Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Project Template peer review

I have created a project template that may be suitable for highlighting relevant articles and/or projects. If you think this is a useful addition, or otherwise, please comment here. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this template for marking motorized racing articles that fall outside the other WikiProjects, such as Baja 1000, CORR, American Speed Association, Mike Eddy, etc.? Royalbroil ^T : C 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. This project was created to bring together the existing projects - British Motorsport, F1, WRC, and so on - that are listed on this project's main page. As such, this template is primarily about identifying the new status of those projects as siblings of this new project and perhaps also to mark articles that warrant special attention for reasons of consistency or cross-topic relevance, such as drivers or teams that have had significant involvement in more than one of those projects' areas. You may like to consider suggesting or initiating a new project that encompasses those niche disciplines that are not included in existing projects and/or are not big enough to support a dedicated project of their own. Adrian M. H. 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Did I go too far by creating a userbox and a member enrollment subpage? Royalbroil ^T : C 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite in my opinion. I expect we'll form a member list that shows the members for each sub-project in due course, and the userbox is a logical addition. Adrian M. H. 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We could create links to the member's subpage or section in the child WikiProjects, and let people who are not members of child WikiProjects sign up here. Royalbroil ^T : C 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Motorbikes

Should we include motorcycle racing? The definition of motorsports seems to include motorcycle racing, and also there is a vast number of ex-motorcycle racers who raced in F1. Some have two infoboxes - one for bikes and for F1 - and it looks cluttered. Readro 12:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Yes - it has a motor and is raced. Ricky Carmichael is looking at switching to NASCAR. What are the relevant WikiProject(s)? Royalbroil ^T : C 14:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing --Skully Collins ^Edits 14:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes as per Royalbroil Jsydave 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedway

Is there scope within this umbrella project for linking in series of articles not otherwise linked to a project of their own. I'm thinking particularly of the Speedway Grand Prix articles I have worked on. I don't believe they justify a project of their own (although they are perhaps on a similar scale to A1 Grand Prix) but feel they could be relevant to this WP. Jsydave 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideas

Sorry, but when something new happens I just like to get my ideas in ASAP. Anyway, here is what I thought:

• Collaberations (sp?)
• Portal?
• Some Projects are still missing...V8 Supercars?
• The template could also be "revamped" as it were. I've noticed on a number of WP Templates it has a rating system, should we have that as well?

Anyway, just some ideas.--Skully Collins ^Edits 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No opinion (spelled Collaborations), portal - Weak yes, V8 Supercars - Strong Yes, Revamp Template - Yes. I found the wording on the talk page template to be confusing especially the intended meaning of the word "article." I'm sure it could be worded more clearly if we all put our heads together. A rating system should be used for articles on cross-discipline motor racers, concepts, and objects such as Template (racing), SAFER barrier, etc. Royalbroil ^T : C 14:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rating system now in place. To use it, enter something like this -

{{WikiProject Motorsport|class=A}}

where you replace A with whatever class the article fits into. Readro 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: template wording – Yes, it could it be changed, as what you see now is only a first attempt. We would need to decide where to use it, though, as that will affect the wording. My initial thoughts were to use it on the talk pages of its sub-projects to those sub-projects to this new parent project.

I would suggest two templates: one for the sub-projects and one for relevant articles (particularly those with cross-project relevance, as mentioned above).

Re: portal idea – Sounds like a potentially good idea, depending on the details. Adrian M. H. 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See Portal:Formula One for a model. It rather relies on people keeping it up to date, though. 4u1e 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

V8 Supercars is part of WikiProject Australia, rather than any motorsport project, so I don't think it should be included at this time. I would like to see a WikiProject Touring Cars, as the DTM and WTCC articles need improvement and expansion, so the Supercars article would be included in that. If you think this would be a good idea, comment here. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree: DTM, WTCC, BTCC and V8's could all be included. Alexj2002 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We could create a touring car project at some point later this year, when our work on existing projects is quieter. Adrian M. H. 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

V8 Supercars is now covered by WikiProject Australian motorsport (which I have added as a child WikiProject of this one). DH85868993 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indy 500 driver up for deletion

Willard Prentiss, who came 13th in the 1933 Indy 500, is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willard Prentiss. If his article gets deleted then it could have huge implications on the project. There seem to be several people who consider that he is not notable enough, so it would be nice if more people could get involved with the discussion so that we can formulate a consensus for notability in motorsport. Readro 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that this article must be kept. I have added my support. Adrian M. H. 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. Alexj2002 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

propose new "child project"

Anyone else interested in a Drag Racing project? I have seen interest from user:Ren0 and obviously myself. I participate mostly in street legal classes at local dragstrips in California and Texas, and I know very little about big NHRA classes/events (nitro funny cars and stuff you see on TV), so I will need help there. As for what I already have done: I have an extensive "to do" list that I am already working on, I have created a Dragstrip infobox template (purposed) while working on Los Angeles County Raceway. The scope of this project would be to create/expand information pertaining to drag racing, specifically: Drag strips, drag racing terminology, drag racing technology, drag racing events/sanctioning bodies, drag racing technique/common practices, professional drag racing teams, professional drag racing drivers. BMan1113VR 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a worthwhile project for those who have specialist knowledge in the field (or strip?!) I can't include myself in that category, though. I would recommend posting the same question on the talk pages of some of the more notable drag racing articles (John Force, say) to catch the eye of people who don't know about this parent project yet. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that, but have been a little pressed for time this week. I can add info and pictures of tracks and street car info, but I am clueless when it comes to the drag racing you see on ESPN.BMan1113VR 06:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Formula Three Euroseries

I want to rate the above article, but as I have been the primary contributor, I would prefer to get some other opinions on it. Any thoughts? Adrian M. H. 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rated it as a B-Class article as it is definitely higher than Start-Class, but can't be any higher because it is not a GA. Readro 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What would get it to GA? There is nothing else that could be added to it, really. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The assessment criteria says it has to go through the GA nomination process, so that's why I didn't make it GA-Class. If it passes and gets GA status, then its rating can go up. Readro 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think I could probably see the difference between 'GA', 'A' and 'FA' versions of an article, it gets difficult to define that difference in words. It's the same thing, only more so! Regarding the F3 article, good work Adrian. If you're interested in a third party view, I suspect that if you put it up for GA you might get the following comments:

• Breadth. In relative terms there is very little coverage pre-2000s. There are two arguments to counter that, one is that GA doesn't require complete comprehensiveness, the other is that the article is entitled F3 Euroseries, which I think strictly refers only to this incarnation of the series, not the previous versions. Nonetheless, it might become a sticking point.
• References. There is a strong preference for 'proper' footnotes at all levels of assessment (see Brabham for an extreme example! I'm not suggesting that you would go to that degree for this article). If I'm remembering correctly, it's not a strict requirement to use footnotes, so your current embedded links might be OK. Some reviewers will probably also feel that there aren't enough references in the text - they will probably be making that assessment on the same (unfair) judgement that I have just made by simply counting refs and noting that there aren't any in some paragraphs. That can be countered by either pointing out that the given refs adequately cover all the material (if such is the case) or by increasing the number of refs used.
• Finally, some might feel that the article isn't understandable enough for someone new to the topic - that tends to come up for most of 'my' articles, anyway (or maybe that's just me!)

Hope that is of some use. Cheers 4u1e 16:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The period prior to 2003 is restricted to background info because the Euroseries didn't exist before then. I was in two minds whether to even give that background, but I felt that it needed the context, particularly as there is no other Wiki content about the history of the European F3 Championship and European Cup as they were known. What are your thoughts about that, bearing in mind that there is not really enough information to support a separate article?
The references do indeed (in most instances) encompass every bit of info that comes after the previous ref, if you see what I mean. See the technical regs paragraphs, for example. I was wary of duplicating ref links, as I would imagine that it would be poor form.
I tried to make the article clear to non-experts, without falling into the trap of being patronising. I might test it on a few lay guinea-pigs and see if they comprehend it. Perhaps it needs a few more well-placed wiki-links for technical terms. Thanks for the input. - Adrian M. H. 18:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your logic in restricting the article to the Euroseries is sound - although much more history on its predecessors could be dug up, the material you have fits the article as defined. I think you're right to give some history - just be prepared to justify your reasoning!

Nothing technically wrong with your approach to the refs then - but it will likely set alarm bells ringing, so again, be prepared to explain (or convert to footnotes, which will (perhaps for no very good reason!) make reviewers happier).

The non-expert thing wasn't based on anything in particular I saw in the article, just that it tends to be a common comment. A good approach is to get a non-expert to copyedit it, as this can kill two birds with one stone - a double check on the writing and a comprehension check. Why not put it for Good Article Review and see what happens? 4u1e 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, 4u1e. I think I'll nominate it for a review when I've tweaked it a bit more. I've made a lot of minor changes to the text tonight, but I would like to convert it to the footnotes layout, and maybe re-write the background section as well, to make it more about the creation of those early series and less about their champions. Adrian M. H. 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)I never heard of the series, so I thought I could be a "new to the topic" reviewer with some racing technical knowledge, so I copyedited the article. I hope you don't mind. Feel free to revert any U.S. bias that I have introduced into the article. I thought it would be good for its "world view" too. I have left a few commented out thoughts. Overall I think the article is good, but a few sections need some work to make them read better. I tried to fix/improve some of them. A few things that I found confusing:

• "For Dallara customers, this typically means choosing either the F305 or the F306" ... no clue what that means. Maybe that's not a big deal.
• "There are two races per weekend, one of approximately 100-110km and one of approximately 70-80km, preceded by one 60-minute practice session and a qualifying session that decides the starting grid for the first race." Usually people order in chronological order - practice, qualify, race 1, race 2.
• References style, as noted an agree above.

Other than that, I'd give it a try. I've never been involved with a good article before, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Royalbroil ^T : C 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Haven't heard of it"? Shame! Think Star Mazda series, but with an arguably higher standard of drivers. F3 is where you'll spot most of the future world champions. Briefly, here's a few changes/notes:

• I have tweaked your first intro, 4ule, but it didn't need many changes. It's a good addition.
• F305, etc. are chassis spec numbers, which I thought would be self-explanatory for those who aren't familiar with European feeder formulae. But I have taken your point on board and clarified the sentence.
• I have re-arranged the description of the race weekend. I'm not too keen on your use of "approximately"; I prefer "circa", but I have left that edit unchanged for now.
• Refs will be changed when time allows.
• Re: your edit note about the official website. This is one of the biggest sources of Euroseries data and news on the web, so it formed a part of my research.
• I got a couple of non-racing friends to look over it and they found it okay.

Thanks for your input, guys. Adrian M. H. 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to change to circa then. I would expect to see "approximately" instead of "circa" in the U.S., but use the European word choices as this is a European article. The usage of c. could be confusing as an abbreviation for circa, but I did think that's what you meant. In the U.S., I've only seen circa used for discussing uncertain dates, not statistics.

I like how you reworded the events of the race weekend.

I commented on the official website because the reviewers will definitely question using the official website as a source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources's section "Self-published sources (online and paper)". You will likely need to be able to verify most of the information with independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and their website will not be considered usable as it is a primary source. I see this topic come up all the time in WP:AFD when discussing an article. It definitely needs to be there as an External link (obviously). Royalbroil ^T : C 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RoyalBroil. Glad you think that the tweaks work. I see what you mean about the "primary source" issue - luckily the citations are almost all from other sources, and the data is largely duplicated on two other sites (not including forix.autosport.com, which I have recently found to be inaccurate in its 2004 season results). I think it's not far off being ready for a review nomination. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly I've never had the primary source problem, and most of the articles I put significant work into use www.formula1.com as a reference. Usually only for race/championship results, though, and I can't see there's much wrong with using primary sources for that! 4u1e 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ow, my eyes hurt! But it has had further tweaks, an extra image, and 21 references. Ready for a GA review, I think. The Sebastien Loeb article is next on my list..... Adrian M. H. 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting it on the list. (See WP:GAC#Everyday_life). It can take a long time for articles to work through, like the best part of a month, although there aren't many sports articles at present, so you never know....If whoever reviews it has any concerns they will likely leave a comment on the article talk page, and give you about a week to fix any issues before failing the article. It pays to keep an eye on it! 4u1e 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, 4u1e. Thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on it and with any luck, WP:MS might have its first GA. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Ollie Silva

• The bio article on northeastern USA supermodified and modified driver Ollie Silva has been proposed for deletion. Silva had a feature article in Stock Car Racing magazine in the '70s but that's not online. I'm sure he was also featured in newspapers and trade papers for winning various races such as several Star Classics. Can someone find sources and add citations to the article, so that it will meet WP standards and be worth keeping? Barno 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs a re-write if it is to stay. Apart from the lack of citations, there are weasel words and POV statements. Due to the time that has passed since Silva was active, it may be nearly impossible to find usable sources. Adrian M. H. 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Nearly impossible"? I disagree. If the major New England newspapers don't have their pre-Internet content indexed online, all we need is someone to go to the newspaper office, check "Dynamite Ollie"'s name in their card index, and take notes on a few of the most notable ones. The NEAR Hall of Fame has a webpage on him, and there are hundreds of hits on a Google search, including an important touring-series race named in his memory. Many of the tributes featuring him are fan sites that are less WP:RS, useful only as sources of supporting material, but there are multiple non-trivial independent sources that can be found and used. Barno 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as if you would be more than up to the task of doing the re-write yourself. Adrian M. H. 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the article (more or less from scratch), and it appears that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of project banner

