Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Types of motorsport (Wikidata)

There is certain problem with Wikidata. In Polish, "car race" (pl:wyścig samochodowy) and "car rally" (pl:rajd samochodowy) are types of "car sport" (pl:sport samochodowy). I think it's possible to distinguish a few terms, like car race (or "auto race"?) - single event which is "part" of "auto racing". If there is "auto racing", then term "car sport" or "auto sport" exist? "Car sport"/"Auto sport" is wider than "auto racing" because it also includes "ralling". Eurohunter (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem and it is not good. I have had this conversation since I joined here. Unfortunately, there is opposition to improving this from a large section of English speakers from North America. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
We've got motorsport, which is the broad article, and we have auto racing which is narrower and focusses on the motorsports which involve racing. What I think you are suggesting is an article on auto sport which would fit in the middle in terms of broadness. However, this would essentially be a split of motorsport. We are not a dictionary, we do not need a separate article for everything, and given the size of motorsport, I do not see how a split can be justified.
There are also far bigger problems, why does motorsport have huge sections on auto-eacing, but says nothing about motorbike, plane, or boat racing? And how do we justify not classing rallying as auto-racing. The definition of racing is: "compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective." which rallying is. Whether you compete at the same time, or compete with a staggered start is not relevant to the definition. These are some of the actual problems these articles have, and once we fix the first one, we might actually have enough content to justify splitting into auto sport. SSSB (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Rallying is NOT competing with others to see who is fastest.
It's true the WRC includes that but this is only one rallying series. Nor are trials, gymkhana, drifting, monster truck driving, and many other forms, racing. Apologies for the bold and caps, it's not intended as aggression, but I want to indicate the frustration I have had here again and again, and again.
We will also differ on opinion on the Motorsport article too, but at least this is through common use probably. I would say that Motorsport does not cover planes or boats, and is the common name for automobile sport - not auto racing - and may include motorcycle sport. This is why the motorsport article is in a terrible state, it doesn't know what it is because English speakers do not agree.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the point in Eurohunter's question is more how Wikidata works. The English language not using an automobile sport term is a disservice to all other languages. Rally Wonk (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk: Yes, I want to fix things on Wikidata, but we also need redirects to correct and categorised terms here at ENWP. It's quite hard to describe it exactly but in Polish we also call "car races" or "rallying", just as a "motorsport" ("sport motorowy") but more as a group of sports, and we can clearly distinguish "sport samochodowy" (it's also called "automobilizm" in Polish - rather rarely) - so how is this called correctly in English? Redirect for "auto sport" exist but is this correct name in English and is this common name or there are more variants of name and all of them are common? Btw. I think Polish "automobilizm" is taken from English "automobilism" but I'm not sure if it has exactly the same meaning in English. We could make here some kind of list or hierarchy of terms with all variants of names just for this talk to clarify. Eurohunter (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
There is also "wyścig ciężarówek" which would be "truck race" in English not "Truck racing", but there is no "truck sport" in Polish. Eurohunter (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no common use for "auto sport" or "automobile sport" in English, only official use. The common names are "Auto racing" in North America, even if it's not racing!; and "Motorsport" in the rest of the world. There is reluctance from North Americans to change this despite it clearly being wrong to others, and neutral opinions favour the ignorant policy of whatever came first is fact.
Some discussions on this I have had recently:
Unfortunately I can't see this ever being improved. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Your reply to my comment not only proves my point, but makes it clear to me that the issues I am describing are even worse than I originally thought. Firstly, you are putting words in my mouth. At no point did I talk about "trials, gymkhana, drifting, monster truck driving, and many other forms,". I was specifically talking about rallying. I was also mistaken about rallying - I didn't realise how broad rallying is. However, the point remains that some rallies are racing (like WRC) or include a racing element. This should therefore be discussed at auto racing.
Secondly, "I would say that Motorsport does not cover planes or boats, and is the common name for automobile sport - not auto racing - and may include motorcycle sport." I'm sorry but this is nonsense. How can "auto racing" include motorcycles? "Auto" literally means car. Likewise "motorsport" is the competive use of vehicles that use a motor. Boats, planes and motorbikes use motors. The only reason that motorsport appears to be the common name for automobile sport is because car racing is by far the most common and most popular form of motorsport. Something being the most common context does not make it the commonname, especially when the terms are defined by the dictionary.
Thirdly, the fact that we are discussing what these terms actually refer to means that we are in no position to make any wikidata connections. Before we do anything else we need to agree on definitions and chnage the relevant articles to match those definitions.
