallout comes to her to career because of that claim. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the Wayne Taylor stuff was unsourced. I should have clarified. Recury 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy. The anon's ban has expired and he's back to claiming that his stuff is supported by court documents and an NYT article. I'm glad that the article is protected right now, or we'd be in the middle of another edit war. -- DiegoTehMexican 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, another question - what happened to the Wayne Taylor article? I don't think I was active in the WikiProject when that happened. -- DiegoTehMexican 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user was reverting to a version of the article he wrote which made a lot of allegations about him and which was written in a really petty, POV kind of way (like implying that he should have won more than he has, among other things). The history was deleted and I'm sure he was blocked. Recury 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The contributor in the Wayne Taylor article did much more than what Recury said. It was some completely untrue made up severe lies. The lies don't deserve the light of day. Nasty type stuff about his background. I received an email from Taylor's attorney, so I rewrote the entire article from scratch using only sourced information. I posted the email on Wikipedia's Biography problems section. It definitely needed the big eraser. Erin's article is not NEARLY as nasty, so I agree it could remain buried in the history.

I haven't been following this WikiProject as much over the last few months. I'm not the big fan of the current NASCAR like I was for the late 1970s to the start of the Chase for the Cup. I think that I have added much of my knowledge/background/organizational skills to the WikiProject which is why my contributions have lessened. I have been concentrating more on my state of Wisconsin, especially its improving its images. That is why I don't check here so much. I am DEFINITELY not quitting this WikiProject. Anyone can contact me with questions like those asked here, or to direct me here.

I spent a great deal of time this summer going to to local car races. I went to 29 nights at 20 tracks! You can find out details by clicking the external links on my user page. I have over 2800 images of the state of racing in Wisconsin in 2006. I have added some of my photo collection to flickr.com. I added a fair number of images to Wikipedia/WikiCommons too. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of Ralph Earnhardt

I took an image of what I believe is a replica of his car. You can find it on my flickr account here. What does everyone think about using the image of the replica in his article? I have a few more images of other replicas, but the cars are smaller (and thus may not work). Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say replica is better than none, so long as it's clearly labeled as such, but actual image is better than replica. Just my .02 -slowpokeiv 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

NASCAR Regulations article proposed

The main NASCAR article is currently about 44kb long. It contains a lot of information regarding the point system, and saftey. Since these sections contain information that are nearly universal to all series, I propose that these be moved to a new article specifially for NASCAR Rules and Regulations. This would make the main article focus more on buisness and history, while leaving details about NASCAR racing to a new article where they can be expaned. The new article could also host information about tech inspection, race weekend procedures, and the colors of flags. Your feedback is appreciated. Mustang6172 08:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent way of dividing the article. The new article should point of the differences between series where there are some. Please note that there is already a Wikipedia article on the colors of racing flags that is far broader and incorrect for NASCAR called Racing flags. Royalbroil ^T : C 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, and possibly the Criticism and History could be condensed and moved as well. (I mean, come on, there's more about the criticism than the history... Not saying that we should censure, but we should add to the history, and we shouldn't do that on this page, as it's already too long.) -slowpokeiv 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it would work well to me. I just wouldn't capitalize Rules and Regulations, unless NASCAR has an official publication somewhere that is called that. Recury 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's finished. You can view the new article here. The NASCAR article is now 31kb long. Mustang6172 06:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

William France Sr. page move

I'm going to request a move for this article to something else, but I just wanted some input as to what you guys think would be a good name for it. It at least needs a comma between France and Sr per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but I thought maybe saying "Bill" instead of "William" might be appropriate since that is usually how I see it written. It could also go to Bill France since that is what he is often called, but I am starting to think that might be better left as a redirect. I guess I am leaning towards Bill France, Sr. right now, but what are your thoughts? Recury 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that most people know him as Bill France, Sr., so I'd move the page there. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 15:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill France, Sr. I always disliked naming the article William France Sr. too, and I thought about having it changed. I like Brother's new name much better too. Yea, brother! - Royalbroil ^T : C 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about Bill France Sr. inspired me to write the Bill France, Jr. article! I nominated it for Did You Know, so please add to it. Thx! Royalbroil ^T : C 03:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Great job so far on Bill France Junior, Royalbroil! Barno 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for a WikiProject: Motorsport?