I'd like to get a consensus about when it is, or is not, appropriate or necessary to apply our project banner to a particular article. For example, Ayrton Senna has been tagged with this project's banner, which seems to be unnecessary duplication as it falls directly under WP:F1. I would say that we only need to tag articles that do not currently have a more specific motorsport-related project banner, which was my reasoning for creating this banner in the first instance. That would also mean that Category:Unassessed motorsport articles will only include articles that need our attention. What are your thoughts? Adrian M. H. 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I came here to start a discussion to comment on that, and I'm happy to see you had started a discussion. Definitely do not apply banner for Senna, Formula 3000 or GP2 IMO. The only possible exception if they raced in multiple forms/series like Michael Andretti, Mario Andretti, Juan Pablo Montoya, A. J. Foyt, Steve Millen, Walker Evans (racer), Parnelli Jones to name a few. Then I think we should, but it's not a strong opinion. Cheers! Royalbroil ^T : C 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I'm glad you agree. I'll remove the banner from the affected pages - only a few at the moment. I'll start adding it to more applicable articles as I find them. Adrian M. H. 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: Unassessed motorsport articles

There are now plenty of articles waiting for review and possible attention at Unassessed motorsport articles. I have found quite a lot, mostly in touring cars and European single seaters, but I'm sure there are more to find! - Adrian M. H. 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous topic probably addresses my point, but are we intending to use the motorsport banner to rate F1 articles (for example) or do we need to mod the F1 banner to include the article rating? 4u1e 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid duplication unless necessary, so I have been tagging only those articles that fall outside existing projects, plus one or two exceptions that need our attention due to significant crossover - for example, there was one article - can't remember which one off-hand - that had the WP:F1 template, but the driver had only a minor link with F1 and was much more significantly linked with other disciplines that don't have projects. So he got our template as well. Basically, I see this project as doing two things:

• Bringing together the existing projects to improve cross-collaboration.
• Giving us a way of working on those subjects that do not have their own projects.

So I think we should avoid diluting or confusing our efforts by duplicating the tagging. The F1 project may benefit from its own rating system to help with articles that need attention, but that project is a long way down the road and the members have got it pretty well organised. Here, the rating system is more important, while we get things started. Adrian M. H. 16:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think F1 could benefit from the same approach actually - it might help us decide which articles need work next (presumably the high importance and low quality ones!). That's a matter for the F1 project, though, I'll raise it there, I just wanted to check that I wasn't cutting across something you were doing. 4u1e 17:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox templates for drivers and teams

I'm about to create some standard infobox templates for use with articles that relate to, for example, GP2 and F3 drivers and teams. I figured that current and former would be suitable, like we use in WP:F1, and I will probably adapt those existing templates to our needs. If we can make one set of templates (four in total) that suits drivers and teams from all relevant series, that would be ideal. In the past, I made Template:DTM driver, which is used only on Jamie Green at the moment, so we could replace that with the new design for simplicity. Any thoughts/input welcome. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the major reasons for the WikiProject in my mind. I think we should come up with an infobox that covers all the children WikiProjects encompassed by this WikiProject. Then it would work for someone like Juan Pablo Montoya would has jumped from WP:American Open Wheel to F1 to NASCAR. It would be a standard look between all WikiProjects. All the fields would need to be optional so only relevant ones would appear. It could be used on people who lie outside all of the WikiProjects too. Look at how complicated the WikiProject NASCAR template is. It might serve as a starting point. I haven't worked on any of the templates myself. I wonder if the template could be set up with quite a few variables for series names instead of hard coded field names, and then the template could be used for many types of series. It's hard to explain what I'm thinking. Royalbroil ^T : C 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes.... possible. It would work from a technical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, pop over to WP:F1 and raise the idea there. Have a look through the many dicussions about infoboxes first.

Championships

In the meantime, I have started working on a championship template, based on Template:Infobox sports league. You can view a comparison here. My only problem at this point is the unnecessarily large gap between the fields and the data, which breaks longer lines, like ASM Formule 3. Can anyone suggest a fix for this? Or any other tips that you think would help to improve it? Many thanks. Adrian M. H. 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the Template:Infobox motorsport championship: It looks quite relevant for all types of motorsports, even oddballs like off-road racing. A few problems that I see: 1) the "inaugural season", among others. NASCAR has a 1949 in NASCAR article that I'm sure that consensus we would prefer to use instead of 1949 in sports. The same thing with IROC. American Open Wheel racing is contemplating working on it. 2) "Number of drivers" and "number of teams". That would work well in WP:IROC (a fixed number are invited), and most likely WP:F1. It probably would work ok in WP:AOWR (American Open Wheel racing). That's won't work at all in WP:NASCAR. There are 60+ teams fighting for 43 spots in the Daytona 500 race weekend. Some races have 43 entries, but most are 45 to 50. Teams and drivers come and go during the season. It would be impossible to pin down a number. We could just use the term "varies" otherwise. Otherwise could you just add comments into the code telling the contributor to use "2007 in sport|2007" if there is no season article? Otherall I think it takes the top spot on the podium (to use the F1 term). Royalbroil ^T : C 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I already fine-tuned the category link to take it to Category:{{YEAR}} in motor racing. We'll see how that works out. I'm about to work out a way of creating more detail in the automatic bits, so that it gives specific details while being easy to fill in. Numbers are pretty easy to pin down in most series, and if I can do it for Euro F3 (which is pretty transient) then it can be done for each series in NASCAR. My intention was to base it on the last season's figures. There are two approaches: One - we count every driver who started, or two - we count the number of seats available by entrant (ie. not counting driver changes). eg:

• GP2 series - 30 drivers, 13 teams [1] [2]

We may also need fields (optional, as they all are) for constructors and engine suppliers. eg:

• Recaro Cup - 5 constructors, 5 engine suppliers.

What are your thoughts? - Adrian M. H. 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Current version viewable here. - Adrian M. H. 12:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should count every driver who has made a start for drivers, and count every team that made a start. The number of engine suppliers might be hard to figure out in NASCAR, as teams used to make up their own motors. Now the top Ford teams research together to make most of the Ford motors. I don't know if any of the small teams make up their own motor or not. It's probably not a real big deal, so I wouldn't worry about it. It would be very difficult for anyone who's not an insider in off-road racing like CORR to figure out. The contributor could just leave it blank in a case like that. Then the field wouldn't be included in the infobox, right? It is an important piece of data in most open wheel series, so I would say include the field. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm glad you said that, because I have just added the box to the DTM article and - as it's a touring car formula - I have left the engines out of the equation. (Although I do need to alter the template to make the field optional). I have so far taken two different approaches to the number of entrants - GP2 Series has the total number, as you suggest, while the DTM has been left strictly as per the official entry list. There are pros and cons in each case, namely: most European series have strict entry limits, such as 12 two-car teams, which benefits from the entry list-based approach for sake of clarity. Meanwhile, you have NASCAR and other U.S. series that do not have such restrictive entry list limits and are more transient. Difficult. I still can't make my mind up about which to go for, but we need to establish a standard practice for consistency's sake. So, I will have to err towards your preference for the total number of active competitors, based not least on the fact that every championship article should describe the entry list limits where applicable. ie, GP2 would mention that it is restricted to 12 teams and 24 cars. Each season article - if present - should summarise the reasons behind additional entrants and driver changes. NASCAR aside, for obvious reasons. I took that kind of approach with the F3 Euroseries seasons and it works well to explain where these extra drivers have suddenly come from. All those in favour of listing the total number of competitors, say aye... Adrian M. H. 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A problem I'm seeing with the chart as it stands now is that, for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing, it is inherently difficult to fulfill a lot of these categories just because of the nature of sports car racing. Numbers of drivers will be difficult on its own due to the large number of drivers in each car, as well as the multiple changes to driver line ups. Same applies to teams that do not run every race. This continues with chassis constructors and engine constructors, which is so varied its not even funny. Especially when some chassis or engine manufacturers have multiple cars in a series (Lola had 4 different chassis in ALMS in 2006.) The list of champions will also be difficult to list since there should be a list of champions for each class, instead of a single overall champion. The359 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

These are the kinds of problems that I was anticipating. The driver numbers are quite easy, though; we have established that it would be best to enter the total number of drivers with presences. Chassis constructors should be easy as well. If you want classes, they could be added, though I would expect the outright champion/s to be listed (two or three names can be entered with line breaks). I haven't got any sportscar series reviews to hand right now, otherwise I would give you an example for, say, ALMS. But let's say for sake of argument that there were 4 LMP1 constructors, 4 LMP2, 4 GT1, and 5 GT2 represented: that gives you 17. Then let's say that they were all present at a race that requires three-man crews, with 2 cars each: that's 102 drivers. Then later in the course of the year, 10 drivers were replaced: 112 drivers.

If you need a lot of specific fields and feel that existing fields are not suitable, we may need to make a sportscar championship infobox, which I would be happy to do. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Drivers

I could use some input in the design of Template:Racing driver, or whatever we choose to call it. Points that need sorting are as follows:

• I ideally want to have only one driver infobox for most formulae, except where unusual requirements make a dedicated design essential. The question is; how should we display their current series? Do I put it in the sub-heading, like Template:DTM driver, which will require that people fill in the entire wikilink, or is better to have a Category field instead?
• Is it best to list all teams or just the current team?
• Or would you prefer to see a driver infobox for every series (GP2, F3, WTCC, etc. etc.)?

More questions as they occur to me. I will include optional fields for car and engine, to cater for all possibilities. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I have been thinking about it since I last proposed creating a driver's infobox. I have changed my mind. I don't think that we should have a single standardized driver's infobox. What works well for F1 and many other open wheel series doesn't work at all for NASCAR (for example). Podiums finishes work well for the open wheel cars, but they are roughly equivalent to Top 10 (or at least Top 5) finishes in NASCAR. I have NEVER heard a Top 3 finish discussed in NASCAR and it is meaningless (I do understand how it is important from IndyCar racing). A sample article where you can see the large difference at the article Mark Martin (NASCAR). I do think a generic template would be cool to use for drivers that fall outside of the children WikiProjects. A common template could be used for most but not all of the articles if there are not too many exceptions. Another question:

• • What about retired drivers? Royalbroil ^T : C 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, RB. To answer your last point first, I want to make a former driver infobox, so that will come next. Although some of its fields could be added to the current driver infobox, it still needs to have "Former DTM driver" instead of "2007 DTM driver", so I will definitely make a second design. NASCAR is, indeed, a unique case - I hope that I can collaborate with a member of the NASCAR project on those boxes. While my knowledge of NASCAR is pretty good (for a European!) I don't have much interest in it, to be honest.

I only intend these multifunction infoboxes to be used where practical, with special boxes made for certain series. I think that's better than making a separate set of boxes for every series. There are approximately 30 single-seater feeder series in Europe alone! For the teams, I think I may add a former teams field below the current team field. What do you think? Adrian M. H. 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. You should bring up any discussion on the NASCAR template in the WikiProject, so everyone can discuss. Royalbroil ^T : C 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing driver has now been created, although it needs a bit of tweaking. I'll put it on the project page when it's ready. Adrian M. H. 13:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I had cause to review the possible applications for Infobox racing driver today, and found that it is less than ideal for drivers who have no prior history — (ie, progressing through feeder series) — in their current championship, or do not have a drive yet — (ie, Paul di Resta) — so I created Junior series driver for these occasions. It is not entirely finished yet — I think it may need more fields? — so suggestions would be welcome. I also need to make a template for former drivers (retired or the offers have dried up), for which you are welcome to suggest suitable fields here. Adrian M. H. 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Formulae

I'm working on Template:Motorsport formula, specifically for use on the generic articles about F3, FRenault, etc. where the formula has more than one championship, each of which have dedicated articles. The championship articles can use Template:Infobox motorsport championship instead. Applicable articles include:

• Formula Three
• Formula Ford
• Formula Renault
• Super 2000 (Surprising that it doesn't have an article, given that most of Europe's touring car championships use it!)
• Super 1600
• Group N

And so on... Things like GP2 and the DTM can stay with what they have, as the formula and the championship are one and the same.
However, I'm not sure what other fields the infobox needs, so I'd appreciate some suggestions of what you'd like to see. Adrian M. H. 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the number of championships that the formula is used in seems like a good start. The problem is that applying an infobox/template to a formula that encompasses many championships rules out fields such as last champion, number of teams etc. Perhaps a general "Type of car" or "Type of racing" field can be included. For example: Open wheel car, Touring car racing, Sports car racing etc.--Diniz 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's in there already. It so far has the type of racing, the first and last years, and a countries/region field for UK/Europe/International or whatever. I wondered about engine type/size and things like that, without going too technical. I'll add a field for the number of series - that is a good idea. Adrian M. H. 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

template:Racing car

template:Racing car may be of of interest to some Motorsport projects. It originated in WP:F1, but is intended to be of use for any article on a racing car. Given its origins it may not yet be fully mature for this purpose, it's mostly been used on F1 cars to date. Comments and improvements welcome. 4u1e 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the change in Sauber C20, 4u1e. It was modified by another user ages ago, but I never got around to reverting it. Adrian M. H. 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page for the template. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Automatically adding up article ratings

I've (perhaps unwisely) embarked on an article rating scheme for the F1 articles (In other words I've copied the WP:MOTOR infobox and rated a few articles).