Finally, the entire basis for this discussion is nonsense. We do not decide what articles to write based on what we find on wikidata. We do it based on Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines - none of which advocate writing articles just because they exist in other languages. This is for multiple reasons, some of which I will briefly outline. As any translater and most competent multilinguals will tell you, it is not possible to literally translate things word for word. Language doesn't work like that, it is much more nuanced and complicated than that. You cannot take a Polish article, but it's title into Google translate, and say "we need an article with this name". Directly translating an English term into Polish may well result in a term which has a broader or narrower scope in Polish compared to English. It will not always be possible to find a perfect match for wikidata to connect to. We need to be pragmatic and find the best possible connection. This may involve creating a redirect and going through that. Or it may not be possible to do this. However, in instances where a link is not possible, that is just unfortunate, but unavoidable. We simply have to make do. But making a whole article purely for the benefit of wikidata is both inappropriate and impractical. For example, the Polish "truck race" may just have to connect to thr English "truck racing"
In short, we can make no progress at all until we agree on definitions. (At this point we can probably connect the Autosport redirect to wikidata And then we need to decide if a splitting motorsport to create an auto sport article is appropriate (in my opinion it won't be at least until we flesh out the non autosport motorsports, until then there is literally no point in splitting). SSSB (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we agree on most things, and have no need to drift to a conversation on who-said-what. But just to be clear:
  • Trials, gymkhana etc were words from my mouth to highlight how silly auto racing is. I did not mean to suggest you had said these.
  • Also, in my opinion motorcycle sport is a form of motorsport, alongside what could be called automobile sport. Planes and boats belong elsewhere for good reason I shall explain if asked. However, I also believe the term, motorsport, is the common use for what may be called, or translated into English as 'automobile sport'.
  • I do not push for a creation of "automobile sport" article, however, I believe that "auto racing" is very wrong, to the point of being harmful, and to the point where I believe Wikipedia and its policies are a negative force.
My proposal now would be to have the wikidata item "automobile sport" contain the language links found on auto racing, and simply not have an English article attached. I doubt this would gather support if I made the changes alone.
I'm open to proposals but I don't think defining anything is what's really needed. We're restricted by policies and technical abilities. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@SSSB: @Rally Wonk: There are langueage differences but I think we could sort out of some things atleast. As I understand "auto racing" is correct name for "racing with cars" and "automobile sport" for wider "car sport". Also "automobile sport" is used instead of "auto sport"? Isn't "auto sport" shorter form for "automobile sport", so in the same way we would have "auto racing" and "automobile racing"? Also how do you call "single car race"? I think table below explains it well. Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Your hierarchy makes perfect sense, but it doesn't justify Wikipedia articles as SSSB has said.
The only occasions I see Automobile sport being used is officially by the FIA. I have never seen Auto sport being used anywhere. Autosport is a magazine.
At least in Britain, motor racing would be more common, then car racing would be used secondary. Nobody uses the term auto racing unless they have been influenced by Wikipedia. I shall add two lines to your table. Of course it can only be an opinion. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
An interesting point to add, the FIA organise the FIA Motorsport Games which, being the FIA, is open to automobiles, there's no other vehicles or bodies involved. Yet, it's not the Auto Racing Games or the Automobile Sport Games. This fits in with the Olympic structure and ASNs from 72 nations from around the world sent teams, including the USA and Canada. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the hierarchy which I'm trying to sort out
Polish: Sport → Sport motorowy → Sport samochodowy → Wyścigi samochodowe (multiple races) → Wyścig samochodowy (single race)
English: Sport → Motorsport → Automobile sport → Auto racing → Auto race
Common US English: Sport → Motorsport → None, so Auto racing → Auto racing → Auto race
Common British English: Sport → Motorsport → None, so Motorsport → Motor racing → Motor race
Then I would suggest it is fairly clear cut. pl:sport links to sport. pl:Sport motorowy links to motorsport. pl:Wyścigi samochodowe links to auto racing. pl:Sport samochodowy doesn't have an English equivalent, but can connect to Automobile sport, Car sport, or Autosport and redirect to Motorsport#Disciplines of automobile sport. SSSB (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If it's possible to language link to a redirect it should have been done long ago.
There are 90+ language links on Wikidata/Auto racing, most of them do not belong there. Some may belong to Automobilism, however in some languages that includes sport whereas in English it means car culture. Many would need moving to Automobile sport. It might be worth waiting for more comments before undertaking this.
Then there is the category structure to think of. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean with "If it's possible to language link to a redirect it should have been done long ago."? Do you doubt its possible to link an article in a language to a redirect in other language? Rpo.castro (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that. If using redirects had been raised in this conversation that you and I were both involved in, even I could have done it before.
This point has been discussed multiple times over the years, for example this 17 year old question still on Talk:Auto racing, the first of many on that talk page. Maybe it could have been done in that time. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm only aware that we could link articles to redirect pages in wikidata since somewhere in past year and never remembered to bring it up. Rpo.castro (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed there is ratcher "car industry" instead of "automobile industry". So it's different in this case or? "Car/Automobile industry" is a part of "automotive industry". I don't know why there is no "bus industry" and "truck industry". Eurohunter (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
"Automobile model" was moved to "car model". Eurohunter (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rpo.castro:, @Rally Wonk:, @SSSB: What do you think? Eurohunter (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I can understand why Automobile model was moved to Car model. Car is used more than automobile for automobiles, but not all cars are automobiles.
