Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Motorsport and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26: 30 days

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 July 2012.

Consensus on Auto Action as an unreliable source prior to listing on RS/N

Australian publication Auto Action has recently been purchased by a local team owner (article). As this publication also has a history of dubious reporting and speculation, and with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian motorsport seemingly a dead sub-project, I would like to gain consensus from the community prior to listing at RS/N. MSportWiki (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~No doubt you are raising this due to the recent "incident"!~~ (struck first part, but certainly the recent incident is relevant) For those wondering about the context in case they missed it, especially if outside Australia, AA initially posted this article https://autoaction.com.au/2024/10/14/cowards-attack-send-erebus-engineer-to-hospital (note the headline in the url) which has since been taken down (no retraction seems to have been published but they did publish a toned down article [1] similar to ones published by others). See this nine news article for a summary of the original article [2] which includes quotes from the original AA article. I think especially with the lack of formal retraction, they are at the very least unsuitable to be used for any article about Erebus Motorsport or anyone associated with them, past or present (Brodie Kostecki, Todd Hazelwood, Betty Klimenko, etc), and frankly probably not for anything controversial/"breaking"/speculative. Although they are sometimes known as "Auto Fiction", I don't believe that their general reporting is unreliable, however. Are there any particular instances in wikipedia articles that you are concerned about? When I've used AA for sourcing myself it has been simple reporting of facts, race reports etc. A7V2 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not a single incident as you suggest, as that wouldn't be anywhere near enough evidence for it to be listed (although their response to criticism of that article is quite damning) - rather, my concern is about WP:COI and their history of sensationalist reporting. MSportWiki (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that that was the only issue, more that it was what brought this to your attention and/or was the straw that broke the camel's back. Certainly for me it has greatly impacted my view of the publication given their existing mediocre reputation which I was willing to look past as they tend to have amongst the best coverage of lower level motor sport in Australia. I have struck the first part of my comment in any case. As to my last question, I was under the impression (correctly or otherwise) that for a source to be brought to WP:RS/N there should be a specific concern about the use of the source on Wikipedia? Certainly, as I said above, I would object to using them as a source as of October this year, for anything concerning Erebus or anyone connected with them, past or present, for the obvious COI reasons. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship

2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Prototype Cup Germany

Hello all,

These articles exist:

But I can see that the en.wp article Prototype Cup Germany has never been created.

I seek your opinions about this.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have now started a very rough draft on my sandbox page for the series. I'll try to add more context over the next couple days, and I'll put it into a draft once it has more bulk. I've already found some sources to add.

(In my opinion, if there are 3 seasons all with wiki pages, there should be a page for the series as a whole). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think remove them all. Wikipedia is not a results service, and the notability of this cup needs to be demonstrated to justify the proposed article. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lynx / Iron Dames article split

Please be aware that there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits about splitting Iron Lynx into Iron Lynx and Iron Dames. Thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed for notability criteria

This might be a controversial opinion, but I feel as that WP:NMOTORSPORT has to be updated for junior formulae feeder series. It does not reflect the expansion of the pathway in recent years, and does not have criteria for W Series/F1A drivers. This has caused lots of confusion for AfCs and AfDs, with there regularly being arguments or disagreements on the policy. Overall, it is unclear, and could use improvement.

F2 (still called GP2 on the page) and F3 need to be added; currently, all drivers are given articles if they are in either of these series. This is an unwritten precedent.

This is my own opinion, but I think the following could work:

- Completion of one full season or a race winner in Formula Regional

- Completion of one full season or a race winner in W Series/F1 Academy

- Podium finish in the Macau Grand Prix (single seater version)

- Champion or vice champion in a Formula 4 series

As I stated in the introduction, changes are needed as the current system is not working. I'm not sure exactly how this guideline can be changed, but I want to bring attention to this issue. We could possibly start a formal discussion to change the current policy, as I would assume consensus would be needed. (apologizes if this is phrased badly, I'm not good at formal talk page posts).