I see from WP:NASCAR that it is possible to produce a table that automatically adds up the number of articles in each category. I also see that the code I have copied from the WP:MOTOR box will currently add rated F1 articles to the WP:MOTOR totals for each category.

I can fix that so they go in a separate F1 category, which seems to be in line with what we agreed above about normally only tagging articles as belonging to one project. Is that the approach the WP:MOTOR would prefer to take? (I don't know if it is then possible to automatically add up the totals of all child projects to give a grand total, or if this is relevant). Cheers. 4u1e 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Making work for yourself! If you can figure it a way of keeping them separate, that would be preferable, yes. Don't worry too much about a grand total: it would probably be better to provide a link to each total somewhere. Adrian M. H. 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be preferable to keep the article separate by WikiProject. I wouldn't worry about the child project's totals. I don't understand how the WP:NASCAR table works, as I haven't been very active in the WikiProject since summer. I've been concentrating my efforts more on some of the lesser know but important historic and current motor racing articles the United States, especially asserting drivers' notability from racing Halls of Fame. I was amazed when I kept finding stuff on Board track racing, a huge yet unheard of racing genre from about 100 years ago. Is there anything that could be added to the article to expand its world view? Royalbroil ^T : C 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is have categories for F1 articles, NASCAR articles etc, but change all the projects' infoboxes to additionally put them in the motorsport articles category. That way we can have separate totals and a grand total. Readro 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with that, at least at this moment in time. I'm relying on w:Category:Unassessed motorsport articles to give me a list of articles that are likely to need improvement. If we can get to the point at which we have a more organised - and properly managed - task list, then your suggestion would be more workable. But it would be a good idea to hold off on that for now. Adrian M. H. 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just twigged that if I add the summary page of, say, GA-class F1 articles, to category:GA-class motorsport articles, it puts a link to the F1 GA page on the Motorsport GA page. Is my doing that going to cause any problems? That would give us a hierarchical listing of articles in each category. Cheers. 4u1e 23:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mario Andretti

Just rating Mario's article from an F1 perspective. He's one of the few who probably should be tagged as 'belonging' to more than one motorsport Wikiproject. I see the article has been classed as 'B-class', but I'm not sure I agree. The coverage of his Indycar career is very sketchy indeed, for example. I would have had it as start. Anyone want to offer a second opinion? (I would normally just change it, but he's a significant figure in at least two Wikiprojects, so I thought I'd raise it here. Cheers. 4u1e 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assess his article at start class, and the Indycar section as stub. A complete Indycar section would probably bring it up to B-class. I'll put it on my To-Do list for next week! Thanks for the heads up! Royalbroil ^T : C 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a tricky one. It is written from a largely F1 perspective - understandable, as it probably reflects the strongest area of knowledge for the primary contributor/s - but in fact warrants a collaboration between specialists in each field. The article's structure is reflective of B-class; yet the content holds it back, as you have pointed out. Start-class would be too harsh, given what it has versus what it lacks. I would suggest bringing it to the attention of WP:AOWR to seek the help of a specialist. I've got too much backlog to take on another improvement effort right now, otherwise I would work on it. Anyone with access to some of the many good books about Mario would find it easy to get it up to GA standard. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He was always one of my racing idols, so I'd like to be the WP:AOWR specialist to improve that part of it! I haven't worked with many contributors with your levels of experience, and I welcome the chance to be mentored to greatly improve an article this important to me. I've been looking a long time for an opportunity to improve my skills and grow as a contributor. I haven't even worked to make an article GA. I have done 15 DYK articles though, and I wrote about 13 of them all by myself. Let me be the one to propose: I want this to be a featured article when we are done with it! It would be an excellent use and justification of this WikiProject! Royalbroil ^T : C 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We need at least one featured article, and this is a good candidate with lots of potential. I would also like to identify one other FA-suitable article that is not currently covered by the other projects, because such an article would likely get neglected otherwise. As for Mario, I might be able to chip in with some small contributions in due course; I'll have a proper close look at it in a few days and see where it's at. Adrian M. H. 13:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would Danny Sullivan also come under both F1 and IndyCar? Or would he, understandbly (see 1985 Indy 500) more famous in IndyCar.--Skully Collins ^Edits 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

With no really notable GP results, I'm sure he would rather be known for his Indy win. Adrian M. H. 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New task page

To make it easier to manage our project, I have moved the task list from the main page to its own dedicated sub-page atWikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Tasks. I have kept just two categories for now, to keep it simple, but as it grows, we can sub-divide them a bit more. Either by the nature of the work that's required, or by racing category, for example. Adrian M. H. 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Formula BMW

As you can see from the above link, the main article is just a list of the four series, while the three active pages do not - in my opinion, at least - warrant their own articles. I propose that we (or I!) merge the series articles into the parent article and re-write it, which will allow the creation of a proper encyclopædic article that meets all the usual guidelines and policies. Please comment here, and if the response is positive, I'll set up a merge proposal on the affected pages. Adrian M. H. 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge 'em. Even then, there's probably only a stub's worth of content, unfortunately. 4u1e 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll get that underway soon. I think it can probably be stretched out into a B-class, as there's more that can be added. Adrian M. H. 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - more can be added, I meant it's not there at present. Cheers. 4u1e 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment before this because I was unfamiliar with the series. I did a fair bit of rewording in the U.S. section. Please review my edits to make sure that they make sense. There should be a list of champions as a minimum, and a list of Rookies of the Year might make sense too. I think that I have included a list of champions in every series' article that I started. The rest of the article looks great from my perspective. Royalbroil ^T : C 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That has improved it, though I will make a couple of small tweaks. It's not finished yet, of course, as there is still the UK section, event schedules, and sporting regulations to do. The results are at least a day away, since the original separate articles had nothing but a brief list of former champions, so I have been working from scratch. You can see the work in progress here. Only the UK and US championships have recognised Rookie titles, so I may not include those. I'll see how it pans out. Adrian M. H. 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much sorted now. Adrian M. H. 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress update - failed GA on the first go (see talk:Formula BMW). I think I've sorted the issues raised and have re-submitted it. Cheers. 4u1e 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have since made further changes and it has now passed the GA review process. Adrian M. H. 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Results tables for drivers and teams

I have added a more informative results table to Lucas di Grassi. If the consensus is positive, I suggest using this kind of layout for the other GP2 drivers, which would bring them into line with F1 drivers.
Also, I'm working on a teams results table in my sandbox, for which some feedback would be useful. I'm not totally sure about that layout, so I'll throw it open to you guys for suggestions. I don't think it needs individual race results, or anything like that, but the appearance is not quite right. Regards, Adrian M. H. 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First GA rating for WP:Motorsport

WP:Motorsport now has its first Good Article: Formula Three Euroseries. My thanks to RoyalBroil and 4u1e for their contributions. Next step: a Featured Article! Adrian M. H. 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian Motorsport

Any objections to me listing WikiProject Australian motorsport as a child project? DH85868993 09:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
None at all. You may want to swap a few of the projects around to make room on one side of the page. Adrian M. H. 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Royalbroil ^T : C 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 09:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

More Mario Andretti

1. Would someone source his Formula One section.
2. How far is the article away from consideration/proposing Good Article status? I need to expand his years after Formula One. I'm surprised that the sources are so weak on that period, for he was a huge force in CART at that time. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done most of a dummy assessment against GA criteria for the Andretti article (see talk:Mario Andretti). I hope it's helpful - drop me a line if I've been unclear about anything. Cheers. 4u1e 7 March 2007, 13:43

Assessment Page on WPMotorsport

I've made some pages on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment page. I've done this so it goes in line with other projects, see this assessment page for example. Please don't delete it though - it's taken a long time for me to do. Davnel03 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments

I've noticed some odd assessing. Juan Manuel Fangio is only as important as Formula Palmer Audi apparently. Shouldn't all the F1 champions be top-class importance due to their international notability? Readro 16:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that this system was intended to indicate how much attention each article needs. If that is not the case, then I have a couple of objections of my own. Beyond that, I am not involving myself in this rating system, as I have other objections that relate to this area of the project. Adrian M. H. 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not to do with any attention the article needs, but to how important the subject of the article is. For example, Mario Andretti would be highly important due to his achievements in many disciplines including Formula 1 and Indycar racing. A minor driver, say Danny Watts for example, would be of a low importance. The guidelines are on the assessment page. Readro 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It serves no practical purpose then. Adrian M. H. 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The assessment system is seriously flawed. I don't understand how every world champion in F1 history could be anything other than a Top priority article. He is a WORLD CHAMPION. It cannot be true that Michael Schumacher "has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent" and thus be assigned as a High priority. He's easily the best F1 driver over the past decade. I'm not a F1 fan, but even stockcar gearheads recognize F1 as the world champ. I call for the assessment criteria to be changed immediately. Royalbroil ^T : C 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of the assessment system? It just seems like creating extra work. Surely time spent assessing the priority of article would be better spent actually working on the articles rather than deciding how important they are? Everyone working on the project knows what the main articles are anyway (e.g. Champions, important races etc.). Alexj2002 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we rate importance anyway, when comparing all motorsport? For example, Roberto Ravaglia was one of the most successful touring car drivers in history (WTCC in 1987, ETCC in 86, 89 etc), but how do we compare his importance against someone who started one F1 race? Or against someone in NASCAR for example? The assessment page examples (Importance scale) are currently all Formula One related, so not much help. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a clue in the standard wording about 'continents'. It's to do with being recognised outside your field. Schumacher and most F1 champs are recognised outside their fields. Not all though - I suspect Denny Hulme, Phil Hill and a few others actually aren't recognised anything like as widely. This kind of debate shows the potential risk in doing these assessments though - we can spend a lot of time discussing it and not improving the articles. I've no objection to having the importance rating, the information about which articles are at which level may be quite interesting, provided we all solemnly promise not to worry too much about whether they're right! 4u1e 6 March 2007, 11:13

May I propose a new assessment system for importance? I've thrown together this new system quite quickly, but you'll see how it's much more definitive. Feel free to tweak it as it's by no means perfect, but it should serve as a proof of concept. Readro 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Only exception would be the Very Low category, I think the way it's worded at the moment ("No significant motorsport achievements.") seems to invite deletionists to get rid of articles with that rating on the basis if he's done nothing significant he doesn't belong on the Wikipedia. It needs something in it to warrant inclusion. "Competition in a feeder series" maybe? Alexj2002 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you grade an international feeder formula that does not represent the top level? It would sit between your examples for very high and upper middle. Adrian M. H. 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK, but I feel that you have too many categories. Here's how you could do it:

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria
	Drivers	Series	Circuits	Teams
Top	Multiple championships in one or more international series, or championships in more than one top-level series.	Top-level international series.	At least 40 years hosting international motorsport events.	Multiple championships in one or more international series, or championships in more than one top-level series.
	Example : Michael Schumacher	Example : Formula One	Example : Monza	Example : McLaren
High	Single championship in an international series or race wins in more than one international series.	International top-level feeder series.	At least 25 years hosting international motorsport events.	Single championship in an international series or race wins in more than one international series.
	Example : Phil Hill	Example : Formula 3000	Example : Interlagos	Example : DAMS
Mid	Race wins in a top-level series or championships in a second level series.	Top-level national series	At least 10 years hosting international motorsport events.	Race wins in a top-level series or championships in a second level series.
	Example : Gerhard Berger	Example : Formula Three	Example : Albert Park	Example : Team Dynamics
Low	Competition in a top-level feeder series or race wins in a lower series.	Low-level national series.	Major national tracks	Competition in a top-level feeder series or race wins in a lower series.
	Example : Bruno Senna	Example : Formula BMW	Example : Thruxton Circuit	Example : BCN Competicion

But the whole point of Readro's system was to remove the ambiguousness of that system! For example "Race wins in a top-level series or championships in a second level series." is clearer to most people than "Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." Alexj2002 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's not good, but if somebody could make one much smaller, it would look very good. I think this is a good comprise, so we keep Readro's example, but also maintain the current system. Everyone agree? Davnel03 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's weird, I'm sure that should have thrown up an edit conflict as you were editing the page while I was writing my response above. My response now makes no sense at all so ignore it! Alexj2002 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:4u1e (6 March 2007, 11:13) where you refer to the standard wording about 'continents' and give the example of Denny Hulme. That is an interesting example, as Denny Hulme was not only a Formula One champion (a series best know in Europe), but he was also a 2 times CanAm champion and also completed at the Indianapolis 500 (both in North America) and in his later years, competed in Australian Touring Cars... so that's three continents so far. :-). Does that put him higher on the scale than Michael Schumacher? Maybe? Maybe not? How about higher than Mika Häkkinen or Fernando Alonso? We might argue that they are better known, but is that simply because they are more recent and global TV (and Internet) makes them a household name? While most wikipedia editors are too young to remember 1960's F1 and CanAm series... and that's just an example of the difficuly comparing F1 drivers... let alone other series. However, agree with your '"can spend a lot of time discussing it and not improving the articles"' comment. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do a lengthy reply to your very fair points re Hulme and Hill, Xagent, but then re-read my own comment from above! One quick thought - let's also try and remember to be flexible with the importance ratings. As an example, Gilles Villeneuve never won a championship, but probably rates a higher importance than suggested above due to the legend that has grown up around him since (and before, actually) his death. I suggest the importance ratings should be seen as more guidelines than rules! 4u1e 7 March 2007, 10:25

Right, do we like the above template, or Readro's example. By the way, a very similar argument is taking place over at the WP F1 talk page about this grading. Davnel03 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. But IMO the circuit column is slightly flawed. Because by the assessment ruling, I can add my local circuit, Oulton Park, as "very high" or at least "high" because it's hosted several major international events, such as Oulton Park Gold Cup. Now, maybe this is just typical me (ie nothing I'm related to (those being articles, p[laces, etc...not people ;-)) is good or notable) but I don't think Oulton Park is a seriously legendary circuit, especially when you put it alongside Monza, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Silverstone, etc.