Car/automobile/bus/truck/... industry all belong in automotive industry until the point there is too much content and a split is necessary. Unlikely, as nobody wants to write about it. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
What definitions of car and automobile are you using? Because I just googled and the answers said that "car" can also refer to train cars. Meanwhile automobiles can also be refer to buses, trucks etc. (Again according to Google). SSSB (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't broadly talking definitions but the common use, I'm not sure the question was anything but opinion and experience, although I did google a few phrases to see what results came back. There is no use of 'lorry industry' or 'van industry', for example.
The only definitive point I made was about not all cars are automobiles, you can also have:
and so on. But in usage, 'car' alone is the automobile kind.
I'm happy with the definition of Automobile found at Car; vans, trucks and busses are not automobiles to me. The FIA has a definition of Automobile for sporting purposes but other international bodies tend to use 'Car', but I think this is heading off-topic. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability of speedway riders

Numerous articles regarding motorcycle speedway riders have been nominated for deletion both recently and in the past, but whilst these deletion discussions appear under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport, I get the impression that most motorsport editors have little-or-no knowledge of speedway racing and thus aren't able to really constructively contribute to these discussions. It would perhaps be desirable to establish which sources, if any, carry coverage of these speedway riders and how reliable these sources are. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I admit I do not have much knowledge as I do not have access to cable TV. My recommendation is that WP:NMOTORSPORT shoud also apply to international and national speedway events. In historic cases, a rider who has appeared in a Speedway World Championship title deciding finals, should be considered notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:NMOTORSPORT is not a policy, it's a guideline. Access to cable television isn't particularly relevant here, the issue is whether independent reliable sources exist that are giving significant coverage to these speedway riders. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Excluded in Formula 3

I made this edit at the 2024 Formula 3 page. here and got reverted. It's is concerning drivers who received penalties that effectively suspended them for a race meeting. Currently the table shows them as excluded where I believe you have to be participate in a race meeting to be excluded from it. They did not participate and their cars were driven by others. Those spaces should be blank, not "EX".

I then made the change a second time, providing a source to the table on the FIA Formula 3 points standings indicating that the drivers did not take part. I was reverted again with a somewhat angry and insulting response from User:MSport1005. So am I wrong to think that if you are suspended and someone else is driving your car, then you are not excluded from the race results and should not have "EX" in the table? -- Falcadore (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's some official definitions from the International Sporting Code:
  • Disqualification: Disqualification means that a person or persons may not continue to participate in a Competition. The Disqualification may be for part of a Competition (e.g. heat, final, free practice, qualifying practice sessions, race, etc.) the whole Competition or several Competitions within the same Event, at the discretion of the stewards, and may be pronounced during or after the Competition, or part of the Competition, as determined by the stewards. The disqualified person's relevant results or times are voided.
  • Exclusion: A person or body shall be said to be excluded when they have been definitively forbidden to take part in any Competition whatsoever. It shall render null and void any previous Entry made by the person excluded and shall entail the forfeiture of Entry fees.
  • Suspension: the Suspension deprives, for a specified period of time, the person subject to it of the right to take part, directly or indirectly and in any capacity whatsoever, in (i) any Competition organised or regulated by the FIA or the ASNs (or placed under their authority), and (ii) any preparatory testing and training organised or regulated by the FIA or the ASNs (or placed under their authority) or organised by their members or licence-holders.
Firstly, the tables are lacking sources. Edit summaries are not the place to put them. No reason these tables should go without sources whether they are "regurgitated" or not. Quickly googling, I found a reliable secondary source that has blanks on the table.
Secondly, the article is missing any content on these penalties and suspensions/exclusions/disqualifications, so I can't help you answer which of the above is correct. But claims must have sources if the table is 'not regurgitated', so far I only hear about an issue through your conversation. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not the specifics (DQ vs EX), but the fact there is writing in those spaces at all. -- Falcadore (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, it's whether the table should follow the key of the uncited source or is it Wikipedia's own. Going back to your first question above I would say you are wrong in a technicality, you are excluded (not officially) if you are suspended but not vice-versa.
I looked at Tsolov at Spa, which currently says EX. Sources exist, official and secondary, to say he was Suspended, not disqualified or excluded. I think these specifics matter.
There is currently no S or SUS in the key for suspensions, so EX would be arguably correct. A blank in the key says a driver did not enter, which is also arguably correct on technicalities but not officially. My proposal would be to add SUS to the table key - that is the most useful for the reader. Rally Wonk (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
You make a good point. All in all I just think there needs to be a distinction. Tsolov and Stenshorne were banned from entering these races. It is radically different to Zagazeta missing Monaco due to appendicitis; or the rest of Wharton and Taponen's season. EX doesn't require a driver to enter a race, so I feel its use is appropriate. Some precedents support this.