Do we need a WikiProject Motorsport for collaboration on topics that affect all motorsport articles? I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby - the purpose of which is to "maintain its children Wikiprojects: Rugby league and Rugby union as well as recognising, organising and improving the common areas between the codes." Now we have a lot more Motorsport WikiProjects covered than two and I sometimes think stuff such as the UK country discussion on the F1 Wikiproject applies across several others. I'm posting this on the F1, WRC, NASCAR, American Open Wheel Racing, A1GP and IROC to get people's opinions. Your comments are welcome! Alexj2002 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. I am a member of three of the WikiProjects (IROC, NASCAR, and American Open Wheel). I am knowledgable and often work on areas of racing that lie outside these specific genres, like midget cars, off-road racing, sprint cars, non-NASCAR stockcars, national series that tour local tracks in the United States, and other national series in the United States. These "missed" areas could be managed/organized by the meta-WikiProject. A meta-WikiProject to encompass all types of racing is needed. Royalbroil ^T : C 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOTOR created - please add comments and suggestions to it's talk page. Alexj2002 11:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Daytona International Speedway fatalities

• The article "List of Daytona International Speedway fatalities" got marked for a merge when it went through AfD. Nothing was cited before, so I added a book that features Earnhardt's death and discusses several others. I also added the same book as a source for the Daytona Beach Road Course article. The list of deaths doesn't have our project's tag on its talk page, so I'm adding it now. Barno 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone got any other books or major magazine articles on this topic? If we can source it better, it would become worth keeping as a subpage of Daytona International Speedway. The link would be similar to now from the reader's view, but would be located at Daytona International Speedway/Deaths in competition, prerace practice, qualifying, or testing, or just Daytona International Speedway/Deaths. That way it's retained as part of the DIS page; other editors will be less inclined to tag it for deletion; and (assuming it's further sourced soon) it will put a pageful of notable but secondary information off the main page to keep load time down, but handy for those readers who find it interesting or important. We should copyedit the text in the DIS article's "Deaths at the speedway" section. The article has an "insufficient context" tag, so I'll add some introductory text that gives context, plus a few details where the Ed Hinton book has them. Can someone find any of the Stock Car Racing articles (1960s-90s) on "Deaths at Daytona", Neil Bonnett, and Dale Earnhardt? Those would be reliable secondary sources that we could cite. Barno 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note also that if we don't source it enough to keep as a subpage, we have to merge the cited deaths into DIS and delete this completely. I know there are other legitimate books to cite, and published studies into impact effects including basal skull fracture. A Google search for "Friday Hassler" gives lots of hits, some of them notable-within-niche, and some newspaper articles (showing he was notable for wins in GN and the Snowball Derby), and a deaths study that the Associated Press sent to news websites. It starts with an error: Marshall Teague wasn't killed in "Winston Cup practice" or its 1959 equivalent; he died in test runs in a reworked Indy car with a canopy and covered wheels, hoping to beat the world closed-course speed record. I'll clarify the entry in the List of DIS fatalities, so the correct information can be moved or merged kept. Barno 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see this AfD was closed as a keep, with note for us to work out merge details. So the italicized part wasn't true (or, to be more precise, has much less short-term urgency) and I'm striking it out. Let this talk page know whether you agree with the proposal to move the list to a DIS subpage. Also feel free to comment on the clarifying/context edits I'm about to make on DIS and this deaths list. Barno 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Next time, please, please, please note relevant WikiProject AfD discussion here so members of the project are able to see the AfD and do something about it. I give hints to relevant WikiProjects when I see an AfD discussion on something relevant to their WikiProject. We could have helped source the article, which no doubt would have changed the outcome of the AfD. It kills me to hear about things like this after the fact. Deaths at Daytona is highly notable IMO.