But then again, that's just me.--Skully Collins ^Edits 16:54, 7 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
• Strongly disagree - Adrian M. H. 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Simply because talk pages will become cluttered. There is no real need for it on every page. See my comment below aswell. James086^Talk 09:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - talk page clutter. Additional comments below. Royalbroil ^T : C 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Leave Comments Here

See "Use of project banner" discussion above. When WP:MOTOR was set up, it was intended to be used primarily to collect those articles who didn't already fall into a motorsport related Wikiproject, and to allow discussions on articles who's subject had competed in two major series (e.g. F1 and CART). For example, if a driver were to go F3>F3000>F1, then I feel it should only be part of WP:F1. Alexj2002 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that you have a point, but look at Juan Montoya. On the talk page, WikiProject Motorsport is not identified. Davnel03 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Montoya is one of the exceptions that should have an WP:MOTOR banner. Same goes for Jacques Villeneuve and Mansell. On the other hand, people like Damon Hill & David Coulthard have not raced at a top level apart from in F1, so don't need the WP:MOTOR banner IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexj2002 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

This hardly needs to be voted on. It is quite clear that our previous consensus does not need to be reviewed. Placing a parent project's banner on all articles creates unnecessary duplication; serves little or no practical purpose; makes extra work; and makes it a lot harder for those of us who use the motorsport articles categories to define our workload and priorities therein. Adrian M. H. 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest only if that article has a section mentioning their career in a different motorsport. So if you have a driver whose history outside F1 (for example) is not mentioned in the article, don't tag it with {{WikiProject Motorsport}}, but if there is a significant amount of info about their history that isn't covered by another WPP then it's ok. Does that make sense, cause I think my wording is a bit confusing? James086^Talk 09:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have contributed to I'm sure thousands of motorsports articles in the United States alone. I don't see how it benefits the Wikipedia project by marking tens of thousands of articles with this template. It seems like a waste of resources to IMHO. I could only see adding it to the handful of drivers that cross major disciplines of motorsports (like Walker Evans (racer) being a major driver in off-road racing plus NASCAR). It should also be applied to drivers from multiple major series that have their own WikiProject like Montoya. That is ANY two of the WikiProjects, except WikiProject IROC, which has by definition top drivers from other series. Or to mark the children WikiProjects. I think it should be added to the main article on unusual disciplines like board track racing and ice racing that will never have a WikiProject to monitor them. I was originally with Davnel03 until Adrain and I talked. Then I thought about how much work that marking talk pages would be. Royalbroil ^T : C 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I've been at work! I have created another option. For example, Juan Pablo Montoya might have this template - here is the output for {{User:Readro/Sandbox|class=B|importance=high|F1=yes|NASCAR=yes|NASCAR-importance=mid|AOWR=yes}}

This could free up a lot of space on the page. Comments are welcome. Readro 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need the pictures for subsidiary projects; they take up vertical space unnecessarily. Other than that, it's okay. Adrian M. H. 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the proposed template. I do like the pictures, as they give the necessary space to make the ratings to the right more readable. Can the template be designed so that it only shows the multiple WikiProjects that the driver is in instead of all the children WikiProjects? Royalbroil ^T : C 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And will the template effect with the child project's rating categorization systems? Royalbroil ^T : C 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It already only shows the child WikiProjects that the article is in. Try adding British=yes or WRC=yes to the template and you'll see it show the respective WikiProjects. And to the other question - it does everything the current projects' templates do, and adds the articles to the correct categories for the projects. Readro 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Then you have my support (to be used as outlined by concensus above). Royalbroil ^T : C 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the approach, I was going to try and knock up something similar for the parallel version of this conversation that is going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Changes_in_Templates. Anything that can be done to cut down on the size of the template gets my vote, though. 4u1e 7 March 2007, 10:29

Question: Do we need the different ratings for F1, NASCAR etc? The importance scale is based on the assumption that we are taking a worldwide view anyway, so would seem to be redundant for each WikiProject. The quality ought really to be the same in each case, it's the same article. However, they are needed if we want different stacks of stats for each project, which might be a good idea - does it make any sense to mix NASCAR in with F1? 4u1e 7 March 2007, 10:36

I agree that the quality should be the same in all WikiProjects. However, each WikiProject may be using the importance to decide the priority to work on articles, so I think that we should have different ratings for each WikiProject. Royalbroil ^T : C 13:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hooray, a universal template. Well done that editor. I'd agree that we could do away with the child project quality rating, but it might actually be useful for the individual projects to have their own importance scale, especially as the WP Motorsport priority should always be set from a whole-project point of view (so I would disagree with JPM being "High" for instance, although he might be for AOWR). Pyrope 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like we finally have a decision!! Shall we go round and start changing the templates, then? If so, inform everybody over at the other WikiProjects related to Motorsport, in case somebody disagrees with us. Davnel03 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected it so that the article class is automatically set to the same for all projects with assessments. At the moment, the only child project with an importance assessment is NASCAR, so that's the only one you can set an importance for in the template. Should I add the ability to add importance for all WikiProjects? If so, we'll need to create some categories. By the way, this is not finished yet, and there is no consensus yet so I'd like to suggest that nothing happens at least until there is more discussion and a vote taken. Readro 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You could do that, but the Wikipedia Bot would not realise this unless all articles are under a certain Motorsport category e.g. Category:Mid-importance motorsport articles. If you put it in Cateogory:Mid-importance Formula One articles, but not the Motorsport category, the bot will automatically miss it, even if it is listed as a sub-category. What that means is that the article will not be counted. Davnel03 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would put them in the motorsport and respective WikiProject categories. Readro 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you would have to have them all in the Motorsport category, so the bot can count them. See the assessment page if you don't get what I mean. Davnel03 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do get what you mean. The template is already set up to put them all in the motorsport category. Readro 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, then. Looking at this discussion, it looks like that the vast majority of people like this template (including me!!!). Anyway, I've set up a consensus, in case anyone dislikes it or has any queries on it. Davnel03 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Template

1. It is a great idea, I opposed the idea of having multiple templates on each page, but this one is excellent. James086^Talk 12:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
2. A great way consolidate multiple child projects into one template. Lessens talk page clutter/overload. Royalbroil ^T : C 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Much better than the current confusion. 4u1e 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Yes, much simpler. Pyrope 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dislike Template

Comments

1. Is the bottom bit going to have a small "hide" link that mades the bottom collapse. See Template:Formula One World Drivers' Champions as ab example.--Skully Collins ^Edits 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
2. I think we still need to decide whether Motorsport, F1 etc article figures are totted up separately though 4u1e 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. I also think this vote needs to show support from all the WikiProjects involved. 4u1e 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jyrki vs. JJ

Should Jyrki Järvilehto be moved to JJ Lehto per WP:COMMONNAME? It's the only motorsport bio I could find that didn't conform. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. You will have to make it J. J. Lehto, though, because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). All of us at WikiProject NASCAR tried to argue for no space in the case of J.J. Yeley (as he has it on his official website). We were strongarmed by people with no sense of humor and required to use the space even though it is a guideline. Royalbroil ^T : C 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick google search, and almost everywhere referred to him even without the periods. Surely that would make that spelling the most common name, and therefore the article title? I'll admit, it's not a huge deal, but it seems like "JJ" should be the article name. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We also googled Yeley, and found JJ to be the common spelling. [3] It didn't matter. We also argued that JJ is his nickname (so it is not an abbreviation). We just decided to go along with it. There does have to be some standard in Wikipedia, even if it creates incorrect/awkward situations. I would have thought that a redirect from the Wikipedia standard scheme would be enough, but I've already made it a bigger deal than it should be. Royalbroil ^T : C 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and moved it to JJ. If they come along and move it somewhere else, I won't fight it.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I will! J.J. or J. J. are simply wrong, and no amount of convention guidelines can change that. Pyrope 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Drivers with multiple infoboxes

For drivers with multiple infoboxes (e.g. Emanuele Pirro, JJ Lehto, etc), do we want to suppress the display of the driver's name and/or nationality in the second (and subsequent) infoboxes? Or are we happy for the duplicate information to remain visible? I don't have strong feeling either way, but I thought it might be good to get agreement before we have too many drivers with multiple infoboxes. DH85868993 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still toying with the Le Mans template, if there's a way to make the name and nationality data optional I'll put it in. The359 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a template similar to that of Template:WikiProjectBanners which puts all the infoboxes into one collaspe-able box?--Skully Collins ^Edits 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone can do it, I'd say go for it. The359 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you just make nationality be an optional field, and not use it on the second infobox? Royalbroil ^T : C 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's actually what I meant - sorry if that wasn't clear. The359, see "Base" in template:F1 constructor for an example of how to make an optional field. -- DH85868993 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've gotten it fixed. The359 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You were clear, I simply missed it. Sorry. I had been thinking along the same lines obviously. Royalbroil ^T : C 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I just had a bit of a brain storm during one of my Electronics Lectures (We were watching a boring video about AC Motors, what else am I supposed to do?). Anyway, I though we could have an optional field on all Motorsport relevant Biographical infoboxes to make them hide-able. I think it would work like this:

• A Infobox relevant to the disipline s/he is most notable for being in (most likely either Formula One, IRL or NASCAR). This however would exclude active drivers, in their case the current series they are doing will be the Infobox.
• The other infobox disiplines the driver has done will be hide-able in the appropriate section of the article.

I'll try and do a quick (rough) example of what it would look like soon to try and give you a better understanding.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category rename?

Currently, Category:Auto racing is the main parent category with most of its subcategories called "Auto racing something." But there are a few exceptions. Category:Motor racing by year and all of its subcategories start with "Motor racing" as does Category:Motor racing venues (the reasoning behind the latter is that most of the venues can support both motorcycles and cars, so it is named that to avoid having seperate categories for motorcycle venues and car venues). There is also Category:Motorsport by country. My question to you guys is whether you would like to see all of categories under a parent category called Category:Motorsport (which would then include categories about motorcycles, and possibly other types of racing that involve motors like boats or airplanes) or would you rather leave it as is, and just change the subcategories above to reflect the current parent category. Getting these kind of naming changes made is always difficult because of the UK/US language barrier, but I think it would help if this project could come to some sort of rough consensus at least, before I take it to WP:CFD. Recury 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it to be a cultural/semantic difference. Presumably, the creator of that category uses/used American English. With regard to your question; If I were asked to choose, I would generally prefer to maintain some separation between two- and four-wheeled motor racing, even without dealing with other forms of transport that can be raced. Adrian M. H. 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about making Motorsport be the parent category for all motor racing articles, and make auto racing, motorcycle racing be child categories. Category:Motorcycle sport would need to be moved below Category:Motorsport under my suggestion. Mixed categories like Motorsport by country would also be directly under Motorsport. Here's my proposed structure using bullet levels:

• • • Motorsport
      • Auto Racing
        • Auto racing equipment
        • Auto racing organizations
        • Other Auto Racing child categories
      • Motorcycle sport
        • Motorcycle racing films
      • Motorsport by country
      • Motor racing by year
      • Other mixed motorsport categories

You would avoid needing to have a CFD if you used my proposed structure. I would prefer to have the blessing of WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing before we make this switch, as they are affected the most. Royalbroil ^T : C 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. The only thing is that I don't necessarily think all the ones that are mixed now should be and that all the ones that are seperate now should be. Like Category:Auto racing terms is right now "seperate" in name, but the vast majority of articles in there would fit just as well in a category called Category:Motorsport terms because things like chicanes and drafting apply just as much to motorcycles as they do to automobiles. Going the other way, I don't really see any need for Category:Motor racing by year to combine articles on motorcycle and automobile racing since they are by series and there wouldn't be any overlap. Recury 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, there would need to be someone looking through the articles in the category to see what makes sense. It sounds appropriate to rename Auto Racing terms to Motorsport terms. I'm bet there are other oddities. Would you please take a look at the current structure to see what you think should be changed/restructured? Royalbroil ^T : C 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sport governing body

I stumbled across this article today, which - while not motorsport-specific - would be of interest to this project. It is in need of a major overhaul, so I wondered if anyone would be able to contribute to it? Adrian M. H. 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A1 GP WikiProject