As for the points table on the F3 website being used as an argument: no distinction is made there beyond a number & a dash. It doesn't care whether a driver finished outside the points or DNF'd. Both have a 0. Wikipedia does not and shall not follow such a vague approach. MSport1005 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Please read the above regulations again carefully. It requires one to have entered an event to be able to be excluded.Tvx1 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
To my understanding, only the definition of disqualification entails that. Either way, as Rally Wonk pointed out the correct term is suspended. All inaccurate uses of EX can be superseded if necessary. MSport1005 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Excluded litterally mentions voiding existing entries and forfeiture of entry fees. Thus entries must patently exist. And as explained things like suspended are beyond the scope of these tables. The EX‘s should just be removed. Tvx1 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
No we should not be adding anything to the legend. The championship tables are only meant to list the results of entries. When drivers didn't enter an event they should have nothing in that cell. Reasons for absence are beyond the scope of these tables, whatever the reason (injured, suspended, sacked, etc). Tvx1 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, I don't mind. But it's not unreasonable to expect the story of the championship to be told when there are so many options on the legend. Tsolov's suspension was a result of a breach of contract with the championship. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It is "unreasonable to expect the story of the championship to be told [through the championship standings table]." Because the type of context required to tell the story of the championship can only be achived through prose. SSSB (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I noticed there was no prose on Belgium and I'm in no position to improve the article. I never suggested not including prose, and tables can also inform of where the stories are.
It's always going to be my opinion that SUS should be added to the tables, not just on these articles, but across motorsport. If there is no support for that, it's fine, however I'm not wrong. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Please read [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Prose|MOS:TABLES]]. Tables should not replace prose. Tvx1 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't ever suggest it should. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You can still enter an event while injured (ask Boschung) or under a contract dispute (ask Pantano). A suspension legally prevents you from doing so.
Injuries or sackings are private matters unrelated to the championship that involve no paperwork (with the governing body) and therefore aren't formalised. A suspension is a penalty imposed by the governing body, and sits up there with a DQ or a mid-event EX (e.g. Merhi in 2015 Formula Renault 3.5 Series).
I think all 3 are necessary in results tables – "not entering" should not be a delimiting factor – in fact it is a direct consequence of the suspension. MSport1005 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I really don‘t know how I can make it any more clear to you. Everything that is in the championships‘ tables are the outcomes of entries. When there was no entry the cell is empty. No entry=blank cell. Suspensions aren‘t results of entries and don‘t belong there at all. Also, depending on the championship a sacking or injury can very much require paperwork. Formula one and its junior series, unlike rallying, operate on season entries. The drives are entered for the entire championship. An injury or a sacking requires first the paperwork to suspend or even terminate the relevant driver’s entry and subsequently the paperwork to formally enter their replacement. Tvx1 15:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "Everything that is in the championships‘ tables are the outcomes of entries. When there was no entry the cell is empty. No entry=blank cell"
  • "The drive(r)s are entered for the entire championship"
I hope you can see that it's still not the clearest POV to understand. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
His POV is perfectly clear. The only reason it appears unclear is due to a combination of you and MSport1005 not understanding how Formula One entry lists work and you not fully understanding the context of the quotes you just provided.
In order to compete in Formula One (and Formula Three) you need to make an application. Teams make this appocation every year, and as part of this they have to nominate a driver. The "season entry list" is really nothing more than a summary of succssful applications. It confirms that the pre-requistestes for entry into races is met (entry fee paid, correct license, etc.). You then need to entered into individual events. Now, when Tsolov got that one race ban, his team decided to replace him. Which means they had to send the FIA a form which basically said: "we want to alter our applocation to compete in this championship, Taponen will drive instead of Tsolov. So, the FIA took Tapanon off the entry list and put Tsolov there instead. Tsolov was no longer entered into the championship.[1] This is we use the entry list of individual events and this is why Tvx1's comment is not contradictory and makes perfect sense. SSSB (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Now, when Tsolov got that one race ban, his team decided to replace him. Well they had to. You have to field all 3 cars, otherwise Bruno sends a lovely fine your way... MSport1005 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The point is that he was replaced on the season entry list. Tvx1 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I respect your vote, subject knowledge and opinion. But the table is a championship standings table on the championship article. I retain my opinion that the table should include the story of the championship, which includes all the drivers entered into it, especially where there are separate articles for each round. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
And I respect your opinion, but I don't see how "Tsolov finished 4th in the Bahrain sprint, and 11th in feature, ..., Tsolov was suspended for Belgian" can constitute a story. A story needs context. A row of of numbers and abbreviations with (let's be honest) vague definitions cannot ever provide enough context to constitute a story. Unless of course we find abbreviations for "driving in another series without permission from the FIA" (is that the reason 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship is very vague. In which case we probably need one for "did not enter as driver was imprisoned for aggravated assault as a result of toad rage" (Betrand Gachot; 1991 Formula One World Championship) then we would have a story. So this idea that we should specify why he didn't compete to "tell a story" is completely unworkable. SSSB (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
And that’s also why there should be nothing when a driver didn’t enter for an event. Tvx1 23:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It's very simple though. While drivers are primarily entered for a championship. They are not automatically entered for each and every race of it. That happens through a seperate procedure. Season entry list are seperate concepts from event entry lists. Tvx1 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
In the nicest way possible – I'm in the industry, I don't need you to educate me on it. No entry=blank cell – a blank cell doesn't preclude text. Suspensions aren‘t results of entries – correct, but certain non-entries are the result of suspensions. And that, to me, is key information. "SUS" on a blank cell (as User:Rally Wonk suggested) can do the job. Just like WD, DNA, DNP and EX. MSport1005 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
WD, DNA, DNP an EX all follow entries for grands prix/events though, while SUS does not. That's where the bar is drawn and I cannot see any justification to deviatie from that. The FIA leaves their cells blank, so should we. It's not up to us to invent when a championship table should contain a result. Tvx1 19:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The FIA also leaves its cells empty for withdrawals, cancellations and non-points races. Wikipedia is not the FIA. It is most definitely up to us to discuss what a championship table should contain. MSport1005 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
We have made it very clear where our line is. But where is yours? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds like you want the results table to outline the reason for non-entries (despite those not being results; withdrawal, cancellation and still results). So, this means we need a code for non-entry due to suspension, and non-entry due to illness, due to injury, due to arrest, due to prior commitment, due to contract termination etc. Then it's a slippery slope till we have to specify cause of withdrawal. This is untenable and unmanageable and non of these things constitute a result, yet you want to put them into a results table? SSSB (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. There just is no reason why we should make an exception for suspension. They are not championship results in any way of form. Tvx1 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you even read my comments? I've made this distinctly clear.
