Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 13

Category:24 Hours of Le Mans race cars
Category:24 Hours of Le Mans race cars has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed cat rename
I have proposed that be renamed to. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Circuit race results articles nominated for deletion
Brands Hatch race results and Silverstone race results have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Articles for deletion/Brands Hatch race results and Articles for deletion/Silverstone race results. DH85868993 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger
It has been proposed that 6 Hours of Brno be merged into Czechoslovakian Grand Prix. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Czechoslovakian_Grand_Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mugen
have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * file:Mugen logo.jpg
 * file:Mugen Decal.jpg

Motor racing
I find it odd that Motor racing redirects to a list of activities, including "boat racing" and "hovercraft racing", many of which I have never heard described as "motor racing", nor would I expect to, while the obvious article which I would expect to alight at is actually titled "Auto racing", a term which to me sounds US-specific. Is "motor racing" not an international term for the activity that the "Auto racing" article describes? 86.146.109.150 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with you. Auto racing is a very US-specific term. Readro (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Motor racing means a form of racing powered by a motor. So it means lots of things like boats, hovercraft, motorcycles, aircraft. But it does not include Rallying, Drifting or Time Attack as they are not "racing". Motorsport does include rallying, drifitng, time attack, and technically it would also include stuff like parasailing. Auto Racing while an AMerican sounding term because of the use of Auto instead of 'car'.
 * If you are concerned that these are too "dictionary perfect", well, it is supposed to be. This is encyclopedia so correct terminology will be used instead of what you think might be correct. --Falcadore (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Auto racing" is not correct, according to usual usage, outside the US. It is not acceptable to have a US-specific title for an article that covers a worldwide sport. 86.160.209.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Falcadore, I'd argue that including all forms of racing powered by a motor under "motor racing" is not being dictionary perfect. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. The OED defines 'motor racing' as a sport conducted using "motor vehicles, especially cars." In turn they define 'motor vehicle' as "a road vehicle". This specifically excludes water craft and aerial craft from inclusion within 'motor racing'. Collins (British) states that motor racing is "the sport of racing fast cars". Merriam-Webster (US) offers no opinion on either 'motor racing' or 'auto racing', and Dictionary.com (also US) only lists 'auto racing' that, unsurprisingly, is limited to automobiles. Our sister project, Wiktionary, contradicts itself by on the one hand including boats under 'motor racing', but then stating that the term is synonymous with 'motorsport' which specifically includes only automobiles. In addition, no source is given for the Wiktionary entry so it bears no more weight than any other unreferenced Wiki 'fact'. In general, I think the majority of hard and soft third-party evidence shows that 'motor racing' means having wheels.  Pyrop e  20:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From Macquarie Dictionary:
 * motorsport
 * any of various races or competitive activities involving motor vehicles, as cars, monster trucks, motorcycles, etc
 * vehicle
 * any receptacle, or means of transport, in which something is carried or conveyed, or travels.
 * I do not see anywhere to suggest water or air vehicles are excluded. --Falcadore (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, thanks, that goes a long way to explaining the confusion. What you are saying is that 'motor racing' (which is actually the term under discussion) has a uniquely Australian interpretation that includes forms of motorised transport not usually included in British and North American terminology. If that is the case then I don't see why it is the Australian usage is the one we are putting front and centre here on Wikipedia. By all means refer to it, but this anomalous usage is just that, an anomaly. The vast, and I do mean vast, majority of English language print encyclopedias that I can find reference to, most dictionaries, and most uses of the term on informal sources, take 'motor racing' (and by extension 'motor sport' or 'motorsport') to mean wheeled vehicles only. Just take a look at Wikipedia's own coverage of motorboat racing (note the distinct terminology), where the term 'motor racing' is virtually absent. In fact, the one use that I did find in a lede section occurs specifically to differentiate "F1 Powerboat racing" from "Formula One motor racing". I can see why we have some heartfelt opinions here, but that's why we need to use hard sources not just what people think or feel.  Pyrop e  22:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Motor racing, as it is two words, was not listed in this dictionary. But if you can see anywhere in those definations that it is AU exclusive, I'd like to know because I can't see it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Macquarie is an Australian English dictionary. The others that I have cited cover the other globally abundant English varieties, and they do specifically limit 'motor racing' to wheeled vehicles, either explicitly or by defining 'motor vehicle' as a wheeled conveyance.  Pyrop e  14:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Stupid question: What's the "correct" term for racing that involves cars? Most non-US sources use the term "motorsport", but that, as earlier stated, may be defined broadly. ESPN.com has a "Racing" page, Fox Sports has a "Motor page, NBC Sports has a "Motor sports" page that includes racing involving motorized vehicles that are not called NASCAR; only CBS Sports has a section called "Auto racing". At the very bottom of the ESPN page is an invitation for tickets on "motorsports" events. Is "auto racing" a completely made up term? Is it even a popular term in the U.S.? – H T  D  15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try typing "auto racing" into Google. The 24 million results include many news sources as well as professional organizations. Rmhermen (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. I just realized the "AR" in "NASCAR" means auto racing. – H T  D  15:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume the use of the term auto racing is to coincide with the fact that we have our article titled automobile. The359  ( Talk ) 22:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "automobile racing"? Also, this was previously discussed; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 11. – H T  D  15:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think that "automobile racing" is as narrow as the therm can be without excluding/including too much.  75.247.9.214 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that motor vehicle racing, while probably not a very common name, would not be as likely to attract the particular objection that it could refer to boat or aircraft racing.   AgnosticAphid  talk 22:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any difference. A boat is still a vehicle. --Falcadore (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a motor vehicle in my general experience and per the WP article.  