• Why would you have wanted to change the outcome from "keep"? Barno 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a book that lists deaths from 1954 until 1991 at racetracks, and it includes Tab Prince, Friday Hassler, and Ricky Knott at DIS. I will source those three if they are not already. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I no longer propose moving this list to a subpage, because per Wikipedia:Subpages such things are used only in userspace, in special space such as WikiProjects, and for temp pages. So I struck out the parts suggesting such a move. Barno 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for WikiProject American Motorsports or WikiProject North American Motorsports?

I think there a need for a WikiProject about all motorsports in America that are not covered under other existing WikiProjects: WP:NASCAR, WP:IROC, WP:American Open Wheel Racing, Sports Car Racing, etc. The WikiProject would be similiar to Wikipedia:WikiProject British Motorsport in scope. The introduction would be "WikiProject American/North American aims to create, expand, update and standardize Wikipedia articles related to Motorsport in the United States/North America." Other WikiProject would replace the article marking template with their own as a driver moves up through the ranks.

I propose a WikiProject would encompass all motorsport articles in the United States, and I am asking for input if it should include Canada and Mexico. There is a fair bit of border hopping into Canada by NASCAR (especially with the new NASCAR Canadian Tire Series), and I would like to see the Baja 1000 included in the WikiProject.

It could be either organized as a parent of WikiProject NASCAR/WikiProject IROC, or as an equal. It would not do oversight of the WikiProjects, as that is covered by the new WikiProject Motorsports. Applicable articles would include notable racetracks, drivers, halls of fame, sanctioning bodies, etc. A sample of specific articles would include: ARCA, American Speed Association, IMCA, UMP, World of Outlaws, CORR, SODA (series), USAR Hooters Pro Cup, National Dirt Late Model Hall of Fame, National Midget Auto Racing Hall of Fame, Mike Eddy, Manzanita Speedway, Knoxville Raceway, Lake Geneva Raceway, Crandon International Off-Road Raceway, Berlin Raceway, Bonneville Speedway, Knoxville Nationals, Dirt track racing in the United States just to name a few. I have been spending much of my time recently improving this part of Wikipedia.

What does everyone think? Does anyone else have interests in some of these areas? Royalbroil ^T : C 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have strong interest and a lot of background in this topic. Lots of non-NASCAR racing series, tracks, drivers, etc. are of wider than local-only significance, and many have enough newspaper and magazine coverage for proper WP articles. I question, though, whether we need a third level of WikiProject. It would cancel a lot of the "find everything in one place" simplification advantage that a wikiproject gives, and makes the project structure look more like the tangle of sub-sub-sub-categories, "intersection of two attributes" categories, near-duplicate categories, etc. which is forcing people to clean up the whole category system and define tighter categories. Barno 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea as a parent yes, but this project is already so big that merging it into a giant with other WikiProjects would be even more confusing. I would like to see more done on the history of ARCA, ASA, etc. I think a big project could be a great resource to allow experts of each sport to collaborate on this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Day (talk • contribs).

I was thinking that the article would be handed over to say WikiProject:NASCAR when and if a dirt track, ARCA etc. driver rises through the ranks. WikiProject NASCAR would decide when they wanted oversight of the article, which would be signaled by them removing the proposed WikiProject's banner from the talk page and replacing it with the WikiProject NASCAR tag. That way there wouldn't be any overlapping. NASCAR/IROC/Open Wheel articles wouldn't have any oversight from the proposed WikiProject. I too was concerned that having another layer was too much. My main goal is to improve the articles besides NASCAR, IROC, and Open Wheel. Can anyone think of a way to accomplish these goals with a different structure? Also, there needs to be more than a handful of interested parties to make it worth the time spent starting and running the WikiProject). Barno and I could keep working on these nationally and regionally known series if we are the only interested parties. Royalbroil ^T : C 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I officially proposed it here. I amended it slightly. Please add your name there if interested. I added Barno's name per above. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2 Earnhardt breakout articles nominated for deletion