  • Non-entries caused by suspensions should (in my view) be outlined.
  • Non-entries caused by injury, illness, contractual issues or whatever else should not.
All is reasoned above. MSport1005 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I just re-read all your comments: you did not make this distinction clear. This is the first time you have stated that only non-entries due to suspension should be mentioned. The closest you have come previously was to state that suspension is "radically different" to withdrawing from "appendicitis". Which is true, but not convincing reasoning. Because contract termination is also radically different, so is having been arrested, or particpating in another event.
And let me bring us back to what it is we are actually discussing: the results table. A table that only serves one purpose: to avoid us listing every single result. Firstly, a non-entry isn't a result. Secondly, if a reason for a result is note-worthy it should be discussed in prose. The result table doesn't discuss the reason for any result, and I see no reason for an exception to be made for a non-entry "result". SSSB (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree to the point I will say you are incorrect. The purpose of the tables we are discussing is to display the drivers championship standings and collectively the results within summarise the inputs to that end. There is no justification to strictly define it as a 'results of entries' table. These, as independently notable, belong on their respective articles, or in a results table that could have 1st-30th on one axis with the names in the grid. Through consensus and form, this has been summarised and exists under the results table as found underSeason summary on 2024 F3.
I know you don't need me to explain to you that the drivers championship is a title, not the series of events, so there's no convincing reason to restrict this table to 'results of entries' of the events so strictly that when a driver doesn't enter, (one who the average person with 'no great knowledge of the subject' might expect to be taking part through looking at the rest of the table), there should be no information at all. It's the difference between somebody understanding 'that's why they didn't score points or couldn't enter' and not trusting the information or leaving uninformed. This is particularly true if Tsolov, for example, was to return to race at Monza; and the other two gentlemen that season.
I've used the word 'story' before now which I think has been taken to mean a long explanation of events. To be clear, I mean that these tables are often the only place that needs to be looked at for a summary of the entire article (nobody reads articles in full), or season in this case. If I saw a SUS it tells me something and if I feel the need to read the reasons why I would read the text. A blank cell can look like an omission, error or incompleteness - and this is not helpful. I agree there's no need to put something where somebody ran out of funds mid-season or either side of only doing one event etc, but SUS is a result of direct official measures affecting the ability to get a result.
Nobody looks at the tables to see who finished 18th in each of the races for example, or who won a particular race as there are the articles for that. People care about how the season progressed, which has no need to be restricted to 'results of entries'. I think this a rule you have imposed on yourself. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are we descending into this again? I already explained you that tables should NOT replace prose. Tables cannot be the only thing that contains all the information. Tables do NOT need to be to only things people look at. That’s just not how Wikipedia works. Tvx1 23:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, nobody suggested the tables should replace prose nor should be the only place to carry all the information. We're all very clear on this.
Nobody suggested tables must be the only thing people look at. I did however say tables quite often are the only place people look, with reasonable expectation that reasonable information is included.
If you want to read words that aren't there instead of responding to the points I've raised about it being a championship standings table, it comes across as obstinance. So why do we continue this discussion?