AgnosticAphid  talk 23:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well have a look at Vehicle and it contradicts what you just said. --Falcadore (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest vehicle racing, I suggested motor vehicle racing. So I think the motor vehicle article is more relevant, and WP says that's limited to things that have wheels and travel on roads, which suggests that the common understanding of "motor vehicle" does too, if that article is properly name per COMMONNAME. But I was just trying to be helpful and didn't mean to be contentious.  AgnosticAphid  talk 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that a boat is a vehicle, but a motor boat is not a motor vehicle? --Falcadore (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. In English, a motorboat is a vehicle with a motor but not a "motor vehicle."  I can't say I understand why you seem to be so confused by my short and straighforward posts.  Unfortunately with are stuck with the English meanings we have and not the less confusing ones we might prefer.  Given that Wikipedia exists just fine with one "vehicle" article and another "motor vehicle" article, I don't see what is wrong with having one article about "motor racing" and another about "motor vehicle racing."  AgnosticAphid  talk 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand why you'd be advocating a phrase like "motor vehicle racing" when it does not exists in regular usage anywhere. Creating a new title through a lack of alternative options has never been the wikipedia way. --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Using "motor cehicle racing" as an article name would definitely violate WP:COMMONNAME. I personally have no problem with the articles the way they are. -Drdisque (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps Agnosticaphid's two pages are actually better seen as Motorsport and Motor racing. 'Motorsport' does cover some motorised sport other than road vehicles; the air racing crowd definitely see themselves as the "fastest motor sport in the world" (to quote the Reno Air Races folk). Also, as I stated previously, the motorboat racing community seem to see themselves as a subset of boat racing rather than motorsport, and neither group use the term 'motor racing' as far as I can see. 'Motor racing', by contrast, seems to be a term limited to wheeled vehicles. These two terms already exist, and all that it would take to refine them in the pages we have at present it that the redirect from Motor racing would be pointed toward Auto racing instead of Motorsport. This would address the OP's point, and if other categories need to be moved in and out of the Motorsport page then that is a discussion we can have elsewhere (although I think there's no real need).  Pyrop e  15:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite all the dicussion, the unsatisfcatory situation remains that the main article about the very international sport of motor racing is still titled Auto racing, which ia a US-specific term. I wish someone would fix this because presently it is not really acceptable. 81.159.106.144 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Motorsports are distinguished from human sports by the fact that they are powered by some mechanical motor. That general terms like motor race and automobile came to be applied specifically to cars is a common misfortune in language.  The international usage has had an effect on usage within the USA.  But in the USA, words like motorcycle, motorboat, motorhome, even motorcar, but especially motorsports (e.g., Motorsports Hall of Fame of America) ensure that motor-anything won't mean specifically cars in American English in the foreseeable future.  75.247.9.214 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not strictly true. Motorsports doesn't just cover cars, at least to me, as a Brit. To me, "motorsport" encompasses automobiles, motorcycles, and, in fact, anything that involves an engine of some kind, a device with wheels, where the vehicle is not confined to one line (for example, a locomotive, or a Scalectrix-style track, would not classify as motorsport) and where the person controlling the vehicle is actually located in said vehicle (ruling out RC cars.) However, I appreciate that this is only what I think, and isn't necessarily what a dictionary definition, or common viewpoint, might say. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Driver infobox
This seriously needs a lot of work. At the moment, we are using br tags to separate various season entries, which obviously results in quite a variation in how the articles appear to a viewer, as editors configure the infoboxes based on their screen setup. What we need to do is utilize a WP:FOOTBALL-style infobox, where you have |seriesx and |seriesyearsx type differentiations, in place of the current, blanket |prev series and |prev series years. What do people think about this? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which infobox? There are a few. And which football infobox? --Falcadore (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * -headdesks at self- I should've been a lot more clear: the Template:Infobox racing driver is the one I am referring to here, and Template:Infobox football biography has the sort of format I'd like. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No comments about this? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current scheme of using s is less than ideal and using |seriesx and |seriesyearsx in the style of Template:Infobox football biography would be an improvement. If there are no objections within a reasonable timeframe, we can start thinking about an update/migration strategy. I've advertised this discussion at Template talk:Infobox racing driver. DH85868993 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, we should do something about the alignment issue (as I commented on before at Template talk:Infobox racing driver). it causes problems with accessibility, since the information does not appear linearly in the HTML source.  you can see the problem if you try to cut-and-paste the contents of the infobox.  Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised that we still use such a rudimentary solution for what is a fairly important infobox. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Whilst I wouldn't exactly call this a consensus just yet, there's no opposes to this, so what should we do? Make the change, leave the current setup temporarily, and then have a bot migrate the formatting? Or should we run an RfC or something before doing this? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bit of a dick, but is anything going to happen with this? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert Clément in his Clément-Bayard at the 1906 French Grand Prix.jpg
image:Albert Clément in his Clément-Bayard at the 1906 French Grand Prix.jpg has been nominated for deleton -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

750 Motor Club
I've just expanded this massively, although all the entries are quite short (before, most of them were empty.) However, there are a few issues I haven't been able to resolve: Any help with these would be much appreciated. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 11:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) What was the "All Comers" series exactly? I can't find anything at all on this on the web.
 * 2) Has anyone got a source that confirms when the 750 MC stopped supporting the Golf GTI series?
 * 3) Are there any other notable series run by the 750 MC in the past that aren't listed?