Hi,

I was just looking through a few of the Motorsport projects, and this project looks, well an absolute mess if I'm to put it at that! Many pages in the project need updating, including race results and other things, take this race page for example. Yes the race took place late February, but no one seems to of put any information in. The project looks severely inactive. I would do it my self, but I'm not use to race tables (plus I'm working on 1995 Formula One season), that kind of stuff. If you can help, that's great as the many pages look scruffy and very out of date. Davnel03 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a message should also be left on the A1GP WikiProject talk page, since the people who work on it are more likely to see it there? As for the project itself, I don't know, I haven't looked into it too much. The359 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It holds no interest for me, I must admit, and I think that a project about just one second-tier championship is too narrow in focus. It might be sensible to propose that it is merged with this, its parent project, and given some separate focus in the tasks area. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has worked within the project I agree entirely and someone does need to "fill in the blanks". Unless someone else picks it up I will get on to it within the next week. Regarding the project itself I agree with Adrian M.H. - I feel this is really too narrow for a project in its own right and has a lot of parralells to the Speedway Grand Prix series of articles. They need organising and collecting but are not deserving of a whole project to themselves. Jsydave 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-page for A1GP and other subjects

If no-one has any objections, I will create a sub-page for significant subjects (WTCC, DTM and so on) that do not have or need their own projects. I'll think up some content that will be useful to anyone who wants to work on those topics. If you have any thoughts about what you'd like to see there, please chip in.
If the people who run the A1GP project are happy to merge it, then we can include that as well. Unless someone has done so already, I'll propose the idea on that project's talk page. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have started work on a subjects page for the DTM, GP2, F3 and so on. It is intended to give an overview of those subjects and what can be done to improve them. More work will follow soon when I have time, including more subjects. I have not yet approached the A1GP project about the possibility of closing their project and joining the other subjects. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Porsche motorsport article

On the discussion page for the Porsche article, I have proposed that the (rather sizeable) "Auto racing" section be split out into a separate article. The idea has received some support, so now I'm trying to decide on the best name for the new article. If you have a view on this, please contribute on the Porsche discussion page. Thanks. DH85868993 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the emerging convention is to go with Porsche motorsport. A la Mercedes motorsport. Otherwise, I would have gone with (name of company) motorsport history, though. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion on the Porsche talk page, Porsche in motorsport has been created. Please consider whether any links to Porsche need to be changed to Porsche in motorsport. -- DH85868993 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IndyCar

Someone added to the IndyCar disambiguous page that F1 "Indycar is often used synonymously with Formula-1 racing". Is that true? Royalbroil ^T : C 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In short, no. Some monkey who is either mucking about or does not know anything about motorsport. Formula 1 would never be hyphenated either. Go ahead and revert it. Adrian M. H. 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Filipe Albuquerque

Just a few questions about this article I created today:

• Can anyone find out if there was a 2005 Red Bull Junior of the Year?
• Can anyone find if there was a 2005 Formula Renault North European champion?
• Oh, and is the reference section okay?

Thanks. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I believe so. Connected with the RBDD program.
2. Yes, but if memory serves me, it's not sanctioned by RenaultSport. It's like the Euro equivalent of BARC FRenault. Not significant enough to worry about.
3. I'll tweak it a bit.

Adrian M. H. 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK; I have tweaked your ref, but could you check and add the issue number, and check the date (which I think was two weeks ago)? I have lent my recent copies, so I'm working from memory. Adrian M. H. 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was two weeks ago. Is the Issue number okay now, Adrian? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. After I logged off last night, I worked out the issue number from the last issue that I still had, and I came to vol.187/11. I haven't found anything concrete about German and/or North European FRenault. I checked formula3.cc, motorsport.com and speedsportmag.de, plus a brief Google, but no joy. Renault's own sites were no help, but I didn't really expect that they would mention it, TBH. Adrian M. H. 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you still haven't found anything about the the F.Renault NEC, this is the official site. It's a merge of the German, Dutch and Swedish championships and is organized by Renault Sport Germany. --Pc13 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trident Racing

Trident Racing Page: Is this team reclusive or something? There is scant little information on them anywhere, just results. See what you think, but prob. needs deleting.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALCUS36 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Although, having said that, it's more detailed than the SuperNova article.. ALCUS36 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's part of a project to build pages for all the GP2 teams, which would mean they'd need expansion at the most. I don't think they need deleting though, especially SuperNova who have been around for many years and in multiple formulas. The359 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Supernova is highly notable within its field; Trident less so, but may just about scrape through. It will take some time to improve the GP2-related articles anyway, because a lot of them were created as stubs and do not really do as much as they could to demonstrate notability. The subjects page gives an overview of what we need to tackle with this project in the coming months. Adrian M. H. 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have given Trident a quick re-write to clean it up. The refs are still weak, but I'll look into them when I have the time. It should not be too difficult to prove notability; any team that can turn up and win GP2 races in its debut season within months of being formed should be quite notable. Adrian M. H. 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merlyn

I'm planning to create an article for racing car constructor Merlyn. Any advice on the preferred name for the article: e.g. "Merlyn Cars", "Merlyn (constructor)", "Merlyn (motorsport)", "Merlyn (auto racing)", or something else? Note that Merlyn already exists, as a redirect to Merlin. -- DH85868993 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Go over the redirect and put {{for|the wizard|Merlin}} OR {{otheruses1|the car constructor|Merlin (disambiguation)}} at the top. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And for the article name itself, I would suggest that you either use the full name of the company if applicable (eg, Merlin Motorsport) or, if it does not use a qualifier, go for Merlyn (constructor). Adrian M. H. 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to put "(constructor)" after it if there is no article at Merlyn. I couldn't find any "official name" like Merlyn Cars or Merlyn Motorsport on Google, so I would just go with James' method. Recury 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But I have seen other articles named in that way when there is/was no ambiguity. This has some ambiguity that arises from the typographical difference (i/y), and that seems to be enough to create room for confusion when searching. I can well imagine someone searching for, say, Merlin aero engines and typing in "Merlyn". Actually, that should be listed on a disambiguation page if it is not already. Incidentally, there was a Merlin car company around some years ago 1. Adrian M. H. 14:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, at the bottom of Merlin (disambiguation) is a section for things spelled Merlyn that already has several entries. That's not really how you're supposed to do it (the right way would be to have a seperate dab page for Merlyn, either at Merlyn or Merlyn (disambiguation) with just a see also to Merlin (disambiguation)), but oh well. Confusing! Recury 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split them up in the way that you describe. What do you reckon? Adrian M. H. 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I found a list of all the major winners of what the site calls the "Golden Era" of motor racing. It lists winners of all races it knows of from 1895 to 1949. I thought it would help with that era of motor racing on here. You can see it here. It also links to old Hillclimb events from the same era if that helps. Alex Holowczak 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing on the pre-world championship stuff, and that website is absolutely brilliant, I use it a lot. The mainpage is here and it has a very detailed account of the 1930s as well. Also, the list of hillclimb winners it has might be of interest to some people here.

Other sites I find useful are

• The GEL Motorsport Information Page
• Motor Racing Circuits Database
• AtlasF1 Nostalgia Forum

Readro 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Driver Database
• Autocourse (F1 only)
• Formula3.cc (more than just F3 info)
• Past Champions
• A range of motorsport history links

Adrian M. H. 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rupert Svendsen-Cook's Nationality

I know this driver isn't exactly notable, but for the Formula BMW UK 2007 Season article there's a bit of confusion IMO. At first, one could say that his nationality is British, as:

• He was born in Ipswitch, see: [4]
• He is "labelled" as British in the first round report of the FBMW UK round: [5]
• He's considered British by the Drivers' Database.

So now I guess your asking "why are you asking us if he's British?", well for this reason: [6]. That image was taken during the 2nd race at the 1st FBMW meeting at Brands Hatch this year and that flag next to Rupert's name (on the car) doesn't look like a British flag to me - more like the flag of Norway. So now, I ask, what should I do? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting source - you've got a dual nationality driver on your hands! I don't know what to do, two flags might mess up the table. Readro 14:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you race under two nationalities? I'd have thought it would only be the one used on the podium etc. so it's that one that should be used in tables etc. (similar to the way we use the flags from the era on F1 articles) AlexJ 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the racing license normally dictates the nationality for the purposes of the entry details. Adrian M. H. 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of e-mailing the Press Officer for the UK series which covered everything, I think:

Dear Phillip,

Thanks for your email. Yes, it is a bit confusing. Rupert listed his nationality on his Registration Forms as British, and he has a British race licence, so we have to put this on all of the formal documentation. After the first Official Test, he asked to be shown as Norwegian (I think perhaps his mother is from Norway) but hasn't been able to give us any proof of Norwegian nationality. As a compromise, BMW (UK) have allowed him to put the Norwegian flag next to his name on the car. However, for official purposes he is British.

Best regards,

Adrienne

It's amazing how well one can communicate over the web.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Standard width for driver infoboxes

There are numerous driver articles which contain multiple infoboxes, for the different series the driver has competed in. One issue is that the various driver infoboxes are different widths, which means that the infoboxes don't always "stack" neatly - contrast Olivier Gendebien (all infoboxes the same width) with Julian Bailey (different width infoboxes). The current infobox widths are:

• 25 em: F1 driver, A1GP driver, V8 Supercar driver, WRC driver
• 24 em: Former F1 driver, Former Champ Car driver, Former F3 driver, Le Mans drivers
• 22 em: BTCC driver, BTCC alumnus, DTM driver, Junior series driver, Pickup Truck driver, Infobox racing driver
• 270px (which is very close to 24em): all the NASCAR driver infobox templates

I propose that we standardise the width of all driver infoboxes at 24em, to improve the visual appearance of articles containing multiple infoboxes. I will cross-post this on the relevant child WikiProject discussion pages, asking people to leave comments here. DH85868993 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(copied from WP:F1 discussion page)

This sounds like a good idea, but will obviously have to be negotiated with the relevant wikiprojects. I'd also go with 24 em. ... <some F1-specific content removed> ... Pyrope 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I can't envisage any display problem with it if they'll be widened rather than narrowed. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The 4 templates which are currently 25em wide would be narrowed (slightly) to 24em, but I don't foresee any problems with that. DH85868993 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(copied from WP:NASCAR discussion page)

• I agree that it would look better to have all motorsport infoboxes be a standard width. Probably it would be worthwhile to standardize team owner, etc. infoboxes to the same width, since some people like Junior Johnson, Richard Childress, and Alan Kulwicki are noted both as drivers and as team owners. I don't care which width is selected; a review of other sporting projects' infobox standards might be useful, since there's no "Wikipedia:Infobox" guideline page. Once a motorsport-wide standard is selected, it should be added to the project page for WikiProject NASCAR. Barno 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be wise to change the values to pixels if you want to guarantee exact width; that will avoid display issues in some old browsers and prevent squishing. Adrian M. H. 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we should probably include motorcycle rider infobox templates as well, to cater for individuals for race(d) both cars and bikes. I've just raised the issue on the WikiProject:Grand Prix motorcycle racing discussion page. DH85868993 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a good idea, and {{Le Mans drivers}} (currently 24em) could be added to the list as well. I've noticed this "problem" at Sébastien Loeb. Prolog 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I created {{Le Mans drivers}} I simply copied and pasted most of the codework of the F1 driver template so that they'd match. The359 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to see the same width on all 4 racing WikiProjects that I am involved in. I don't care which of these sizes, or if it uses pixel or em. Many drivers have raced in multiple disciplines/series. Royalbroil 03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It does look good when they stack neatly, 24em seems to be a good size to go for. AlexJ 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed all the driver infoboxes to 24em. I haven't touched the rider boxes though. Julian looks much prettier now :-) DH85868993 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To improve it further, I've made a few modifications to the former BTCC infobox. I've set Driver Name and Nationality to be optional fields, so they don't need to be repeated and changed the header color from green to no-color (otherwise a green bar appeared when the driver name didn't) - If this causes any problems or you object to the change post here and we can discuss whether to revert or not. It seemed to look OK with Bailey (without name and nat) and Alain Menu (with name and nat). AlexJ 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

off-topic

On the topic of standardisation, are we worried about nationalities for UK drivers? Julian Bailey is shown as both English and British in the two different infoboxes (which is of course true!). If I remember rightly, the rules on 'official' nationality actually do differ between international and national level racing (based on passport at international level and issuer of racing license at national level), and certainly there is a more casual approach to the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish vs British thing in more junior formulae. Is this a problem, or just part of the rich fabric of life? 4u1e 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I see it, if we allow flags for England, Scotland et al, then we'd really have to allow flags for Catalonia, Quebec etc. I would be in favour of making it official countries only. Readro 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Under national level, the nationality is that of the racing licence and (I think) there's only a British or Irish licence available, not a English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/Cornish etc. so I'd be in favour of classifying them all as British. I've checked BTCC's official website, and they list all drivers from England, Scotland etc. as being British Nationality so that clears up Julian Bailey and all the other BTCC infoboxes. DTM's more of a pain, because English drivers carry the British flag while at least 3 Scottish drivers (McNish last year and now Susie Stoddart and Paul di Resta) race under the Scottish flag on their entry list. I'd still say though that we should go with the racing licence to avoid confusion (especially as McNish for example also raced in F1). Lower formulas are mixed but the racing licence (i.e. British) provides a clear option to go for IMO which can be easily defended if needed. AlexJ 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Champcar seem to use the English and Scottish flags on their websites, although that seems to break FIA rules! 4u1e 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Yet another) discussion on this topic at Wikiproject F1. 4u1e 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz motorsport

Is there any support for the idea of renaming Mercedes-Benz motorsport to Mercedes-Benz '''in''' motorsport, following the pattern of Alfa Romeo in motorsport, Porsche in motorsport and Porsche in Formula One? DH85868993 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that. It makes sense. Would we change BMW Motorsport as well, or does that represent BMW's title, like "SEAT Sport" for example? I ask because I thought BMW liked to call its racing division BMW M-Sport (possibly with a lowercase s; not sure). If it is kept unchanged, a redirect might be wise if there isn't one already. Scratch that; I just remembered BMW-Motorsport.com (official site, so it must be right!) Adrian M. H. 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, BMW is a tricky one. These is (or was?) an entity called "BMW Motorsport", and as you have identified, the official website is "bmw-motorsport.com". But the BMW Motorsport article is (and I think should be) about BMW's involvement in motorsport. To me, the name "BMW Motorsport" (with a capital 'M') suggests that it would only describe factory-backed motor racing activities, whereas I think the intent of the article is (and should be) to describe the entirety of BMW's motorsport involvement. So I think there's a valid argument that the article should be called "BMW in motorsport" (similar to Alfa Romeo in motorsport and Porsche in motorsport and possibly/probably soon Mercedes-Benz in motorsport) rather than "BMW Motorsport". -- DH85868993 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're of that opinion, because I'm inclined to agree with that. I was slightly concerned about accuracy, but changing the title probably wouldn't affect that, actually. The consistency is welcome. Adrian M. H. 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

non-SI units for engine capacity

A question has been raised in GA review for Brabham BT19 on the use of units. I've used a mixed economy of litres for engine capacity and lbs and inches for everything else, basically because that reflects the (contemporary) sources.