I shall take my efforts and put them into improving articles instead. Rally Wonk (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Tables cannot substitute prose. We can all agree on that. So if someone chooses to just look at the table and ignore the prose, its because he isn't interested in the prose, just results, and he won't get the results. "The person won't understand why he didn't scored points". If the reader is interested in finding why, he will have to look at the prose. Can't expect to look at a table that its just a summary and a mean to provide visual aid. As including SUS, but not other absences like the illness, how would you distinct the several types of suspensions? By superlicense points or sportings manner, or for extra F1 reasons like politics or crime related? Will we make room just for some (the sport related ones) or bring them all? And if a driver with a very long contract gets a very long suspension, lets say 1,5 years. Will he be listed in results table for 1,5 season? Does this make any sense? I'm against this SUS. The driver didn't take part in the competition on that weekend, he as no result. Either because it was for competing in another series, being ill, not having money, the team not having money, or being suspended, that should be in prose. Is there any prose missing in any article? Looks room for improvement. Rpo.castro (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK, there is only one type of suspension - the temporary official restriction on use of a competition licence. The reasons behind them don't belong in a table. If the driver belongs in the championship standings, sure, put SUS but no need if there were no starts that season.
There is a distinction between Did not enter and Could not enter which is worth including as a visual aid. So far, there has not been a convincing reason why it is not.
A driver who was ill is more likely to withdraw an entry, and some of these hypothetical scenarios are genuine Did not enters. A SUS may cover where a driver did enter but the disciplinary came before publication of entries - which I have seen now is on the race weekend. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No there is not distinction between did not enter en could no enter. No entered is not entered. Tvx1 11:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Same here. There is no discussion. Points are being raised and nobody's listening. No counter-argument beyond "no entry = empty cell", which is quite literally the basis being challenged. I'm not bothered about an FIA F3 points table enough to keep wasting my time. MSport1005 (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh come on. @SSSB and Rpo.castro have given pretty clear explanations, but you just refuse to accept them. Meanwhile, neither of you two have actually provided a sensible argument as to why a lone exception should be made for non-entrires through suspensions. Tvx1 11:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
"Sensible arguments". Classy way to go about a discussion... Have a nice day. MSport1005 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You can discard all our arguments and when we point out that you have convinced no one with yours, you’re gonna lecture ME about class? Nice going. Tvx1 14:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This is what I meant by earlier by angry and insulting. He has no respect for others, or the concept of consensus editing. --Falcadore (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The user has already been reported for uncivil behavior here. MSportWiki (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's frustrating. User:Rally Wonk tried to reason with them on their talk page, the reply they got was also not very appreciative.
Either way, I think your view (leaving the cells empty) has prevailed, so I will remove the EX's in 2019 Formula 2 Championship and 2022 Formula 2 Championship. MSport1005 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I don‘t think you‘re talking about the same person here. Falcadore appears to be talking about you. As for the conversation on my talk page, is it really that surprising that I was not very appreciative to someone who asks me on my talk page to step away from the discussion. Tvx1 18:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If you want to complain about each other, either do it on the user talk pages (by all means, ping each other) or at WP:AIN, where it belongs. Lets keep this page to discussing how we can improve the wikiproject and its respective articles. Because I watch this page to help improve the motorsport articles, not to watch you complain about each other. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I‘m not complaining. I‘m just reacting to accusations thrown at me. The discussion itself has run its course though, so it’s better to close it now. Tvx1 22:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. MSport1005 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure we have had this debate before. Or was that at WP:WikiProject Formula One. In any case, the only compariable case I could think of was Grosjean at the 2012 Italian Grand Prix, and the table at 2012 Formula One World Championship shows a blank space. SSSB (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Likewise Michael Schumacher during the 1994 Formula One World Championship, or BAR during the 2005 Formula One World Championship. Tvx1 19:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting, because BAR are blank. But Michael Schumacher shows as "EX" (in 1997 Formula One World Championship. SSSB (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
2019 Formula 2 Championship — Raghunathan shows as "EX".
2022 Formula 2 Championship — Cordeel, Caldwell and Nissany all show as "EX". MSport1005 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
These should be removed as well. Tvx1 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to 1994 championship for Schumacher, when he was banned from entering for two events, not 1997, when he was excluded after the season. Tvx1 13:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I meant 1994, I typed 1997 by accident. SSSB (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
These should not have been there. They were recently incorrectly added by an anonymous editor against consensus. I removed them again. Tvx1 17:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I think a blank space would be better. I think Excluded would be used if we that did happen during the race weekend as result of something that happened during that weekend. And we have the precedent stated by SSSB.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Is it just me or do we have a consensus that should be implemented? --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd say so. Four of you support leaving the cells empty — just two of us have contested it. MSport1005 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Andrea Kimi Antonelli#Requested move 3 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andrea Kimi Antonelli#Requested move 3 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: the discussion has been closed. The article was not moved. SSSB (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding NASCAR Xfinity and truck races to track articles?