Boillot1914Indy.jpg
has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to save it by adding a source, but I couldn't find one. It's obviously old enough to not be copyrighted though. I've replaced it in the article with a sourced image from the commons. Oh well. -Drdisque (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple series in one season
Hi, I just want to ask is it possible to add in a driver infobox a second series? MbahGondrong (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of a driver's infobox is to highlight his or her current series. But you can include a second infobox in an article and cut it down to just the series statistics without doubling up on the driver's personal information. --Falcadore (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, it should be sufficient, there is still the name on top of the second infobox like this. Is it possible to remove it? MbahGondrong (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You still have to add the name = criteria, but leave it blank. I would strongly suggest however a driver who has only progressed as far as Formula 3 that they do not have two series of sufficient notability to cover at the same time. Just pick the more important one. It's more important a drivers series as written with text rather than tabulated with statistics. --Falcadore (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the help! MbahGondrong (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Team mate comparison
An editor has added a table of team mate comparisons to the Rubens Barrichello article. Useful information or unsourced fancruft? I thought I would seek the opinion of the project. Britmax (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from anything else, it's original research. Remove. --Falcadore (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Damon Hill (Arrows)
The changes made today seem Ok but can anyone with access to the source check whether the change from Williams to Mclaren is supported? Britmax (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm 99% sure it was me that added the info originally and yes, it is. It read "McLaren" originally but as I'm not around as much lately the edit changing this passed me by.  Pyrop e  10:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly won't be Williams that made him an offer he rejected; it was Mansell they did that to, and they simply decided against renewing Hill's contract, signing Frentzen instead. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I thought I'd check as people do make random changes around here for no reason that I can see. Britmax (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up on table borking by VisualEditor
Please note that a sharper eye needs to be kept on things now that VisualEditor has been pushed (deliberate wording) on the community, especially for IP editors. This is an example of what VE does when somebody edits a table - anything in a table, apparently - to said tables. I've seen it muck with infobox formatting too, albiet in ways that didn't visually change the box. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unclassified?
Since there are categories for defunct sports teams, IMO there should be a cat for defunct racing teams (by formula or sanctioning body). Comment? Anybody know how to create said cat(s)? (I have no idea.)  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CAT. Someone who has been editing here since 2005 really shouldn't be expecting others to take responsibility for acting on their every whim.  Pyrop e  16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How the hell is that a useful response? They're looking for comments on if this idea is sensible or not, not just how to create cats. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the whole of Trekphiler's question. The second half contains the answers you are seeking; in addition to very clearly explaining the mechanism of creating a new category WP:CAT also explains the logical approach needed to working out whether a category is required. Trekphiler appears to still be confused, after well over seven years of contributing here, as to how categories are created, so some assistance is clearly required. As for the first half, I don't care either way so offering an opinion would be of little help. Also, the OP statement lacks a lot that is needed to be able to debate the point properly. Why is a new category suggested? Simply because is can be? Is there some benefit to being able to group together all defunct teams? Are existing team categories collapsing into uselessness under the weight of hundreds of included pages? I note that your response, Lukeno94, contributes substantially less to this debate than even my original brief response. Perhaps in the excitement of leaping on your high horse you missed the fact that you just committed the self-same act that you erroneously accuse me of perpetrating. Jeez, this place sucks these days.  Pyrop e  17:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the interest in generating some actual discussion, I will proffer my opinion. I do not think the additional categorization is necessary. I like seeing the current teams along-side the defunct teams. Also, there's a difficult situation to handle when a team is active in one category but defunct in another category or when an entire series is defunct. For example, should Category:Champ Car teams be completely recatted to Category:Defunct Champ Car teams? I don't think so. -Drdisque (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ♠This was suggested in the interest of even coverage. If we're going to have cats for defunct sports leagues & their teams, why should race series & teams be excluded?
 * ♠Is it it strictly necessary? IDK. If I was looking for teams that were only active in a given decade, but aren't around now, I can see it would helpful.
 * ♠It also strikes me it would help guide readers without extensive (or any) knowledge of the sport, or of a given series. (And who among us, even as race fans, knows ever team in every series?)
 * ♠All that said, IDK how useful it would actually be, because I've never tried (needed) to search teams that way. I have, however, searched baseball teams with "defunct", & it proved a help. So, I imagine this would, too.
 * ♠As to "carryover", IDK. Does that mean all pages in need to be recatted? Maybe. Is that more work than it's worth? IDK, since AFAIK there's no count of how many pages would fall into "defunct team" but not "defunct series". It might be better to list as "defunct motor racing team", & cat the page to the series (which, AFAIK, is already done).   TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to apologize to Pyrope here; although I still believe that the latter half of his initial comment was unconstructive, my reply wasn't helpful either - stress prior to a football match is to blame. Anyway, I think there should be a category for defunct teams, but defunct by year, not by series. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠It occurs to me if the series is defunct, teams that fell under it (& therefore became "defunct by series" by default) would be sub-pages of the series cat page. Wouldn't they? Which would solve that problem, at least, leaving only teams defunct from other series but still in operation, or gone entire.
 * ♠If it turns out this is too complicated to organize, I won't be griping about it.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  09:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If a series folds, it is rare that the team folds with it - 90% of the time they'll switch elsewhere. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of '24 Hours of Le Mans' to 'Le Mans 24 Hours'
The discussion is Here. Petecarney (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Circuit maps
Hi! Can someone make correct map of Autódromo Termas de Río Hondo and Circuito da Boavista  ? --Alex (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RM relisted
FYI Talk:Robert Visoiu → Robert Vișoiu In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rex ACME 350 TT 1926 Wal Handley.jpg
image:Rex ACME 350 TT 1926 Wal Handley.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Southern 100.jpg
image:Southern 100.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmcclogo2.jpg
image:Mmcclogo2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD notice
Articles for deletion/Solar Midget Race Car may be of interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranking methods
Hi, folks! You may have noticed that champiosnhips have different methods of determining drivers standings. An example is the 2012 International GT Open season: one way is to say "López and Montermini were 9th because 8 drivers scored more points" (as in golf). The other is "López and Montermini were 5th because Leo and Bruni tied for 1st, Tandy and Holzer for 2nd, Barba and Malucelli for 3rd, and Giammaria and Ramos for 4th".