• The January 16 AfD page has two Dale Earnhardt-related breakout articles nominated for deletion. The nominator feels the parent article has enough detail on these two controversies, and says nothing more needs to be merged. These are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Earnhardt: Controversy over the cause(s) of his death and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Earnhardt: Autopsy photographs controversy. Please consider reviewing these and the parent article, seeing whether these topics merit more than is in the parent article, and commenting in the AfD's, including adding sources if you think they should be kept or if you think more should be merged. Barno 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate being notified about the discussion so we all can voice our opinion. I would prefer next time that we discuss things like this here in this WikiProject first before doing an AfD. Royalbroil ^T : C 21:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and created the Death of Dale Earnhardt article to try and address some of the concerns of the delete voters. I think the original titling of the articles opened the doors for POV and OR concerns. I also think the subject of Dale's death would be best served with a single dedicated article. Obviously, the article is entirely cut and paste (including heavily from the main Dale Earnhardt article) and it will need some more work. I would also recommend trimming the sections in the main article to a summary paragraph with a link to the Death of Dale Earnhardt article. Agne 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse Agne27's creation/merge of Death of Dale Earnhardt, and I agree with the above comments, particularly the last sentence. This was one of the most noted individual deaths in years, having plenty of influence on the sport, with enough published in reliable sources for a breakout article. Barno 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• I also strongly endorse the Death of Dale Earnhardt article. Very well written and complete! Royalbroil ^T : C 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Award

Does everyone know that there is an award for WikiProject NASCAR? It was approved through the whole process to! I recently created a subpage for it. There is a link to the award on the members page. It is used for rewarding WikiProject NASCAR members for their service, a special contribution, or whatever you deem appropriate. Enjoy! Royalbroil ^T : C 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Presenting sponsors in article titles

Check out Talk:Winn-Dixie 250 presented by PepsiCo. I could have sworn we had discussed this before and decided that not including presenting sponsors in the titles was the way to go, but I can't find the discussion anywhere. Anyway, stop by and let me know what you think. Recury 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR Infobox

An infobox that would organize all of the NASCAR pages would help. Maybe something like is done for MLB, NHL, or the NBA pages on wikipedia. I think it would help like NASCAR pages together better. Benje309 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation of templates

I am in the process of categorising motor racing infobox templates to make them easier to find and manage among all the various projects. Would you guys like your own sub-category of Motor racing infoboxes? You have quite a few templates, so it make sense to file them someplace. Regards, Adrian M. H. 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I say yes. Royalbroil ^T : C 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort that out today then. Haven't seen anything of you for a few days. The trivia contest going well, I hope? Adrian M. H. 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's done. Infobox and series templates can be found at Category:NASCAR_infoboxes, which is a sub-category of Category:Motor racing infoboxes. Adrian M. H. 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Adrian! That should prove useful. Barno 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Safety in NASCAR article proposed

• See Talk:NASCAR where I've suggested an article on safety developments in NASCAR (where such advances weren't just "...in racing" in general). I'll look for more sources that we might use, besides those I've added in a few articles. Barno 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanity Requested