The reviewer has asked whether a non-SI equivalent for engine capacity could be given, which made me stop and think, because I'm not sure I've ever seen engine capacity in the UK defined in anything other than litres or cc, even in older sources. I might go for cubic inches, to provide context for American readers, but can anyone advise what units would be used if I wanted an Imperial measure? 4u1e 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this means anything here, but at Wikiproject automobiles, the standards indicate SI units should be used for all measurements. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They have used litres (or liters for non-British usage) for as long as I am aware of. The Bentley 4½ltr for example. Tell the GA reviewer that this is just the way it is! We often mix Imperial and metric when it suits us to do so; bicycle measurements, for example. Adrian M. H. 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial response, but I like to accomodate all views! :) I'm quite happy to put cubic inches in brackets if that means something to American readers. As a side note, does anyone know why engine capacity is the only unit that has always consistently been SI? 4u1e 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As an old school American, I would prefer to see cubic inches. Both would be even better. Putting cubic inches in brackets is fine. Street cars have been using liters since around 1985. The conversion factor is 1 inch = 2.54 cm (and then you have to cube it). So 1 liter (1000 cubic cm) = 61.024 cubic inches [7]. Royalbroil 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It may have been influenced by the internal combustion engine's European origins. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But the rest of the car had European origins too! Oh well, there I go expecting things to be logical again. :D I think I'll put 183 cubic inches in as the bracketed figure. 4u1e 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the chassis didn't, necessarily. Britain's strong coachbuilding industry began making chassis for steam cars and things like that, and you can bet that inches would always have been used when convenient. The early engine designs would have been imported from Europe or based on the designs of the pioneers, like Daimler, and the cc, as an accurate measurement, might have stuck. Anyway, this is beginning to read like WP:Horseless Carriage! Adrian M. H. 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now there's an idea for a wikiproject.....OK, curiosity assuaged. Thanks! 4u1e 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintage British cars tended to give their engine specification in terms of horsepower, not capacity (e.g. 12/50 etc.) Bentley were one of the first to use the European practice of capacity measurement, probably a reflection of their Le Mans aspirations although that is just speculation on my part. Power output was quoted up until WWII, after which the UK moved to the European practice of quoting cc. The USA, being resolutely Imperial, always quoted in cu/in so far as I can tell. Pyrope 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Change "always" to "in most cases". For a couple of long periods, the engine formula used for the Indianapolis 500 was three liters because the 500 was FIA-sanctioned. AAA's rulebook for the rest of the champ-car series may have defined max engine size as "183 cubic inches" to match, and I'm sure its other minimums and maximums were given in inches and pounds. The IRL has always used liters/cc's for max engine displacement, but I don't know whether weight, wheelbase, etc. are metric in the rulebook. But all drag racing, short-track Saturday-night racing, NASCAR's national and regional and local series, ARCA, etc. use inches and pounds for everything. Only sports car racing, with its closer European connection, uses cm³ and kg in the USA. (Not sure about rally organizations, but none have been as high-profile here as in Europe.) Barno 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Iglesias articles

Someone has tagged Jesus Ricardo Iglesias and Jesús Iglesias for merger. It looks fairly obvious that the two articles are about the same person, in which case the articles should be merged. I guess the question is which name to go with. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess the second (especially since it has the correct emphasis in the spelling), although someone who knows the driver well might be more helpful. The359 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He's listed as Jesús Iglesias on the entry list (official F1 site) so I'd say we go with that. AlexJ 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Every source I have lists him without his middle name Ricardo, so I would go with Jesús Iglesias. Bretonbanquet 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Content merged into Jesús Iglesias; Jesus Ricardo Iglesias changed to a redirect. Thanks for your input. DH85868993 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Library

Two related ideas, which might be useful, or might be a bit pointless:

• Some useful links have been given above for various forms of motorsport. I've also generated (vaguely) relevant lists for a couple of other editors who wanted some sources for their articles. I'm sure we all have our own favourites - would it be an idea to have a project page somewhere with the 'good' links on, and what they are good for? This might help with establishing what are reliable online sources as well.
• Hardcopy sources are always a bit of a pain to get hold of, but in many cases are preferable as reliable sources. I know I've got several sources (a patchy collection of Autocourses, for example, which although they concentrate on F1, also survey world motorsport - F3000, WSPC, Indycar etc) that contain information that others probably would find useful, but that I'm not 'using' at present. I'd be quite happy to list the hardcopy sources I have somewhere and for other editors to ask for references or information which might be contained within them (provided they were quite patient, of course!). Is this something others would be happy doing? 4u1e 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like the CVG WP's Magazine Archive? Sounds like a good idea. AlexJ 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although I hadn't thought of anything so big and complicated! On the other hand, stealing a format is always better than making one up ;-) 4u1e 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just books to start with, then things like entry programmes, magazines etc. at a later date if the books prove useful? AlexJ 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just start with books, magazines are good too, but much more work to organise. 4u1e 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By way of a taster:

General Motorsport
Title	Year	Author	Covers	Held by	Publisher	ISBN
Autocourse 2002 - 2003	2002	Alan Henry ed.	2002 F1 season, 2002 F3000 season, 2002 F3 season, 2002 Sports & GT season, 2002 Touring cars season, 2002 US Racing season, 2002 Major Worldwide results, Ross Brawn interview, Max Mosely interview, obits: Jim Crawford, Jean Stanley, Rob Walker	4u1e	Hazleton Publishing	ISBN 1-903135-10-9
Autocourse 1987 - 1988	1987	Maurice Hamilton ed.	1987 F1 season, 1987 F3000 season, 1987 F3 season, 1987 Sports Prototype season, 1987 World Touring Car championship, 1987 US Racing season, 1987 Major Worldwide results, Ron Dennis interview, Nelson Piquet profile, obits: Didier Pironi, Active Suspension article	4u1e	Hazleton Publishing	ISBN 1-905138-47-3
Autocourse 1985 - 1986	1985	Maurice Hamilton ed.	1985 F1 season, 1985 F3000 season, 1985 F3 season, 1985 World Endurance Championship Racing season, 1985 European Touring Cars, 1985 US Racing season, 1985 Major Worldwide results, Gerard Ducarouge profile, Alain Prost profile, Niki Lauda article	4u1e	Hazleton Publishing	ISBN 0-905138-38-4

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to post the things out, that would be expensive! But I can fact check and reference a reasonable amount of specific questions. I'm not volunteering to check whole articles! Anyone else got thoughts on this? 4u1e 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking along the same lines. Sometimes people will say something like "Oh, I think it was in so-and-so's book, but I haven't got it anymore" - it would be useful to have a list of who might be able to check so-and-so's book. Or when you think some event would probably be mentioned in a book, and want to see if it might have any information to add to the article. AlexJ 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I've got AUTOCOURSEs from 1984 to 2006, and a few other useful books as well. As to magazines, I always periodically throw away my old Autosports, so it would be good to establish who has what.--Diniz 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a load of yearbooks from 1997 - 2006, and a couple of F1 encyclopedias, along with a few Michael Schumacher books. I also have F1 Racing magazines from 1999 - 2005, however, they are stored away. Neldav 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created a subpage to the WP:MOTOR page here. I'll fill out the Autosports (edit) AUTOCOURSES for a start, if others feel willing to contribute in this way, please add what you have. Obviously, if you're not willing to be asked, don't list stuff! I'll put some kind of warning at the top to point out that no-one has to chase up information for anyone else as well. 4u1e 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a crapload of Indy 500 programs from myself and my father available, plus various other programs here and there. Unfortunately that's all I can really offer in terms of literature that I can think of. The359 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who've already added stuff. 359 - that's obviously useful stuff for those who are looking at that topic. The only thing that puts me off is the scale of the task of listing it. I'm planning on sticking to books for now, 'cos there can't be that many of them between the 20 or 30 of us that contribute across all the motorsport projects. Getting into magazines and programmes scares me slightly from the point of view of managing it all! Perhaps just a note that you have them, rather than a full listing? (i.e Indy 500 programs from 1963 - 2004) 4u1e 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be best, I'll have to have a look see at what all I have. The359 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When stuck on a article, for instance if you need to know something about the 2002 F1 season, can you just go and ask another user (from the Library section) and see if they have the releated details? Neldav 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how I see it, but you need to have fairly specific questions: I personally don't want to be asked 'What happened to Ferrari in the 2003 season', or 'Can you reference this article for me' but I'm happy to be asked (for example) 'Who was fastest in first qualifying in the 1997 Italian Grand Prix' or 'Have you got a reference for Harvey Postlethwaite standing on the nose of the Tyrrell 019 to prove its strength in 1990'. 4u1e 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) I know that User:Barno at WikiProject NASCAR has many decades of old Stock Car Racing and dirt track racing magazines. These are excellent resources for broad racing and car topics. Royalbroil 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we happy with the emerging library page? It's already got quite a list, although (inevitably) it's somewhat F1 biased. In terms of people finding it, I guess the most logical thing would be to put a link on the project pages? 4u1e 09:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at creating a new section on the front page for referencing articles and linked two F1 websites that are "accepted" by "us" as reliable sources ;-). --Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not F1, but I've got copies of the Official NASCAR Preview and Press Guide from 1992 to 2000. Guroadrunner 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means add them to the list. DH85868993 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear - this is meant to be a resource covering all motorsport - I agree it looks a bit skewed towards F1 at present, but it's not intentional! 4u1e 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

British vs English/Scottish/Welsh/etc, aka "The Passion of Some Flags"

I've been changing flags in Indy 500 results tables from English and Scottish to British. I noticed English and Scottish flags are prevalent in Champ Car and Indycar pages. Since WP:F1 has already done this, and WP:SCR follows this, I believe all motorsports projects should be harmonized and list English, Scotting, Welsh and Northern Irish drivers as British. --Pc13 11:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:F1 has done it, and the rationale given for that convention in F1 is that the official documents of F1 list drivers as British, not English or Scottish. By that very same rationale, Indy 500 drivers should be shown as English or Scottish, not British, as that is how they are listed on official Indy 500 documents, for example the entry list. In this way, all motorsports are harmonized: they're harmonized to the principle "do whichever the governing body for the series/event does." P.S. Sorry for reverting some of the changes without coming here to discuss it first - I didn't realize you had posted a comment about it here when I did that. Chuck 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The official document is their racing license, not the entry list. All British drivers have a British license, not an English or Scottish one, because these two don't exist. I realize the entry lists have place of birth, but these reflect neither their racing license nor their actual nationality. Even the UK/England/Scotland thing isn't harmonized in the entry lists, for example, there are English drivers racing in the US with an English flag, and others who race with the Union Jack, such as Nigel Mansell, whom you reverted. And Oriol Servià has been listed in Champ Car has a Catalan national, which could have gotten him into some trouble as it could have been taken as a political statement in favor of Catalunya's independence from Spain. Just as Catalunya isn't a country, neither are England and Scotland. --Pc13 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish or English nationality has not existed since 1707. It defies the whole point of the union if we start referring to people like that. We don't refer to Americans living in the south as being from the Confederate States. Readro 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to Buddy Baker, who proudly waved the flag of the Confederacy after winning races at Talladega during the 1970s, or to a certain recent governor of Alabama who sporadically flew it above that of the United States during his tenure. As for the flags concerning Britain, my stance of favoring the inner nationalities instead of the Union Jack began over the very specific calls that came in to Donald Davidson in the aftermath of Dan Wheldon's 2005 500 victory, differentiating English winners from Scottish, and that the two were not interchangable, etc. I am against reverting them because of my belief that the flags should give a general impression of where a driver comes from, not just the overarching government. --Chr.K. 08:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd find an awful lot of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people would strongly disagree with you (myself included) and if you look up England, for example, you will see it described as a Constituent Country further definition of which makes it fairly clear that there are still definately 4 separate countries within the United Kingdom. Steve turtle (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the overarching government though, it's the racing authorities and racing licence issuers. We have to be verifiable, and all the major sources say the same thing: British. If we do let the flags of inner countries where can we stop? After all Cornwall is regarded by some as a country. If we let drivers be Cornish, then other editors might say if drivers can have the flag of Cornwall, why can't they have some other county flag. AlexJ 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Buddy Baker only seems to support the "British" side of the argument: after all, the Buddy Baker article uses the United States flag, not the confederate one, regardless of which one Baker himself personally felt more allegiance to, and I don't see anyone clamoring to change the flag in that article. As for the calls to The Talk of Gasoline Alley, could you give us some idea of the arguments made there? Chuck 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