I've checked many official websites. VLN and Italian GT use the first method, while the ACO, SRO, Grand-Am, VdeV and Japanese Super GT championships use the second method.

Now, if you check the GT Open official website, you see that López was ranked 5th in 2011 and 5th in 2012. Ties were separated in 2011 but grouped in 2012.

What I'm most worried about is the articles on drivers. It's confusing to mix rankings up. What do you think about the issue? --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I'm the one who has sparked this, although I really don't care either way, I think this is something we need to cleanup once and for all, and need to do it quickly. As NaBUru38 has alluded to, different series present things in different ways; but often, reliable sources will present things in their own way, regardless of what the official source says (and sometimes the official sources are junk... anyone who looks at the official data for the 2004 British GT season will know what I mean) - so we need to come up with our own guideline, regardless of what the external sources say. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Championships are awarded by organisers (ACO, FIA, SRO, GT Sport, etc.). Their rankings are the championship standings.  Outside sources are, quite frankly, irrelevant.


 * Each series will have its own sporting regulations for determining how it defines driver pairings and how it interprets ties. Usually, drivers who share a car for the entire season are treated as a single entity and thus are given a single ranking, not a "tied" ranking.  Since this discussion seems to hinge on sports car racing, where two or three drivers to a car is the standard, this grouping of drivers into a single entity is the norm.


 * Now, specifically in reference to International GT, some series will attempt to break up the grouping of driver pairs by using other factors to determine which driver is ahead, such as total drive time in the car. Thus the 2011 rankings, with each driver having an independent ranking, may be correct to the 2011 regulations.  In 2012, they may have abandoned that rule.  I do not know for sure but I'm sure someone can dig up the sporting regulations for the series.  So, in my mind, Lopez was 5th in 2011 and 5th in 2012.


 * There should be no universal standard. Use what the series uses.  The359  ( Talk ) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely with The359. We don't get a say at all. It is what is published by the officials of that series. We do not get to interpret their regulations in the interests of consistency. We don't get to say Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister of Australia because he got the most votes at the last election because that did not matter as he could not form government. We record what actually happens, not what we think should happen. This is a non-debate. --Falcadore (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"We don't get a say at all."? Some sanctioning body adopts a nonsensical standard for rankings, & we can't call it absurd? I really don't understand that at all. (Then again, I don't understand people who say, if two are tied for first, the next guy is third, either....)
 * ♠I can just hear the cries of "original research". If a source publishes points, do you honestly mean we aren't entitled to count them for ourselves? That we aren't entitled to say, "Senna & Prost, each with fifty, tied for first, while Mansell, with 48, was second", even if the source says nothing? Or to say the very same, adding, "[source] lists Mansell third"? That's a pretty ridiculous definition of "original research".
 * ♠Next, you'll be saying, if Hot Rod says the Camaro has 300hp & Car Craft says the Mustang has 290, we can't say the Camaro has more power. Seriously? Is that where you want to end up?  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you prefer to invent your own system rather than that of the official sanctioning bodies? Why is your opinion of greater worth than the people competing in and running these motor racing series? --Falcadore (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem comes when the official sources are inaccessible, or completely junk. I can refer back to my comment about the 2004 British GT season, where the "official" results were utterly useless. And when these apply, we end up using third-party sources - which often contradict each other. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the official sources are unavailable, then of course we can use outside sources. However, why are we writing off some official season results are junk or useless?  The methodology of the sanctioning body does not have to make sense to you, we report the facts, not what we interpret from the facts.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm writing off the official source for this for several reasons: it was incomplete, several drivers had their names misspelled (and sometimes appeared three times in the same standings, with their points split across the various misspellings) drivers competed in races, even won their class, and yet somehow were missed out... It's nothing to do with their methodology; it was a totally junk source. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're writing off official sources because a nine year old source has mistakes? You're going to have to come up with a better reason than that to start reinterpreting official championship standings.  Spelling mistakes are one thing, blatantly reranking someone because you don't like their scoring method is an entirely different matter.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There can be actually reasons for a driver to appear three times in a table, for example when points awarded to driver combinations not to drivers individually. Just because you can't see the methodology does not mean there is none, just you can't see it. When you put your own opinion above official sources for reasons you have assumed, then you've crossed a line and are now editing outside of Wikipedia's mandate. --Falcadore (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:The359: I'm writing off that source, which was incomplete anyway (ignored the last race of the season). User:Falcadore: you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. Driver X, say his name was John Smith, shows up as John Smith, John Smyth and Jon Smith. All are the same driver; yet their points have been totally messed up, and split randomly between them. Generally, of course the official sources are good; I'm simply pointing out that they're not infallible, as some seem to portray. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