So I was going through a few Category:NASCAR articles the other day and I noticed that we have two articles on the Lucky Dog Rule. There's Lucky Dog pass and Lucky dog. I've put merge tags on them, but no one is on the talk pages and I'm not sure which one to use. Lucky dog has the better article, and Lucky Dog pass sounds like a better title. Opinions on what to use? Mustang6172 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw the tag and I didn't have a preference or comment. You definitely should merge the articles of course. You could also use "Lucky Dog Rule" (if it is indeed a rule). The only thing that comes to mind it that "Lucky dog" would be accidentally found easier. That's a somewhat of a bad thing. I have a very weak preference for "Lucky dog pass". Royalbroil ^T : C 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would go with Lucky dog just because adding "pass" or "rule" on the end would be kind of interpretive; I don't think NASCAR actually has a set name for it. Besides, when announcers use the phrase, they almost always just say "Lucky dog." It's just a phrase and not a proper noun, so don't capitalize "dog" or "rule" or "pass." Recury 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for merge. The rulebook does not use the term "Lucky Dog". That was purely an informal term used by the TV broadcasters (to the point of becoming the default way of referring to the rule), until last season when Michael Waltrip's sponsor Aaron's threw the network some money to show a logo and call it the "Aaron's Lucky Dog" each time. But there's no better search term, so I would go with Lucky Dog (uppercase D since it's used as a title, especially in the past year, not as a literal phrase), and no "rule" or "pass" since a minority of searchers would try one of those ways first. Barno 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion shows that there definitely needs to be a number of redirects. Royalbroil ^T : C 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Team Linkboxes

I'm not sure what the proper name it, but I'm talking about the box of links for teams on the bottom of many pages, like the one I made for Roush Racing awhile back. These have popped up for nearly every team, but they all look rather bland. I am working on a more colorful version in my sandbox right now: User:BrotherFlounder/Sandbox2

Please let me know what you think and feel free to edit it yourself. — BrotherFlounder 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the amount of color used in the Roush Racing template. The current version in your sandbox is WAY too colorful for my taste. Royalbroil ^T : C 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Table format is a valuable addition for Schedule

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards which now redirects to WT:NASCAR. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the improvement that I believe is afforded by the inclusion of the season race schedule in a table form (Table Schedule is a valuable addition). A table was the format used as the 2007 in NASCAR page evolved coming into this 2007 season, but was removed by BrotherFlounder on February 11th. BF did this (as BF noted in his edit comment) based to some degree on the format that had been used in the 2006 in NASCAR article. So, in addition to my comment regarding the 2007 article, specifically, I'd like to suggest this table format be considered as a standard presentation for the annual NASCAR pages. As it stands, the paragraph-and-text format seems to be an emerging defacto standard simply because that was the way it has been done until now. I don't believe it is the best presentation, and was perhaps simply established the way it since the text-only format is just plain simpler and easier than the table. I think the table should be used instead of the text layout. While I'd go with the table only I wouldn't argue for that format if others objected. But I certainly do think the table should (at least) be there also. - Thaimoss 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New Owner Infobox

Why was {{MWRInfobox}} created? If they just wanted the manufacture, they could have added it to the current team template. --D-Day 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need to all use a single owner userbox. I think that you should propose deleting it. Royalbroil ^T : C 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Individual Race Pages