UPDATE 26NOV2024 22:15 UTC: II have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Changes to WP:NMOTORSPORTS in a more in depth and formal way. WikiProject page does not recieve heavy traffic, and WP:N talk will help my idea get implemented.

GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This I agree with. The things listed above some drivers have articles and news pieces written about them. However due to the notability criteria some pages are nominated for deletion even though the said drivers have plenty of articles written about them the articles aren't considered notable because they aren't listed Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with these types of raced-in-a-series based rules. Somebody with no knowledge of motorsport should be able to establish notability of a participant from the sources that are available to create that participant's article. That's the only criteria necessary. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with you; NMOTORSPORT is supposed to be a rough guideline on who deserves an article. However, at AfC and AfD, it is treated as a strict criteria that must be met for an article to exist. Therefore, in response to that always happening, it might be smarter to update the policy as a whole.

This happens a lot at F1A/WSeries/F4/FRECA articles; since those series aren't explicitly listed as ones that can have articles, they end up getting declined, even if there is SIGCOV and notability. Take a look at our project's AfDs, and look at how often NMOTORSPORT is mentioned.

tldr: i agree, thats whats supposed to happen, but thats not what ends up happening GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this there's been several pages of W series and F1 Academy members that were nominated for deletion today and the argument that was given was that was that the series weren't on the list of notability Motorsportfan100 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines exist because articles on feeder series drivers, including fifth-tier F1 Academy and fourth-tier W Series, violate WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. In many cases, these created articles rely heavily on DriverDB which is a Wikipedia-style site that anyone can create an account for and edit, and that tabulated content becomes the backbone of these articles which in turn violates WP:NOTDATABASE. In addition, a significant number of feeder series drivers violate WP:MINORS - especially below FIA F3.

I propose setting the lower limit at drivers over 18 in FIA Formula 3; anything lower violates the above, and supporter forums like Fandom can cover the rest. MSportWiki (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in regard to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Regardless of our motorsports policy, articles are subject to those two policies and GNG. Articles that rely on DriverDB apply to this, too. However, individuals (not just you) use WP:NMOTORSPORT as a way prevent articles on lower level drivers from existing, since their series is not explicitly mentioned. This applies even when there is ample sourcing and meets GNG/SIGCOV. My proposal just provides criteria that can establish notability, similar to the intentions of the policy in its current state.

As for minors, I do not see a reason why we should discontinue making articles for drivers <18. As for the policy you linked, that just says to be careful of what you edit when the subject is a minor, unless I am misinterpreting it.

Also, regarding W-Series and F1A, these series are held to a higher regard than normal F4 series. As for why exactly, I couldn't tell you, but they are. F1A receives a lot more media coverage than say an Italian F4 driver. Heck, Doriane Pin was on a late night show - that wouldn't happen with random F4 drivers. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the practice you've described in your opening paragragh is unacceptable. If the subject for an article meets WP:GNG, there should be an article. How notable their competition is is not relevant. WP:NMOTOR even says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a motorsport figure if they are:" (i.e. it basically says we would expect someone who meets that criteria to meet WP:GNG, it is not a guarantee that they do). Likewise, many, many people will meet WP:GNG without meeting that criteria. The criteria is not meant to be extensive or definitive. SSSB (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's how the guideline is intended; as a rough benchmark to show what individuals may have significant coverage. However, in practice, WP:NMOTORSPORT is used frequently on AfCs and AfDs to show why an article should be deleted/declined. This isn't a one off issue; many editors on this project experience it when editing feeder articles. Therefore, a more expanded criteria like the one I've proposed above could be useful for preventing these behaviors. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a threshold, otherwise we end up with a flood of low-quality articles and promotional pieces (see the constant AfD nominations and edit wars regarding Vivien Keszthelyi as an example). Most feeder series drivers follow the same generic pattern:

"In October 2024, Forename Surname signed to compete in the Benelux F4 Championship with Foo Racing. Surname finished 5th in the standings in 2025, with best finishes of 3rd at Assen and Zolder."