♠"So you prefer to invent your own system rather than that of the official sanctioning bodies?" I prefer a sensible one to one that's idiotic. And it's not "my own invention". It's called "knowing how to count". It's only in the last decade or so the idea of a tie not meaning equal ranking, in some way I have yet to grasp, has become commonplace. IMO, that's idiotic & should be rejected, sourced or not. And defending it because it's sourced is falling into the WP absurdity of defending the ridiculous simply because it's sourced: sourced stupidity is still stupidity, & sourced nonsense is still nonsense. TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura  14:47 & 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to use what the league or sanctioning body publishes (except for things like spelling errors). If it seems particularly odd, you can note "Final standings published by ________ Racing Sanctioning Body" and cite it. Another instance came up when I was doing Trans-Am Series season articles, for one season (2003 Trans-Am season) the SCCA only lists the first 16 in points, probably because they lost the second page of their records. I just had to note "results incomplete". Sometimes in the case of odd info, you just caveat it rather than going off on your own and making it up. Also, in my opinion, if two are tied for first, the next guy IS third, as two finished ahead of him, so obviously there is disagreement there so we have to go with what the sanctioning body uses. -Drdisque (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"the next guy IS third, as two finished ahead of him" That is exactly the attitude I don't get. How is a tied score equal to two different scores? You're not counting the number of piles, you're ranking the value of them. If they are tied, they are equal, & they amount to one rank, not two. What part of that is unclear?
 * ♠I'm not going to suggest leaving off the points scores of the sanctioning body, just the stupid rankings. I also expect, as usual, to be in the minority.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the next guy is second. You are looking for consistency, but I hate to be the one to point this out but, life is inconsistent. The world is not going to co-operate with your personal wishes. If you have difficulty with that maybe you need to ask yourself why you are editing wikipedia if you only want to write about your version of the world. --Falcadore (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was a series where there were single competitors going head to head and they tied, then yes, the guy in third is third. If its a sportscar series where drivers share a car and points, then a tie for first is simply that pairing finishing first, not two independent drivers finishing first.  Then the next finisher is second in this instance.  As the above examples have been British GT and International GT Open, then this seems to follow more the sports car layout of things with shared drives and paired teams.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the situation; the major confusion is related to sportscar racing; all other forms are generally fairly straightforward. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"and they tied, then yes, the guy in third is third" I give up. That is nonsensical.
 * ♠"You are looking for consistency" No, rationality, as already said.
 * ♠"if you only want to write about your version of the world" I'm not entitled to ask for some kind of standard treatment? Seeing how this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an agglomeration of statistics with no rhyme or reason to them. I do also wonder why you insist on making this about me.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  10:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not nonsensical - depending on the series. While drivers tie in points fairly often, most (if not all...) racing series have tiebreakers. Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards tied for the championship in the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series season, but Tony won the tiebreaker. If the official series tiebreakers break the tie, then, indeed, the guy behind the two who tied (in this case, Kevin Harvick) would indeed be third. In your example above, Mansell would be reported as third, not second, because he finished third. In sports car racing with co-drivers, however, a tiebreaker would not apply as the drivers run together and therefore it is not a tie; the two drivers who teamed for first (say, Scott Pruett and Memo Rojas) would be first, while the driver behind them (Ryan Dalziel) is indeed ranked second despite having two drivers ahead of him. This is how the sanctioning bodies report it, and therefore this is how Wikipedia must report it - as to do otherwise is WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, tiebreakers are restricted to North America, at least, I'm pretty sure they are (when talking about major competitions.) I think Trekphiler has caught the wrong end of the stick; the original comments were about sportscar racing, where two or more people compete in the same car, and, therefore, share the same results for the races they compete together in. For series where each guy competes on his own, in his own car - then to impose our own guideline for setting out the championship positions would be genuinely ludicrous. (I'm wondering how long this confusion has been running through the thread?) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tie breakers exist in every FIA series. The359  ( Talk ) 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this discussion, I find Drdisque's method most agreeable and worthwhile. I can see merit on both sides of the sourced stupidity issue, and both sides of the ranking issue; and see little point in arguing for one side or the other on the two issues. As Drdisque said, why can't we agree on citing "stupid/incorrect/incomplete but official" source and stating counter points? "SCCA published ABCD, but WXYZ seems reasonable/logical/accurate because EFGH" and "Driver A was ranked 3rd by IJKL using STUV method, but he would have been ranked 4th if we use OPQR method." are perfectly acceptable as long as "they (possibly EFGH or OPQR) have been made available to the public in some form". Unified or clean presentation may be a high priority issue for a WP, but would have to become a secondary priority when the core content policies are at stake. Yiba (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