I noticed in some track articles that NASCAR Xfinity and truck races are getting removed from the Event sections, even for tracks that have more history with those two series but are being removed due to recent Cup racing there. I wonder if we can re-add those races to just the Event section? MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

These are basically just the junior series of the NASCAR Cup and, with a few exceptions, they take part one the same weekend with the cup race. I would mention them in sidebars of track articles where they race exclusively without a Cup series event. Otherwise the sidebar would be too long. For example: then you would also have to mention the junior series (Formula 2, Formula 3, FIA Academy) for Formula 1 tracks, too. In any case, as I wrote in the previous discussion, Xfinity and Truck Series should be mentioned in the race track's history section. Especially on some tracks like Gateway, Iowa, Nashville or Kentucky, the small series ran long before the first Cup event. --Mark McWire (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

FF Corse - help with results and page building

I wish to create a page with results and information for Ferrari race team FF Corse. Can anyone assist with my first page and building the results list? Car man311 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Autosport+ article access

Hello, hoping someone with an Autosport+ subscription can help me get access to the following article: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/will-saubers-c44-go-down-as-f1s-best-point-less-car-or-are-there-better-contenders/10661353/ 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@5225C: What specific information from the article are you after? I'm loath to provide the entire article for copyright reasons. DH85868993 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping to add their assessment of the C44 to the car's article, but without seeing the full article I can't really tell what content would be relevant. Perhaps you could share me a printout of the article over email? 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@5225C: That sounds reasonable. Check your inbox. DH85868993 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I appreciate your assistance! 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Trimming of event and lead sections

Admittedly, I've been in a bit of a battle between myself and @MysticCipher87(alt-account) over what should be included in the events section. I believe that the addition and the removal of races should be included. I conceded to a lot of their concerns (which I do now think have a reasonable basis behind them from when I was initially very hard-line on keeping them the way I initially edited it); but they're still insistent on reverting to their section which is practically the same thing (with improper grammar, but that's not important for this). But now, it's getting ridiculous with the trimming of leads that merely summarizes the history and amenities of the track. I feel as if we're now taking away way, way too much and we need to come to some sort of consensus for this. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have worked my tail off to expand articles such as Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, Bristol Motor Speedway, and other NASCAR facilities across the United States from problem-riddled articles into fleshed-out, GA/FA eligible articles. I just feel as if this argument needs to stop; and I've finally decided to come to a consensus with the WP:MOTORSPORTS group. Please let me know what y'all think; personally, I think that the trimming of at least the leads by Mystic is unnecessary. I do however understand the events and I've tried to trim that down; but no matter what, it keeps getting reverted. I just want all this to stop. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this with a fresh pair of eyes, the current lead for Las Vegas Motor Speedway is far too short given the contents of the article. I can understand where MysticCipher87(alt-account) may have wanted to trim things down a little bit, but to leave it in its current state without providing much of an explanation other than "Trimming" or "Simplifying" in their edit summaries has me understanding why Nascar9919 is feeling frustrated.
I'd suggest trying to find a middle ground. Given that Nascar9919 only did a partial revert of MysticCipher87(alt-account)'s removal, it appears he is willing to make some concessions here. I'd love to hear from MysticCipher87(alt-account) as to why they've made the changes they have and why they feel they're necessary, but I will firmly say that the Charlotte and Bristol articles' leads are much closer to what I'd expect from a GA/FA-level track article than the current Las Vegas one is. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I find myself siding with MysticCipher87. There's too much nuanced detail for the basic statements of what the tracks are and why they are notable. This is what the lead is for, introducing the article. The history of auto racing in the 1940s and the man's name who founded it aren't important to people who will only read above the break of Charlotte Speedway. And even now in it's trimmed state, the point that Las Vegas speedway is served by the interstate and the boulevard is unnecessary to most people at this point.
I will give you much credit for the effort you put in. And in relevant appropriate sections below the break, no content should necessarily be removed. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk: Like what BcSchneider said: a middle ground should be found. I'm completely fine with making concessions. But the extent to what Mystic is doing is I think too extreme; one short paragraph seems way insufficient for the facility. In my opinion, paragraphs that summarize short briefs of the history and amenities found at the facility should be fine. Perhaps combine the amenities and the first lead paragraph like in Kentucky Speedway and cut down on the history. To be honest, I included the interstates as I was taking inspiration from the only other NASCAR facility to get a GA (Auto Club Speedway) but now that I think about it, the article is outdated for GA standards and could possibly warrant a GAN. But my main argument is I believe Mystic is cutting out too much; and right now, with no explanation for the leads. As for the events, I've already made my concessions; but they keep getting reverted. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Clarifying that this is the lead I looked at when I made my initial comment. Like I said, something in between is probably best - the originals were likely too detailed, but I think we also need more than three sentences. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know enough on the subjects to agree or disagree on reaching a middle ground. But I will say content is relevant or notable, or it's not. You can't be half pregnant. It's not helpful for the reader that two editors drew an arbitrary line somewhere to prevent a dispute escalating. Rally Wonk (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk: What do you think should be in the lead? I think that a shortened history and brief overlook on amenities should be included. Also: how long do you think it should be? I can see why 3 paragraphs might be a bit long; but a singular 3-sentence paragraph just doesn't seem to cut it. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk & @Bcschneider53: PS, I think for now that me and @MysticCipher87(alt-account) need to stop making massive edits on these pages and go back to some old version before all this started until we can get a consensus on what and what not to include. It's getting way, way too disruptive for the reader with proper grammar being thrown to the wayside. Let's at least restore some old version on all pages and then decide what to do. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Update: going to spur the initiative and revert to an old version of the page of what I thought was a middle ground for the events section. Feel free to tell me y'all's thoughts for the event section once I'm done. Also going to restore the two pages that have the original leads as well so a discussion can be started on those and what to include in a lead. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
See MOS:Lead. I'm not familiar with these tracks so cannot really say precisely, but I think all I would want to know from the lead is where it is and when it was built, what the track is/was used for, and what makes it famous/unique amongst it's peers. Everything else can be below the TOC, within appropriate headings.