This type of content, typically supported by primary sources from championships or team profiles, fails SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC - and is at best a C-grade under WP:QUALITY. There are plenty of existing articles that struggle with quality control already, we should be focusing on those and leaving entry-level competitors to fan wikis and DriverDB (WP:NOTDATABASE). MSportWiki (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "at best a C-grade" - so what? Not every article can be Featured. Indeed, not all should be, I'd go so far as saying. But even that aside, if a driver meets GNG, they meet GNG, full stop, NMOTORSPORT completely notwithstanding. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The median article is Start-class, with 13 sentences and 4 refs. If we required C-class, we'd probably have to delete two-thirds of Wikipedia's articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think SIGCOV is misinterpreted by this community; SIGCOV requires reliable sourcing from high-quality publications and sites (BBC, Reuters, national-level newspapers, etc.). It is not routine secondary sourcing like Formula Scout and FeederSeries.net, nor primary sources like Formula One Management for F1 Academy, nor hobbyist blogs as outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Gilkes. The majority of FR and F4 drivers, with exceptions, fail these sourcing requirements and therefore GNG.

Doriane Pin is an awful example as she has raced in WEC and IMSA, two high-profile championships - no other F1A driver can claim that level of notability, with the very weak exceptions of series champions. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to create articles for entry-level drivers - as I said above, leave these articles to fan wikis. MSportWiki (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Doriane was a bad example. However, if you wanted to just use national level news for drivers, I don't think we would have even F2 level articles. There has never been an issue with using feederseries and Formula Scout articles as sources, so I'm not sure why you are saying that.

And once again, WP:NMOTORSPORT is supposed to be a guide on who can be notable, not who is or who isn't as a fact. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the DriverDB example considering how many decent C-Class articles there are on drivers, with reliable sourcing from websites like feederseries and Formula Scout. There also is nothing wrong with having articles that meet WP:GNG, but aren't extensive - stubs exist for a reason. There are plenty of feeder series editors that edit daily, and there is only so much sourced content you can add to articles. That does not mean that articles need to be deleted or not published in the first place, assuming WP:GNG is met.

I understand there are some COI edits and overall sucky F4/Karting articles, I've seen them firsthand. However, providing random examples does not help the situation at hand. I am trying to expand/improve the guideline in order to make things more clear, not to give every driver an article. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic meets GNG, they get an article regardless of any SNG, and if they don't meet GNG they don't get an article no matter what the SNG says. GNG is king. You are right that if GNG is met, an article should not be deleted, but MSport is right in that SIGCOV is often loosely interpreted in this topic area. NMOTORSPORT is fine as it is. It is a guide on what drivers should meet GNG. It's not perfect, but no SNG is, and that is why we have policy which dictates explicitly that GNG is king. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link a policy/guideline that says it has to be a major news source? I don't see that under GNG. While this is my opinion, I don't see an issue as long as it is independent and reliable.

I understand your point about SNG, but I think that it could be updated to reflect the newer layout of the feeder series system. As I stated in my original post, the policy is often miscited and people who are not involved with motorsports sometimes have a hard time interpreting the policy. I could try to find specific examples if you would like. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such rule. Sources for GNG purposes are not restricted to national news, high-quality sites, etc.

SIGCOV is about how much information the source provides. It is a shortened way of writing "a significant amount of media coverage". The GNG says that a single sentence is not a significant amount of coverage and that a whole book definitely is, but it unhelpfully gives no guidance about where, between these two extremes, the dividing line actually falls. Some editors like the Wikipedia:One hundred words standard. My own view is that when all the Wikipedia:Independent sources are considered as a whole, it needs to be enough to write more than a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show an example if anyone cares, there is an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vittorio Zoboli. NMOTORSPORTS has been mentioned 5 times at the time of writing, and is being used as a notability guideline opposed to a suggestion for who might have significant coverage. This really proves my point that we should continue to update the policy as time goes on, considering how it is mentioned at many AfDs and AfCs. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]