DAB links
A few members may have noticed that I've gone through and fixed a large amount of DAB links, on pages associated with this project. However, a few remain: Any help with these, or any improvements to my fixes, would be appreciated. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Paris–Rouen (motor race): Valance and Fontenay (both are places; the manufacturer Suodais hails from Fontenay, and Bonneills from Valance)
 * James Hunt: John Hogan (the person Hunt approached to fund his attempt to return to F1 in 1990)
 * Kishichiro Okura: Okura (the company/companies/group founded by Kishichiro)
 * Paris–Madrid race: Saint-Cyr (somewhere between Versailles and Bordeaux; the race route passed through here)
 * Fixed the last three. Have no idea how to fix the first one. Valance could well be a misspelling for Valence on the entry sheet. Why not simply remove the links? Yiba (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox motorsport round
template:Infobox motorsport round has been nominated for deletion. I will note this is not the same thing as which seems to be only usable for GP2. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the greatest v the greatest
I have just told another editor who changed "one of the greatest" to "the greatest" that consensus should be sought as to whether we should call any driver the greatest. I think we should stick to "one of" as any more gets us into endless subjective arguments that an encyclopedia should not deal in. Whether other sources call a driver the greatest or not, it is too specific and weaselly for us. However, I would seek consensus from this project on this matter. Britmax (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the core Wikipedia policies is "Neutral Point of View", which is defined as "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly" as stated on the page. The use of "the greatest" automatically violates the policy in most of the cases. Yiba (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather write "the driver ranks 7th in the list of drivers with most wins" or "the driver is one of the 12 multiple champions". It's considerably more neutral and precise. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, providing facts such as those, allows the reader to determine if the driver is "one of the greatest". For example, facts can be broken down even more "Driver Z had more series wins in the 1980s than any other driver" "Driver V won three consecutive championships from 1995 to 1997" or when applicable "Driver R was inducted into the Moldovian Motorsports Hall of Fame in 2003". -Drdisque (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No reference to a driver being the greatest is acceptable per WP:PEACOCK. Let the facts speak for themselves.  Royal broil  03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree it's almost always possible to use some stats to demonstrate the case, what about the likes of Juan Manuel Fangio? AFAIK, nobody doubts he was one of the finest drivers ever to race in Grand Prix or F1. Same applies to Jim Clark. Yes, in both cases, demonstrating it could be done, but is there really any debate on them?  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It still needs to be cited to reliable sources that they're considered the greatest; even though it seems WP:BLUE could apply in the cases of Fangio, Clark, or Sterling Moss, avoiding who tags is desirable. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

""
The naming of the article is up for discussion, see talk:Automobile -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Volant Elf
Hi Everybody, I create Volant Elf, about a competition for promotion (i translate a definition that said Gérard Crombac). Someone can translate. This article talk about the Volant Elf at Castellet racing circuit, not pat Magny-Cours or Le Mans. I'm creating an article about the Volant Shell in french and it will talk about the Volant Elf at Magny-Cours. Finnaly i will create an article about the Volant ACO and maybe something about La Filière FFSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sismarinho (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Russian Time and Motopark Academy
Why we have seperate articles for the same team? Russian Time is just the same Motopark Academy under another moniker. Maybe it has a sense to merge them in one article? Cybervoron (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or turn one into a redirect. --Falcadore (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

International raceographies
I've noticed the recent addition of "International raceographies" (= a list of every international race a driver contested) to various racing driver articles, e.g. Stephen South, Desiré Wilson and Eje Elgh - Raceography. Are these desirable, or are they too detailed for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia? DH85868993 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been faced with incorrect/unreliable sourced info where the generally accepted or widely believed statements cannot be true if scrutinised carefully. About the only attitude for us to take in these situations is to present the process and the result of cross-referencing, and IMO the raceography-type info is quite valuable for that purpose for the editors, if not directly for the readers. Websites come and go on the Internet, books become harder to find, and I see value in Wikipedia providing a safe(r) harbor for raw data. Yiba (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is waaay to detailed. Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository for statistics.  Most top drivers, particularly European drivers, spend the great majority of their careers in 'international' series; looking at Michael Schumacher, for example, he began competing internationally immediately when he moved from karts to cars.  Should we individually list every GP he competed in?  Additionally, in two of the examples DH gives, I noticed plenty of non-international results (British F3 for South, Kyalami and SA F.Atl for Wilson). Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, no, no, and no. For top-level series, including results tables - preferably collapsed - as at Mark Martin can be a good thing, but this is...the only term that comes to mind is 'obnoxious'. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A massive massive chart of red links. Even an entirely seperate article for Eje Elgh, just because the chart is so big.  That alone shows how much overkill this is, you feel the need to start another article just to fit this eyesore.  Yiba, if you feel that this raceography will be a substitute for a lack of references, how exactly do you expect to build a raceography without references?


 * We do not need the result of every race a driver has ever participated in. I don't know how much more simple to put it.  Wikipedia is not a harbor for raw data.