I have today started working on individual race pages starting with the 2006 Daytona 500 and the 2006 Auto Club 500. I will be working my way through the 2006 season in the days and weeks ahead. All comments are helpful Jsydave 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is necessary - these races are covered in detail on the 2006 in NASCAR page, and most races are not noteworthy enough to have their own pages. Certain ones, such as the 1992 Hooters 500 and the 2001 Daytona 500 are probably noteworthy, but not every single race. — BrotherFlounder 03:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your view, however this was something I found a rather glaring omission so before adding the pages I looked up the archived discussions on this talk page - Archive 3 has an entry on individual race pages and my view was that the consensus was broadly positive and would allow the 2006 season page to be less cluttered by removing the excessive detail from the season page - if you're looking up season stats i can't imagine you could care less who didn't qualify for this race or that - that level of detail surely cannot be noteworthy at a season level - certainly no more so than who finished 11th in a given race. As I said above I appreciate the feedback and since I'm new around these parts of the Wiki I'll hold fire for now on the remaining race until I receive more views here. Jsydave 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My first thought was no, don't create them. I, in fact, had nominated the 1990 Daytona 500 article for deletion almost a year ago (it was created by a vandal). But I see slowpokeiv's point about wanting to lessen the size of the 2007 in NASCAR file. How would the 2006 in NASCAR article have been decreased in size if there had been an article written about each race? I want some discussion as we decide. Good call on very notable races, BrotherFlounder. I would add the 1979 Daytona 500, of course. Royalbroil ^T : C 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps removing the silly season stuff could be a start. Not of all that is really notable for inclusion in the season page. Inclusion in the driver/team articles should be fine. --D-Day 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want anyone to create hundreds of stubs for every race if they have no intention of writing an article on them themselves. After all, we have articles on every current race in the top 3 series and most of those are stubs; I can't imagine how long it would take to write a race report for every one of those. The idea about writing about mainly just the notable races seems good to me, maybe all of the Daytona 500s and any race that something important or exciting happens at. Recury 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well given my work has received a fairly negative reaction, despite the previous discussion, I'll leave you guys to decide what race articles you wish to write as I can't help with this - I have seen very few races ever. Thanks for the comments. Jsydave 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that you do a bad job of writing, it's the idea that we are not necessarily sold on. Royalbroil ^T : C 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that and I don't take it personally. I just can't help you move forward the way you want it done Jsydave 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think the only individual race pages that make noteworthy sense are for the Daytona 500 only. There are individual race pages for all of the Indy 500's, but rarely, if any, for any other Indycar/CART race. I think that the "race" pages could be expanded instead, so show some year-by-year info, but I think creating hundreds of race pages might be too much. On the other hand, there are "reports" for every single one of the F1 Grand Prix races, so there is some precident for the idea. If there's someone to work on them, I guess I don't thinnk there is a problem, but I think that the race pages need work first. Doctorindy 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Formula One either. Moto GP has them as does IRL (although both are incomplete). A1 Grand Prix has them. On the other hand there's several series that do not apart from notable races - Le Mans Endurance Series comes to mind. At the end of the day I'm happy to oblige. I've designed a tool for the purpose so could assemble the remaining 41 race pages moderately quickly, using the official NASCAR results pages and by copying across the existing race recaps. I'll take a look at the race pages too but since I'm pretty new to NASCAR I doubt I can add much other than a superficial edit and update. Perhaps at the end of my work adding the pages, you can decide whether to ditch the race pages en masse or to cut down the race elements on the season specific pages. Finally, I've noticed that someone added a (very detailed) race page for the NASCAR race just passed - a good example of what is possible. Jsydave 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My quick .02: cautious yes. I see three issues: (quick and dirty format) 1) A lot of work, 2) stubs are ugly/look bad, and 3) notability. Also quick and dirty: 1) No one here is in it alone, that's why we have the WikiProject, to organize and co-ordinate efforts. We don't have to do it all in one night, we can eventually get to it. 2) Stubs might look bad, but if there's enough to be said, we should say it, and with 36 races, there's too much to be said in only one article. (that, and there's a whole list of wikipedians more than proud to just make stubs, so they would be all for hundreds of stubs.) 3) If we say that this race was notable, but that not, what are we basing this on? (Too subjective) I posit that all races at the premiere level are notable (one that other WPs also claim, namely, F1, IRL, et. al..)

My suggestion: Do it one year at a time. Do 2007, as the races occur, 2006 as possible, and then proceed backwards one year at a time. This would 1) break down the work into smaller, managable chunks, and 2) reduce the number of stubs. (once they are fully written, they are no longer stubs, and again, worth writing about.)