After some further consideration, I'm inclined to side with the "British" side of the argument. Not, as some people here have argued, because a racing license should somehow take precedence over other verifiable, reliable sources. (That's at best a wash, since one can find plenty of verifiable, reliable sources describing Franchitti as Scottish, or Wheldon as English, and one can also find plenty of verifiable, reliable sources describing Franchitti and Wheldon as British, which should come as no surprise, since Franchitti is both Scottish and British, and Wheldon is both English and British. "All the major sources" certainly do not uniformly use "British," unless one circularly defines "all the major sources" to mean "drivers' racing licenses.") No, the thing that convinces me is that the best analogy to England and Scotland, outside of the UK, is Quebec, given the recent proclamation that Quebec is a nation in Canada, not too far off from England and Scotland being countries or nations within the UK. Yet (to the best of my knowledge) we identify Quebecois athletes with a Canadian flag, not with the flag of Quebec. (And yes, I'm aware that the situations of England and Scotland are not exactly like that of Quebec. They are similar enough, I think, that the same policy should apply.) Chuck 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a story about an experience with Buddy Baker that likely violates WP:BIO, so I unfortunately can't tell it. The moral of the story is that Baker is not popular and is not a good example to use to decide guidelines. I won't touch this British/Scottish/Welsh decision with ten 10 foot poles because I (as an American) don't completely understand the nuances of the differences. Royalbroil 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation has actually suddenly become more complicated with Franchitti winning the 500-Mile Race, and people making clear that he is one of two Scotsmen to ever to do so, the first being Clark in 1965. This, after Wheldon the Englishman won it in 2005. --Chr.K. 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Every post-Indy 500 summary that I saw called Franchitti Scottish (if they mentioned his nationality). Royalbroil 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation is no more complicated. Calling someone an Englishman or a Scotsman merely implies which part of the UK they are from. The nationality is still British. As I have said before, English and Scottish nationality have not existed since 1707. Personally I think that using Scottish nationality would violate NPOV because it would suggest political leanings towards independence. Readro 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Franchitti is Scottish, he's also British, just as Wheldon and Mansell are both English and British. However, nationality in terms of the sport can only be British: briefly, you can only hold a British passport (they don't exist for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England) and for motorsport, although not for many other sports, the country represented is the UK (for which the correct term is British). It's not just a question of the racing license, it's more because the FIA's regulations specify that the nationality represented is that of the passport (at international level) and that of the license (at national level); The nationality in the infobox should be British.

Now, there's no major problem (for me at least) with talking about English, Scottish, Northern Irish, or Welsh drivers in the article, as those are also accurate descriptions of the people involved. There is a minor problem, which is that at some point we're bound to come across a driver born in say England but apparantly Welsh by self-identification (or vice versa) but we can deal with that when it happens. We did come up with the format 'X is a British racing driver from England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland' as a way of recognising nationality and which part of the union the driver hails from. It's used in most F1 articles, although Mais oui! has taken exception to it for Scottish drivers and forced a different compromise (UK nationality in infobox, described as Scottish in the text): he declines to debate the point.4u1e 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you list a few examples? Royalbroil 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of what? :) If you mean of how we current 'do' UK drivers, then the actual agreed consensus can be seen at Tom Pryce, Damon Hill and John Watson (racing driver) (to cover three of the elements involved). Two of those are FAs, btw. Eddie Irvine currently has a different compromise, which leaves British out of the text altogether. The problem with him is that people insist on making him a national of the Republic of Ireland, rather than Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom (see his talk page for loads more on this). Scottish drivers such as David Coulthard and Jackie Stewart have a similar version. Note that in all of these examples, despite the fact that some of the editors calling for Scottish or Northern Irish identification are pretty gung ho about it, no-one has seriously sustained a challenge to the correct flag being the Union flag and the correct nationality in the infobox being British. 4u1e 08:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just something I found - the answer. It's from the Scottish Parliament and states that Scotland is merely a constituent part of the country that is the United Kingdom. Readro 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice link. I like the part where they describe the question of nationality as being "fraught with difficulties". How many time has this discussion happened now? I have no problem with calling someone Scottish, I consider myself English after all, so it would be churlish to deny any Scot the moniker if they desire it. Just bear in mind that using Scottish/English/Cornish/Brummie in the text would be like describing anyone from the USA by reference to their state alone, then saying "they aren't American, they're Californian", or somesuch. Daft. Pyrope 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then bear in mind in turn that some of us do in fact do so, when in regards to southern California, without feeling self-conscious. The example of Nebraska, on the other hand, is instantly understood. --Chr.K. 09:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of listing sub-regional flags after nationals; thus, Hornish would have the flag of the state of Ohio after his, and Franchitti would have the Scottish after the Union Jack. It should satisfy political-pride issues (since it would by definition be made completely accurate), and would simply be even more detail, something expected for an encyclopedia. --Chr.K. 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've kept my distance from this Scot "boxing match," but regarding that last comment, I highly OPPOSE the use of US State flags for identifying drivers. The 2007 in NASCAR pages have those, and they look rediculous. Drivers, and fans, rarely if ever, associate with states/state flags. Moving from state to state is commonplace, especially for professional sports figures, and I'd bet that many people in the USA general public hardly even recognize their own state flag, much less use it. Doctorindy 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what we have is Wikipedia not being as exact as the experts constantly are, regarding who's who in winning the Indianapolis 500, at any rate. I.e., they called Franchitti the second Scot to win, not the seventh/eighth British-born winner. Dan Wheldon has called himself English, rather than British. On the issue of states, I have heard several calls to Donald on Gasoline Alley, regarding how many winners have come from, say, California, as opposed to Indiana, etc. If it is a statistical datum (or data) that they need not call in for, but rather can just look up here, shouldn't we aim for it? Yeah, it might sound outrageously detail-oriented, but that's the way I've always been when listening/watching/studying American open-wheel races. --Chr.K. 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Franchitti is Scottish and Wheldon is English, but that's not their nationality! Scotland and England merged in 1707 to create a new country - the United Kingdom. Scotland and England are now merely administrative regions. For instance, Franchitti is a Scot. I am English. Franchitti and I are both British. Both of our passports say "British citizen". Readro 10:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Readro's right, saying that Wheldon is English is more exact in a way, but not the relevant way because he doesn't officially compete as an Englishman, but as a Briton. He's also a European and a 'Milton Keynes'er, so which is the correct level to identify? In Football (OK, soccer!) England, Scotland etc do compete as separate entities and the United Kingdom does not, so the relevant nationality for the sport infobox is English, not British. In international motorsport, it's the other way round. Also consider the slightly difficult point that there is no way of definitively proving that someone is English (Scottish etc). You can prove where they were born, but Tony Blair, normally considered English, was born in Scotland for example. Plenty of English people live in Scotland, and vice versa. Ultimately, there's no official tag for Englishness, only self identification, or sometimes, but not in this case, sporting identity. 4u1e 08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You consider Blair English?? ;-) Oh ok, lets not get into that. A very nicely put summary Fvl3, and supported by the fact that even where E/S/W/NI nationality is an issue, different sports treat eligibility in different ways as there is no hard and fast rule. For example, if you play rugby you can represent a new country after just three years living there, with no other qualification needed (Liam Botham was offered the chance to play for Wales for example). However, for football you need to dig through your family tree and discover some long-forgotten genetic link, probably through granny's illicit love affair with Jones the Milk (Mark Crossley is the oddest sounding Welshman ever... not that I am suggesting he had genes supplied by a purveyor of cow juice, that was just an example!) Why the confusion? Because there is no such thing as a Welsh passport. Pyrope 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(I consider him quite a few things, but the relevant one here is English. Hadn't occurred to me that he was anything else. There you go, you see: confusing! :D) 4u1e 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Born in Scotland to Scottish parents and although his family later lived in England Blair's secondary education was largely in Edinburgh. Just goes to prove my point really, I'm fairly sure he thinks of himself as English. Pyrope 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If only life were more simpler, eh? Interestingly there is an essay on this matter. Note the sentence in the "Use of flags for non-sovereign nations", "In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign nation (e.g. the United Kingdom or Canada) not of the subnational entities, even if those entities are sometimes considered "nations"". So basically, IMHO, we are going against general Wikipedia consensus by using E/S/W/NI flags. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the situation is otherwise simply showing the Union Jack for driver after driver, and yet hearing how such and such a driver was not just British, but Welsh/English/Scot/Northern-Irish/etc., then I think Wikipedia should lean toward the general consensus of The People...which in turn is influenced by passionate emotion far more than logic. The argument could be made that Commonwealths should have different standards than Empires or Republics, and so on. Weaker argument, yes; another possible angle on it, also yes. --Chr.K. 17:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Commonwealth has to do with the issue. Also, I think that if you go with any flag which is not the Union Flag then it would be in violation of the nationalism section in WP:NPOV because the individual flags have political leanings. For instance, using the Scottish Flag would suggest a leaning towards the movement for independence. I believe we should only use official country flags. After all, if we are going to use flags of former countries for the purpose of regional division then I suggest we use the Grand Union Flag for anyone from the 13 original states of the USA. It's newer than the Scottish flag! Readro 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You see, I would agree with you if not for the fact that numerous groups have made bloody sure everyone knew, after the 2005 500, that Wheldon was NOT a Scot, but an ENGLISHman. I mean, Donald Davidson publicly apologized for briefly mentioning him as the first since Jim Clark, when Hill had won in '66. Granted, everyone didn't think it anything to be upset over, but in the most recent broadcast, they again hammered in Franchitti being the first SCOT (emphasis definitely theirs) since Clark in '65. When national and international news covers it like that, shouldn't Wikipedia lean toward the "unified vision," as it were? --Chr.K. 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent)Well it's true, Franchitti isn't English and Wheldon isn't Scottish (that's an unusual mistake to make, btw, the usual error is to refer to Scots as English). But both are also British, and the way the FIA works, they officially compete for the UK. I'm not too familiar with US racing, but I imagine Danny Ongais was often referred to in the media as Hawaiian: i.e. first Hawaiian driver to... I imagine they probably made quite a big thing of it. Nonetheless, his nationality was American. It's roughly speaking the same thing. 4u1e 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You would be correct; the "Flyin' Hawaiian" was his nickname at Indy. That reference, incidentally, would again make for slight ammunition in the argument that both the nationalities and sub-regionalities of drivers should be given, together, in information about them. To state it another way, given what my fellow WP:AOWRer doctorindy said...I would imagine there's a way to present the info in a non-ridiculous fashion...but we'd need to hammer it out. I do not believe it is right to make no reference at all to regionality in a nation, when the media has made such statements. If they deem it important enough, we should to, and apply it universally; after all...there are several sites stating Tom Pryce to have been, quite possibly, Wales' last great hope for a World Champion; given how soon after Stewart won his last that Pryce's accident was, the patriotic outlook here should be rather self-explanatory. --Chr.K. 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All fine, but his nationality is American not Hawaiian, and that's what should go in the infobox under 'Nationality'. Now, elsewhere in the article, it's fine, even useful, to refer to him as Hawaiian as well, particularly if there was significant media coverage of the point. 4u1e 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: CBS Sports is presenting Marino Franchitti, in their coverage of the ALMS race at Lime Rock, with a Scottish flag behind his name when showing the running order, not the British. --Chr.K. 17:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially that means they're not following rules. Which is the sanctioning body for ALMS? Although that's only the TV coverage, not the official results! I think really that this is the same point I made above. Marino is obviously Scottish and British. (but please don't start on him being Italian as well!) It's not wrong to refer to him as either, it's just that if you're looking for his formal nationality, which is what we want for the infobox, it can't be anything other than British. 4u1e 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be British, then Scottish second for sub-region; i.e., if the sub-region is "important" enough to have its own flag. --Chr.K. 17:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna - Possibly Controversial...

I'm probably going to get the biggest rant of my life for suggesting this but one needs to be bold (brave) in these situations. Anyway, as I've mentioned in the Talk:Ayrton Senna page, I think that he is autistic, well has Asperger Syndrome. But since that talk page is a little inactive in comparison I decided to bring it here. Now, as well as the arguments made on the talk page I've found something else, Senna had a Motor skills disorder ([8]) which, in a way, supports my claim that he was autistic. However, what I wish to know from you guys is:

• What other evidence would I need to gather, please consider that Asperger Syndrome wasn't fully understood or could be properley diagnosed until the late 1990s.
• How would you feel if, I happen to come accross a source (hypothetically), I were to include such a statement into the Senna article?