 * I'm also fairly certain that "Raceography" is a completely made up word. The359  ( Talk ) 07:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These sections/articles have to be nuked sharpish... One for RacingStatisticsOverkill.com. Craig  (talk)  21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and no again. I see that the same editor was responsible for the Eje Elgh and Stephen South stats-fests – maybe he needs a friendly word before he wastes more of his time. This is a general-purpose encyclopdia. Raw stats in this quantity don't belong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tables from the two drivers' articles, and attached a PROD to Eje Elgh - Raceography. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely beyond wikipedia's scope. --Falcadore (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and raceography is not even a word. --Falcadore (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As a sort of follow on from such ahem...overkill...ahem... we have a series of articles for racing series, that do not require articles to display their results (mainly down to their lack of notability) but that may just be in my opine. The entire list is here. For instance, British F3 rounds is stooping a bit low, but it seems to be that the articles have only been created in order to aid with certain driver articles, such as the ones listed for Stephen South and Eje Elgh above, as well as the ones that have been input on Gary Brabham as of late. Craig (talk)  00:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just nominated a bunch of them for deletion at: Articles for deletion/1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.1 --Falcadore (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Unified templates for motorsport
I think there should be some discussion on weather there should be one unified template for all motorsport. I find it really strange that there are separate templates for NASCAR, Formula one, WRC, Le Mans etc. I can see the exclusion of Motorbike racing from the Morotcars from this template but it appears that Morotbike racing is in one unified template. I think it would be sensible to begin unifying the plethora of Morotcar racing templates in to one templates. the main benefit would be to reduce dispersal of information and would reduce the accidental missing of information in infoboxes. The unification would also reduce duplication of information such as the name age place of birth etc appearing in multiple templates. Sport and politics (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about infobox templates? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question, yes i am. Sport and politics (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I object to this proposal as a heavy oversimplification, and also should note that Motorcycle racing is under a different WikiProject's jurisdiction. Also, it's incredibly unclear as to exactly what you're talking about here; are you talking about BLPs, articles on racing vehicles, or motorsport teams/organizations? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the drivers as they race in different classes and categories of motorsport. I also object that it would be an over simplification. If the Le Mans template is taken that is a very small template when used. The personal infomration such as name ages nationality etc does that really need duplicating in every infobox just because a racing diver changed class or code. I cannot see an issue wiith what has been done with the motorbike racing template alll the information is there it looks nicer avoids duplication and is easier to follow. The claim of oversimplification can be avoided by adding the necessary infobox template parameters needed to convey all the required information. Is it really though sesible to keep having a situation such as on the Justin Wilson page where three sport infoboxes are needed to convey his motor racing carer when the motorbike infobox templates such as on the Gregorio Lavilla page who has this career all in one infobox template. Sport and politics (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to drivers, then you should know that there IS a unified infobox for racing drivers. Information shouldn't be duplicated, and the instructions for the infoboxes generally make that plain. As for there being individual infoboxes, a lot of them fall under the control of individual motorsport WikiProjects (like the Formula One example) anyway, and sometimes it is useful to separate out some of the information. In the case of Justin Wilson, the length of the infoboxes is not outrageously out of tune with the main body of the article, and the information presented there is useful and encyclopedic. As for Gregorio Lavilla, again, what the motorcycling WikiProject does is irrelevant here, and it doesn't look any better or worse in that format. Also, if we followed your advice and added all of the relevant parameters into one template, then we would end up with an absolute clusterfuck of an infobox that would be way too big to work with, or load. There are FAR few major series in motorcycling than there are in auto racing; that's a simple fact. And there are a lot less types of motorcycling events than there are for auto racing as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, there is a reason there are seperate templates. Also, the assertion that "The unification would also reduce duplication of information such as the name age place of birth etc appearing in multiple templates." is patently false; on the second template, you simply don't fill those in. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult to achieve as different series highlights different information. Most European style motor racing for example put emphassis on second and third place finishes while North American series generally only acknowledge the race winner as being of great achievement. Also North American motorsport puts much emphasis on prize money when in European styhle racing there usually is not any prizemoney. It would be difficult to present one infobox that would but the correct emphasis for the local events. --Falcadore (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As others have said, the reason for separate infoboxes is that different series highlight different achievements and duplication of information can be avoiding by simply not populating the fields in second and subsequent templates. Something else to consider is that the individual series templates were changed back in January such that they can be embedded as sections of Infobox racing driver, e.g. the three individual infoboxes on Sébastien Bourdais' page can be combined into a single box, as shown at right. DH85868993 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's best for drivers who have comparable levels of participation and/or success in different fields. A driver who has 200+ Grands Prix under his belt but only a half dozen rallies plus 2 NASCAR races should have a separate F1 infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the infoboxes might be limited to current category and category best known for? Four boxes is... well look at it, it's like trying to read a telephone directory.
 * The rest of the information could be carried like this:

Motorsports results
--Falcadore (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with the infoboxes; it provides the relevant information on each major series, succicintly, and doesn't require scrolling down to a horrifically complicated table - that actually shows less data. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it complicated? --Falcadore (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The coding, for starters, and then there's the fact that if a driver drove for more than one team for a season...it's a nice effort, to be sure, but my belief is it's a solution in search of a problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is - this table, covering an entire career from go-to-whoah - is substantially shorter than the corresponding infobox at left which covers just four categories of Bourdais' varied career. And far from carrying less information, it features the drivers championship poistion in each year. What it doesn't do is total is total up wins and pole positions. What is more important to general purpose encyclopedia - a totalling of statistics of potentially a small part of a drivers career - or a summary of the drivers championship results?
 * Multiple cars if a very easy fix by the way. As the majority of wikipedia motorsport editors are just table editors rather than prose writers this is well within their capabilities.


 * --Falcadore (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unified templates: Part 2
I would like to bring to attention one of the biggest problems with the infobox as it stands. Take a look at Jean-Louis Schlesser, a seven time world champ in sports car and rally raid disciplines, and yet his most significant career statistic is apprently the half-dozen of so Formula 1 races. Are there some ideas on fixing this? --Falcadore (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - replace his Infobox F1 driver with a Infobox racing driver listing his world championships, but with the F1 infobox embedded, e.g.