Further, one more aside to Jsydave, Be Bold. When in doubt, do it. It can always be reverted later. (I don't think that anyone here really disagrees with you, it just a HUGE task, and not one to be taken lightly, or spur of the moment.) -slowpokeiv 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted and comments appreciated (even if I did not get to read them for a couple of months afterwards!!) It is a huge task but one I have written a tool for, although I see today it needs a touch of refinement as it is removing leading zeros from car numbers (eg. 07 becomes 7). Have added tables for all 2007 rounds, that did not already have them, prior to this past weekends race and will commence again on 2006 shortly. Jsydave 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wins on Driver Pages

Is it really necessary to list ALL of a driver's wins in NASCAR? It seems like fanboyism to me. I'd like to see a policy where only a driver's wins in a MAJOR race are listed, or they are just summed up generally. (I.E. two wins in 2004, five wins in 1996, etc.) --D-Day 15:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists like that are unnecessary. Racing-Reference already does that in far greater detail than is needed or could be done here. — BrotherFlounder 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would go a step further. The only place that should mention a win is in the text, and in the infobox if it was the Daytona 500. Royalbroil ^T : C 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone else think?

• No as explained above. Royalbroil ^T : C 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong No We are an encyclopedia, not a fan page. --D-Day 13:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, listing all wins is an unnecessary level of detail. Wins per year and the most noted win(s) are enough information to tell the reader an encyclopedic description. Sites like Racing-reference provide thorough details, and fan clubs' sites provide all the "interesting" and "exciting" stuff in more detail than WP should give for a racer or for Ashlee Simpson. Barno 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• If it were a long list, then it should merit its own article. See Chicago Bears seasons, it's even a featured list, which is almost the same kind of thing. If there's enough wins, then it probably should be its own article (especially in multiple series), but for a driver like Kevin Harvick, I don't think it's entirely necessary when it's in a prose style of writing.++aviper2k7++ 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daytona 500 win in driver's infobox

Should winning the Daytona 500 be added to the driver's infobox? Please vote and comment.

• Yes. It is the jewel crown in NASCAR, and a driver's career is judged by the number of Daytona 500 wins. Royalbroil ^T : C 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Moderate Yes I'm not 100 in favor of it, but it seems like a good idea to me. --D-Day 13:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. As Jimmie Johnson commented during the pre-race this year, it's the only NASCAR race with a "title", and the drivers are introduces as the Daytona 500 winner for the rest of the year. I would recommend putting this in the Awards section of the infobox. — BrotherFlounder 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No. Open wheel drivers don't have the Indy 500 or Monaco GP listed in their infoboxes. While Daytona is a significant race, it doesn't pay any more points than any other race. And it's not the be-all, end-all of NASCAR racing. Even Derrike Cope has won it.Mustang6172 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add on to my statement. Every time Daytona 500 rolls around, all the talk is about how the race is the most important. But when the Brickyard 400 rolls around all the talk is about "what's the bigger race, Daytona or Indy". And usually the drivers that started out in open wheel say Indy. And the Indy 500 is still more popular than the Daytona 500 when mesured with an international audiance.Mustang6172 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - Daytona 500 is major event, considered by many to be more than just a race. (Why else would no less than 5 crew cheifs be cited for cheating, if for "just a race"?) Derrike Cope would agree, winning the 500 is the crowning jewel of his career. In Rusty's career, one would even say that yes, he won the championship, but never won a 500. Dale built an entire package around the 500, as despite 7 championships, he was disappointed that he had not won the 500. OK, I'll get off my soapbox, but Yes the 500 qualifies as a major event, deserves an infobox inclusion.-slowpokeiv 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• No -It's not really an award, it's a race win that counts for the same amount of points as any other race.++aviper2k7++ 04:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - This is termed the "Super Bowl" of races, and as others have said the "Crown Jewel" of NASCAR. This is the only race I would put the awards in to. Also, the cash purse along was what, 1.5 million for the winner alone. Yeah, that would be worth putting it into the award section. Not only that, but their car goes on display, and the person is always termed and remembered for winning the Daytona 500. As I was watching ESPN yesterday, they referred to Harvick as the 2007 Daytona 500 winner.--Kranar drogin 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am doing an add-on with my statement. If any of you watched Speed Channel last night, Ward Burton put it into the best words "Even if I do not do a single thing in racing again, I will always be introduced as the 2002 Daytona 500 winner." Now, I don't know how that would reallly be a weak statement there at all. Not only that, but everyone who is a race fan, and everyone who has ever followed NASCAR, knows what the Daytona means to a driver. More so than the Indy 500 means to Indy Car racing.--Kranar drogin 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak yes: "Yes" for the reasons cited by Kranar drogin and others; "weak" for consistency's sake, if AAA, USAC, CART driver infoboxes don't list the Indy 500. (The Grand Prix de Monaco is prestigious but (at least in recent decades) doesn't stand out in terms of money, press coverage, or respect-within-the-sport as much as Indy and Daytona, or as much as Le Mans.) Barno 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

