Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 21

Triple Crown of Motorsport winners articles
I notice the recent creation of List of Triple Crown of Motorsport Winners and List of Winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport Races. Do we think this information is useful? And if so, should they be standalone articles, or should the information be merged into Triple Crown of Motorsport? DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, before having seen this I proded the former stating that it should be merged with the table at Triple Crown of Motorsport. I do see some value in the latter but I also question its necessity. The table at Triple Crown of Motorsport already lists those who have won at least two of events. It would therefore be simplier to add see also above that linking to the lists of winners of the individual races and this would show virtually the same thing. I don't see how a new massive table is necessary for this. I am also going to leave a message at the article's creator's talk page about this discussion if you haven't already done so. ( SSSB (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You had done so, I just didn't see it when I added the PROD notice, my bad. SSSB (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree List of Triple Crown of Motorsport winners should be deleted. I can't see any justification that it isn't just trivia for the sake of it. The list in Triple Crown of Motorsport is sufficient. I dislike the format of List of Winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport races (the order in the table should be reversed for a start) but I do see that it could be considered useful since similar lists exist (for example) for tennis, like List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. A7V2 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've struck out part of my comment. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that List of Triple Crown of Motorsport winners is not necessary, as a fork. I rather like List of Winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport races as a concept. It would be nice if it contained links to the race reports though. --kingboyk (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the creator of these pages and I understand that they are problems with the pages as how I done them but I put a lot of work into creating these pages and I don’t want to see it wasted. I’ve had a number of pages that I have either created or modify have been deleted or merged into other pages without even letting me know about the changes that they have made or without giving me a valid reason of why they have done it and it really pissed me off. At least of your part, you at least notify me about it and I’m willingly to listen to your feedback providing ways to improve the pages. User:Sinkers009 (talk) 19:34 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you've not had the best experience so far on Wikipedia.
 * I like List of Winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport races. Some ideas have been expressed above about how it might be improved. If you need any help with it, or if you have any other problems or questions about motorsport articles, just come back and ask. I think you'll find this WikiProject friendly and helpful (I certainly have). If you ever need help with Wikipedia in general there is a help desk, and a helpme template you can put onto your user talk page when you have a question or problem you need assistance with. --kingboyk (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EFFORT. We generally do not take the amount of effort that was put into an article with regards to deletion discussion. Anyway, the list in question is mostly duplication from a section in the Triple Crown of Motorsport article. Given the relatively limited size of it, spinning this out into a standalone list wasn't necessary. This is a redundant content fork.Tvx1 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Rich Energy
Given that Rich Energy is more notable for their involvement with motorsport, should the template for this project (or WikiProject Formula One) be added to the article's talk page? --kingboyk (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , well typically we don't add wikiproject tags to the articles of sponsers but it would technically (and only just) fit within the scope (I think, don't quote me on this) SSSB (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"One-off entries" should not be removed from articles
I don't agree with the consensus from December 2019 about "one-off entries" being removed because I am interested on where someone finished in that "one-off entry". I think we should start another consensus.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  01:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the consensus was made because tables take up quite a bit of space and one-offs can be covered in prose. I have no strong feelings either way, but "I am interested on where someone finished" is likely not going to be enough to change consensus here. If you're interested and that's it, it's there in the prose. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially in series with longer seasons, tables are a burden visually and coding-wise and can be easily covered in prose (team, manufacturer, start, finish, track) in just a few sentences.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input on AfC article