F1: Sergey Sirotkin
There has been a very long and tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of Sergey Sirotkin on the list of 2014 F1 drivers. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. There is a precis of the argument here. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Another template problem:
The current template Infobox hillclimb venue allows distance only in miles or yards. That's problematic for continental hill climbs like Trento-Bondone Hill Climb. Conversion sub-templates wouldn't work when I tried to use them. Anyone around who can improve this one without breaking too many articles? DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Formula 3 race reports
A user has started creating race reports for Formula 3 races which by co-incidence were won by two relatively insignificant drivers whom were subject of deleted "Raceography" articles. I've nominated a bunch of them for deletion at:
 * Articles for deletion/1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.1

Your comments for or against would be appreciated. --Falcadore (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Three rounds of British F3000 now created too. 2, 5 and 7. Again, the Gary Brabham effect. Wholly expecting Round 9 to be created at some point. Craig  (talk)  23:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Round 9, too. Craig  (talk)  21:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I clearly see the reason for deletion, yet I value 'insignificant' info. This might also relate to the "Notability of amateurs in professional motorsport" below, but we have to keep in mind that significance and notability are established only through a point of view.  An insignificant race or a driver today (or, on FIA records, or in the western civilization, etc.) may be hugely significant 100 years from now looking back with evolved value sets in the future.  As nobody but time can be the judge, the only thing we could do, especially on Wikipedia, is to preserve minor view points, and be careful not to discard seemingly insignificant data.  Yiba (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not here to predict the future. Notability is as it is now, not what might be in the future.  If and when something is notable, it can be written about.  Before then, it is insignificant.


 * Time is not the judge, we are, and we as a collective group created the notability guidelines in order to set standards on what is and is not significant. The359  ( Talk ) 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Kayli Barker
Kayli Barker is a newly-published start-class article. Posting here if anyone in this project is interested in improving the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Formation finish
Hi, folks! You are welcome to expand the article. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Help for Article!
'''I just started a new Article, 2005 Cyprus Rally, and I don't know much about this topic at all. I saw it was requested by 87 people. I need some help to expand this article by some of you Wikipedians in this Wikiproject!''' There also was a request for an article on the 2002 Cyprus Rally, but did not start it. Thanks! Jcfrommn (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Raceographies are back
Remember Juan Pablo Montoya? Eje Elgh - Raceography? Gary Brabham? It's back again, this time on Denny Hulme. And the editor concerned just want to revert any changes. --Falcadore (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ai yi yi... I've done some cleanup and dropped him a note. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to say thank, until you removed one table too many. The career highlights table, which summaries entire seasons in a line (so much more conscise than detailling each race in a season while also providing appropriate season links) does a good job of summarising an entire career briefly. Instaed of overtabulation it cuts many tables down to one.
 * It's also widely used across many articles. --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, in that case, I'll restore that - thanks for the catch! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I wish "Users" would not remove articles if spent a lot of time research without the basic simply message to say what and why they are doing - not just deleting what they think Wikipedia should look like. The Raceographies; to give them a title are the core of any good motor racing biography book/website and a basis starting point of any driver reference, especially for non-F1 races. If you still feel this is unneccessary, then I'll stop either listing victories or stop totally. Please note that there are many tables like this, for many drivers yet only mine get deleted. Why mine? However, now, with your buy-in, I'm currently researching both Chris Amon and Bob Wollek, both drivers with many race wins, although not many at World Championship level. May understanding this that you both prefer I only list championship positions; say driver finished 209th overall, instead of showing his two victories that season? Or would you prefer individual champion tables for say DRM instead, like what currently showing on the Gary Brabham article. Please clarify. --LordAnon of Essex (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you have been asked not to continue to write these raceographies, so objecting when we remove them is a bit moot.


 * Wikipedia is not a motor racing biography website. We are a general purpose encyclopedia.  Just because data exists does not mean it is worth adding to Wikipedia.  Some series of major importance get summaries of the entire season, some series of minor importance get merely a final championship position.  This is the current system used on most articles.  Listing every race ever is not what Wikipedia is for.  The359  ( Talk ) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you "The359" for clarifing this for me. I'll start using season summaries instead. --LordAnon of Essex (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not need elaborating beyond the Career summary table. That then provides links to the season articles and they can carry the details of what happenned in every race. That's the whole point of these multiple interlinked articles. If you want more detail on a subject, it is only a mouse click away. Cuts down a huge amount of duplication and does not turn the article into a gobsmacking visual hash of statistics. Don't write everything twice when you don't need to. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Butler-Henderson
Hi motorsport fans; regarding sibling drivers Charlie and Vicki Butler-Henderson; do we know the name of their father? Alternatively, how are they related to Eric Brand Butler-Henderson (1884–1953), British soldier and company director? The latter may have been the first to use that surname, because he changed his name from Eric Brand Henderson upon his marriage to Sophia Isabelle Butler Massey in 1910. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Her dad was called Guy, and her grandad was Lionel Butler-Henderson. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I did consider Guy & Lionel, because at The Peerage, the entry for Guy Butler-Henderson shows a son born in the right year (1978) with an appropriate name (Charles Guy Butler-Henderson). However, it doesn't mention any Vicki/Victoria; any girl born 1972; nor any elder sister named Charlotte. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unwatching this page now; so if anybody finds anything more, please post to Talk:Eric Butler-Henderson. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)