movie list proposed for deletion

• The article List of films featuring automobile racing has been nominated for deletion at the February 23 AfD. This isn't strictly relevant to our project but you might want to join the discussion and help the proposed solution (add movie articles to a category, and write articles for missing race-flicks) if some of these movies are your old favorites. Barno 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:NASCAR films proposed to merge into parent auto racing category

Please state your opinion in the discussion. The Category is maintained by this WikiProject. Royalbroil ^T : C 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes in Templates

Hi, I'm currently making some changes over on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment Page. Look in the statistics section. Only 240 articles have the template WikiProject Motorsport on it. I'm thererfore going to propose something (I think this has been discussed a while back). Can every single Motorsport article have the template on it's talk page. My reasoning for this is that some drivers have only the Formula One template on the article. However, surely (by the way, this goes for virtually all articles), they haven't got to Formula One someway. They haven't just been thrown into F1, I don't think any drivers done that. They've gone through other forms of Motorsport. Therefore, surely the Wikipedia Motorsport template is needed for every single Motorsport article?. I'm going to do a vote on this (on this page, plus the Motorsport project and all the child projects) so we can get a decision on this. By the way, don't bother voting on different projects, as only one of your votes will count! Davnel03 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree

• Disagree

• Leave Comments Here

New discusssion on Motorsport talk page. Davnel03 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be concensus on a new template that would be added to drivers in multiple disciplines like Mario Andretti and Juan Pablo Montoya. The creator assured me that it will work with the importance sorting categories in WikiProject NASCAR. You can find the discussion here, along with showing the template in action. Royalbroil ^T : C 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A time to clean up

Hey there...After reading the NASCAR entry, the basis for this project, I really think that its time that we take a good look at that article. It has been vandalized numerous times and has things that needs to be updated and/or copyedited...it needs to be cleaned up and get it up to the level of the other major sports in this country. Benje309 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress template

What is the name of the green template that marks that an article is in the process of being written? I remember seeing it being used on one of the WikiProject NASCAR articles by one of the WikiProject members. It applies to a discussion that I'm involved in on WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. Thanks in advance! Royalbroil ^T : C 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former NASCAR drivers

The category has been merged into its parent category Category:NASCAR drivers per this CfD discussion. D-Day and Casey expressed concerns about how it impacts other parts of this WikiProject. Would you give a detailed explanation of the exact problem so someone can attempt to repair it? Royalbroil ^T : C 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Hoag

• Only a little of his racing was NASCAR-sanctioned, but NASCAR Modified fans should recognize that Dutch Hoag was one of the most notable modified drivers. I'm starting a draft article at User:Barno/Dutch_Hoag. Please come and improve the article or suggest sources. When it's decent I'll move it into article-space. Barno 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article moved into article space at Dutch Hoag. Barno 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

19xx in motor racing categories

I've recently created Category:1950 in motor racing - Category:1968 in motor racing. So, feel free to add any relevant articles or subcategories into these new categories. -- DH85868993 12:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10