My POV is against what feels like filling column inches like a newspaper because they're seen as available. I quickly looked at Kentucky Speedway and the opening paragraph is telling me about a track manager who left the job 4 years ago. If he is a significant person or achieved something significant for the track I'll need to be told why here, else if he is not, it doesn't fit the MOS.
It says "Kentucky Speedway is served by Interstate 71 and Kentucky Route 35." at the end of the first sentence; and in Description > Amenities section it's pointed out that "Kentucky Speedway is located at an intersection between Interstate 71 and Kentucky Route 35." There's no link with the significant point about traffic congestion mentioned in the second paragraph, but when reading about that in the relevant section, the roads are mentioned a third time, which for me, is the only place to mention them. Road access is expected, it's not an amenity and we're not here for directions. We have the location in the first sentence and the address in the infobox, it's enough.
I read the second paragraph several times and struggled to maintain attention. If I can rewrite this in plain English it would read something like: "The facility opened in 2000 following a rise in popularity of stock car racing in the 1990s. However, the first NASCAR races were not held until 2011, following legal battles between the track's original owner and NASCAR, and a change of ownership in 2010. Racing at the track ceased in 2021 due to [whatever]". Were there no notable racing incidents or wins at this track to mention here?
I don't want to sound aggressively hyper-critical so hopefully I'm being helpful. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk: No worries! Be as open and honest as you wish. For the case of Kentucky Speedway- I see what you mean with the last person who ran the track. I believe that it's important enough to put who owns the facility and who runs the track; but in this case, no one is running it. I'll end up deleting that; your point makes enough sense. For the interstate problem: truth be told, again, was inspired by Auto Club Speedway putting that into the lead (which again, I now realize is outdated and probably needs a review.
As for the history: will be honest, they might be a bit too detailed now that I think of it. I honestly did struggle a bit since there's only two circuits on this project that have GA status; I tried my best to summarize the major developments of a facility. Things like owner changes, financial troubles, etc. I was blind going in and for me, leads are some of the hardest things to write in the world. I can say I tried my best with what examples I had; but, I will state that they were a pain to write and I still think about how to properly summarize the history of a facility in a lead. Kentucky Speedway was probably the worst one I wrote... need to fix that. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rally Wonk: Shortened the lead up by a bit. Let me know your thoughts; if it's still too long for you, let me know. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, all well and good to have a discussion about what should or shouldn't be on the pages but this isn't even that - this is just one user making mass reversions without any conversation or really any explanation provided. Shouldn't be too hard to come to a compromise especially with a bunch of users here clearly interested in working it out - would be great if @MysticCipher87(alt-account) could provide a bit of explanation or accountability though because this looks entirely too frustrating. Toffeenix (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to trim it down because some of the stuff is already there or it's repeated a bunch. The event section should just be about talking about the races and not go into too much detail, as it's already in the page and it's just getting repeated or it's on the race pages. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@MysticCipher87(alt-account): OK, I'm not going to argue that I may have been a bit too detailed at first. But I've tried my best to make concessions; why do you still keep reverting them? If you're not happy, a discussion to reach consensus would have been nice. The mass reverts to each other are just disruptive at this point. Also, initiating a discussion before making sweeping changes to a significant number of pages and first gaining consensus on the topic would have been great as well.
And about the leads: why? One paragraph isn't going to cut it. Again, first gaining consensus on the topic before making changes to a significant number of pages would have been great instead of what's going on right now. I'd like to revert to an old version of a page, discuss and gain consensus on what we can keep or discard, and make the proper edits from there to end this once and for all. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 16:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Your "concessions" are still adding mass amounts of trivia to the articles. For example, [2], you restore two paragraphs o pure trivia to the lead paragraph, and you again restore nonsense about the Ferko lawsuit, when that is adequately covered in its own article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: After reviewing the edits, articles, reverts and this discussion, I'm fully siding with Nascar9919 on this one. MysticCipher87(alt-account) is clearly not willing to compromise — IмSтevan talk 11:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hard to compromise when the other user keeps reverting to add trivia and cruft. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing repeated information in track pages

I noticed that some track pages have repeated information, even within the same section. Is it okay if we remove these? One notable one is in the nascar part of Texas Motor Speedway#Events where The fall date became the spring date was mentioned twice. Or the Ferko lawsuit in the Texas Motor Speedway#Speedway's stabilization and expansion was also mentioned in the event sectionMysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

  • 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 [3] similar to ones published by others). See this nine news article for a summary of the original article [4] 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)
    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)
    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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive_26&oldid=1263089169"