Anyway, I look forward to your feedback and remember that someone here does has Asperger's - and the creator of Pokémon (possibly) as well. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Probably shouldn't include such a statement unless you find two independent sources that directly address the point (not just mentioning motor-skills disorder). If you do, even if they're retrospective since most of his career was before the topic was decently understood, the point can be added. If so, please cite the sources to avoid WP:BLP concerns. Thanks! Barno 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, urm, probably no concerns with WP:BLP as such.... But this is very important nonetheless. Given that Asperger's was not recognised until after his death, you absolutely cannot make a claim that he suffered from it even if a medical expert proposes that he did. If he was diagnosed with an unnamed motor skills disorder and there is reliable solid evidence – incontrovertable, ideally – then you can include that. If medical experts (emphasis on the plural) have suggested that he might have suffered from Asperger's, then that may be admissible provided that it is presented sensitively and purely as a theory rather than a fact. You're in a good position to do that anyway. Adrian M. H. 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Although theories are only really worthy of inclusion if they have sufficient support and are reasonable. There is probably a guideline about that somewhere.

Definitely not something which should be added. Anything like that is purely speculation, and would come under original research. You would need an independent sources confirming an official diagnosis. Any source speculating about it is not sufficient. By the way, the motor skill disorder was something he developed later in life after part of his face became infected with a virus. Readro 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be in violation of WP:SYN. Shouldn't be added without reliable sources definitively saying he had Asperger's. Noting that he had some symptoms which were associated with Asperger's, and that Asperger's was not recognized as such when he was alive, is insufficient. Chuck 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I say include it if you have SOLID references that call out the specific medical condition(s), but make sure that you present it as a theory. I basically echo Barno's thoughts. Royalbroil 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions guys - and for keeping it clean, much appreciated for the latter! But being that little bit more determined I've just got one more point (and I hope I don't come accross as being aggressive saying what I'm about to say). Consider the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix, when Senna shunted Prost off the track at the first corner because, as far as I know, Prost did the same thing a year ago to win the title. Now why would someone put another driver's life at risk like that? Just because he did the same thing to win a year earlier? That seems a little "aspie" like to me. Also, citing the book Murray Walker's Formula One Heroes, Senna had the ability to recall how the car was through a corner, such as Revs; speed; etc, and could recall those figures from a couple of years ago - Now how could, and I hate saying that but there is no way around it, a normal (non-aspie) person recall such a trivial (trivial because the figures were from years ago) fact such as that?

Anyway, sorry about that, just wanted to get those points accross, you know? Thanks for the suggestions and opinions guys. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be trivial to you, but might not be to him, after all, he has a professional racing driver and he is expected to be able to "feel" the car and set it up accordingly. So, I feel the same as Barno and Royal, unless you can find a citation from a medical authority (which Murray Walker is not), this should be kept out of the article. --Pc13 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, define "normal"! I for one can play GT4 on my Playstation, and even if I haven't raced on a track for a while, I can generally remember what gear to be in for any given corner. How much better imprinted must this information be if you complete a couple of hundred laps of the track, there, sitting in the car, experiencing it first hand? Also, the Prost shunt just sounds like petty revenge to me. Plenty of non-asberger's people can harbour a grudge for decades, never mind a year. This whole subject seems hugely speculative and not at all justified. You also choose to completely ignore the whole diagnostic symptom spectrum for AS. Simply remembering numbers, being a little prima-donnaish, and being reckless with your own safety does not constitute an asberger's diagnosis! Pyrope 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

24 Hour races

I recently noticed some additions of some lesser known 24 Hour endurance races to the Template:24-hour races. Originally just Le Mans, Nurburgring, Spa, and Daytona were listed, but now 2 races I've never heard off and the far from major Britcar race has been added. There are at least a dozen 24-hour races in existance at the moment, with varying degrees of importance, but I can't think of them all at the moment. Anyone who can help add races to the list will be appreciated. I've already added the 24 Hours of Zolder. The359 04:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kimi Räikkönen

Can someone help me out with the bottom oppose (about the copyright for logos on the image), I've tried to explain about exposure and things like that but I just wanted some help trying to get my case accross. Thanks. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed it. AlexJ 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed the merger of Vegas Grand Prix and Las Vegas Grand Prix. Please leave any comments you may have here. Thanks. DH85868993 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'll comment to that effect at that talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thom(p)son Road Grand Prix circuit

Was the circuit used for the Malaysian/Singapore GPs from 1962-1973 called the "Thomson Road Grand Prix circuit" or the "Thompson Road Grand Prix circuit"? I can find references to both on the web, and Singapore appears to have both a Thomson Road and a Thompson Road. I'm planning to rename Thomson Road Grand Prix to [Thom(p)son Road Grand Prix circuit] once I've established the correct spelling. -- DH85868993 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Searching Google maps for the streets upon which the track was formed shows that the name of the street is "Thomson Road". I think the other spelling is a mistake which has been repeated through quotation. The surnames Thompson and Thomson are frequently mixed up by mistake so I presume the same thing has happened here. Readro 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to a map of the circuit. The circuit follows the Upper Thomson Road and the Old Upper Thomson Road. Readro 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Results tables

Is there a consensus over the format of results tables, possibly from the F1 project? (I don't participate in that). This is what seems to be de rigeur, but this is what someone decided to do. If the older format is preferred, I'll go ahead and revert it. Personally, the older format would be my choice, but I don't want to revert just based on my preference, so some comments/opinions would useful. I don't think we have ever discussed results tables at WP:MS. Adrian M. H. 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At WP:F1, we have established a standard format for driver results tables. However (to date) the maximum number of (World Championship) F1 races in a season has been 19, so there's a limit to how wide the table can become. The issue here appears to be series such as GP2 and A1GP which have two races per meeting, which could lead to very wide results tables. I could only find a few articles which have full results tables for "2 races per meeting" series, and a variety of approaches have been taken. Articles such as Will Power and Ryan Briscoe have the races labelled "XXX1" and "XXX2" and stacked on top of each other. As you've identified, Lucas di Grassi has recently been updated from "XXX1/XXX2, side-by-side" to "XXX FEA/XXX SPR, side-by-side". Timo Glock has the same format (created by the same editor). Jos Verstappen has yet another format, with both results in the same "square". I think it's worth establishing a standard format for multi-race meetings. For what it's worth, I like the "XXX1/XXX2 stacked" format as in Will Power and Ryan Briscoe, noting that it also allows for 3-race meetings (as occur in V8 Supercars) with no increase in table width. DH85868993 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I never really liked that sort of format, I tried another format at Marcus Ericsson although this is his first year in motorracing (outside of karting) so I don't know how it will look with other championships underneath.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that vertical format (from Will Power's article) looks like it might be a good option, although all those flags are a bit messy and not all that useful. Verstappen's A1GP table is too squashed up. Part of the problem with the di Grassi article's new format is that it still creeps over the edge of the page in the very common 1024x768. Looks fine at 1280 and up, but many users will still prefer to see a horizontal scroll bar. Incidentally, I don't know who came up with that for use in Wikipedia, but it's a great idea. I first saw Diniz using this method. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Following the promotion of Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2007.jpg to features status, Phill and myself were wondering if it would be feasible to draw up a list of FP criteria specific for motor racing, i.e., in addition to the standard FP criteria. Phill has come up with a couple of suggestions:

• Blur should only be in the Background of images taken at speed
• No fences or guard rail should ever occupy the image infront of the primary object, ie a car or driver
• Image's shouldn't really be tilted unless the circuit the photo has been taken on is very uneven, such as Brands Hatch or Spa-Francorchamps.

Any thoughts?--Diniz 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Number 3 is a bit restrictive; it doesn't discriminate between artistic angles and too many beers! Seriously, though; some of the best shots are taken at unusual angles (and that includes motorsport). Just look at Darren Heath's work, for instance.Actually, it's a pity that he doesn't (AFAIK) contribute his images to Wikipedia! Adrian M. H. 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For me with images, there is no set criteria. A featured image for me is one that stands out from the rest as a superb image. It's very unlikely that an image with fence or guard rail in the foreground would look superb, the tilt thing would seem to rule out the Kimi pic that's been promoted! Oh, one more point - what are the differences in criteria between FP at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? Take Image:Peugeot_206_WRC.jpg for example which is FP at Commons - could that be a good FPC here on WP? AlexJ 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget that last comment, that image is already FP here as well. I was looking at the Commons description instead of the Wikipedia description which lists both. AlexJ 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be no set criteria either. Often the things listed will rule out a pic, but it depends on the image as a whole. I love that Peugeot pic too, and I !voted support when it passed FP. Royalbroil 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fill in the Gaps, Please?

I personally try and never ask for help on things in my sandbox, but sadly I can't get this done without some help - I know, your all thrilled! ;-)

Anyway see My sandbox and try and fill in the gaps for the Monaco F3 support race if any of your guys have any extra infomation. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I added an engine column as well. Enjoy :) Readro 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the info from, Readro? You may have a good F3 source that I don't know about. Adrian M. H. 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Formel3Guide.com. Readro 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I used that once for some recent data, but I didn't know that it was detailed enough to cover individual race results. Adrian M. H. 15:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ergebnisse und Streckenskizzen" is the link you want to find the race results. However it only seems to deal with the German and European races. Readro 15:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Readro. Adrian M. H. 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Well, I've gone and created the Motorsport portal, it's still under construction and I'm just wondering whether any of these would be good ideas for the portal:

• A random championship table in one of the lower boxes. With the use of the random content template used for the Selected Article/Bio/Pic.
• An "On this Day..." box. With the use of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} and {{CURRENTDAY}} it would just be a matter of creating 365 (366?) pages...

Anyway, those are some ideas that are still in the design stage - what do you guys think the portal should have? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite like all of those ideas. Would it be possible to have a list of upcoming events / races - you could have a list of all of the covered series and their next events. Similarly, you could have a list of recent winners. Jsydave 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Phill. Can we get a better mix of articles from different series (not just F1) to be featured as well? They don't have to be FA level, I think GA is sufficient (that's what we've been using for F1). Much as I like to see Brabham publicised, how about Formula BMW, Henri Toivonen or Formula Three Euroseries? Even better would be some US or Asian focused ones, are there any at that standard? 4u1e 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GA standard is going to be a problem if you are looking for U.S. articles. I don't know of ANY. Few are even close. I have been working hard on getting Mario Andretti up to GA, but its been difficult to keep momentum with everyone else. I would hate to see this as a Eurocentric F1 portal. I do like the idea in theory, so let's try it anyhow. Royalbroil 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Comment: Oops. I have got good intentions re Mario, but I've been a bit distracted in the real world (house buying)! 4u1e 10:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I wish that I would have more experience with GA/FA so I would feel more comfortable with the process. Then I wouldn't have to ask for guidance. Royalbroil 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one way to get the experience! ;-) Mario needs some more work still, but I think we're looking good to get him through GA, and if we do that properly then FA shouldn't be a problem either. Although his career is more complicated than most others, that would at least give some kind of a model for other North American based drivers. Cheers. 4u1e 07:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found one (and only one) GA for WikiProject NASCAR International Speedway Corporation - it manages many NASCAR tracks and is owned by the France family (NASCAR's owners). Royalbroil 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good work Skully. Couple of thoughts: No F1 stuff, because it's just duplication. Better to feature things that don't appear in other portals. Not sure about dates and winners for "all of the covered series", because that could run into hundreds of series! Even major series run into dozens. Asian stuff is tricky to get up to GA because of a lack of good reference material. Adrian M. H. 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if there's anything that I can do to help, Skully, let me know. Adrian M. H. 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For the featured articles, we have two options then, one is to work really hard on some US and Asian articles and get them up to standard. (I think I've already promised more assistance to articles than I can actually provide though!) The other is to go with some good (i.e. reasonably well written and ref'd) B-class articles. Does that improve the picture any? I'm not sure I agree that there should be no F1 articles on the portal (people will expect there to be some content on F1 there occasionally), but they should certainly be in the minority. 4u1e 10:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of 4u1e's comments. Most of the articles for the top drivers in NASCAR are very weakly sourced, which is problematic. Royalbroil 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth having a redirect from Portal:Auto racing to cover a common US naming convention? Adrian M. H. 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a wiki-policy for redirects to portals, but your suggestion sounds sensible to me. 4u1e 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find out. Adrian M. H. 12:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I found other precedents and no advice against it, so we now have a redirect for the U.S. terminology. Adrian M. H. 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maserati MC12 and International Speedway Corporation have been added to the portal, which helps a little with the balance. 4u1e 09:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

I've created a DYK management section for the portal, so please can people add some? I don't want to copy-and-paste all the F1 ones. ;) --Diniz 10:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll a have a go at finding a few. Adrian M. H. 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How recent do you want? I have had 13 DYK motorsports-type articles featured, and they can be found here. The article for boat racing legend Bill Muncey should have run, but was passed up this past week because there were too many articles nominated. I know that User:D-Day had several articles featured on DYK. Royalbroil 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I added all of the original hooks from D-Day's articles. I will add 11 more of my hooks when I have some time. Fortunately, the list is not entirely U.S.-centric, as the hooks include British national Henry Segrave and the Segrave Trophy, New Zealander Steve Millen, and the IMSA GT Championship . Note the the Ken Squier hook is a current nominee for DYK. Royalbroil 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matter show old they are or if they are "official" DYKs - just so long as there are a reasonable amount and about motorsport!--Diniz 14:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)