Would someone involved with this project mind reviewing Draft:Christopher Polvoorde and letting us know if any of the events this subject has participated/won would be notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia? Greatly appreciated. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not an expert of any of those racing series but the notability criteria for motorsport can be found at WP:NMOTOR SSSB (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for pointing that out. I've seen that before and was planning to use that as a basis for deciding whether the subject is notable; however I do not know enough about the topic to know whether any of the races the subject competed in would qualify under that first or third prong. I am leaning on the side of not, but just didn't want to overlook something glaring. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, notability is going to have to come from WP:GNG. Obviously the draft reeks of promo, and while Polvoorde hasn't competed in any fully professional series yet, GNG could be acheived through coverage after his Crandon title, as that's a fairly large accomplishment in the off-road circles. As an AfC reviewer, I'd decline it at this point for an overly promotional tone, maual of style issues and issues sourcing (too much primary and directory-style sourcing) but I think that there could be potential based on a couple of his more notable accomplishments.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , just going to point out that neither WP:NMOTOR nor WP:GNG establish that something is notable. They only provide a presumption of notability. Actual notability always has to been proven to significant coverage in reliable sources.Tvx1 13:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , SIGCOV in reliable sources is a requirement of WP:GNG, maybe you meant something else? We also do a pretty heavy reliance on SSG in AfC as our criterion for approval is "likely to pass an AfD". Of course, likely is subjective, but typically if someone passes an SSG they are seen to pass that criterion. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the mentioned guidelines clearly stat the word presumed. Adequate sourced need to be actually provided and assessed.Tvx1 14:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Right, again just pointing out that that the SIGCOV policy actually points to the general notability guidelines, so the distinction between the two is minimal. Typically the only times that WP:GNG fails to warrant an article is instances of WP:! which wouldn't be the case here. The semantics of presumed vs. guaranteed is a fun convo, but largely moot here, and in AfC in general, as 'presumed' is our standard for approval. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was strongly considering starting an article on him too. In the off-road world, I assert that Pro Lite is professional in both the Midwest and West sanctioning bodies. Pro stands for professional. The "prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series". The stadium off-road series is at the cusp of professional with racing all around the world. I have been stacking up photographs of him and his vehicles for several years and watching his career progress to determine when to start an article.  Royal broil  01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of Louis Zborowski
There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies regarding the nationality of Louis Zborowski. I've started a discussion at Talk:Louis Zborowski and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Patricio O'Ward
A discussion has been started at Talk:Patricio O'Ward since one user decided to go against WP:COMMONNAME and move the page to an implied namespace. Your opinions are welcome. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord
Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Class One Touring Cars
I would like to propose that the current DTM/Super GT regulations are included in the current Class 1 Touring Cars article, with the mid-90s cars placed under a "1st Generation" sub-heading and the current cars under a "2nd Generation" sub-heading. Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3C6F:9A00:7CD0:D066:A3F4:3EAC (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly against this, but I have two minor concerns: Isn't the modern class specifically called "Class One", whereas the old one was called either "Class 1" or "Class I"? Also, given that the same regulations are to be used by Super GT as well, is it correct to describe them as Touring Cars? A7V2 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fastest Lap in Formula 2
I've noticed something which is, at the very least, quite confusing when it comes to the Fastest Lap in cases where the driver didn't finish in the top 10. This may apply to other years (and maybe F3 too) but in particular looking at 2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship, in the table under Season summary the heading is "Fastest lap", not "Fastest lap points" or "Fastest lap winner" etc, and yet the listed driver is the one who scored points for fastest lap, not the driver who actually got the fastest lap, with a footnote stating the driver who actually got fastest lap didn't finish top 10 so the points went to such and such. If the heading in the table is just "fastest lap" shouldn't this be the other way around? The same goes for individual race articles, eg 2019 Baku FIA Formula 2 round which are actually even more confusing. Here in the race results tables, the driver who actually set fastest lap is listed with a footnote to the driver who scored the points, yet in the infobox it only gives the driver who scored the points with no mention at all of the driver who actually set fastest lap.

I'm not sure which way around things should go but I would probably prefer that the actual fastest lap driver be listed with a footnote if they didn't score a point since this is how motor racing results are generally recorded, but in the case of the infoboxes on race articles since this is a unique infobox specifically for F2 races I think it should be modified to allow for this case and show both in a "nice" way. A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is counter-intuative to put the driver who scored points in the fastest lap section if they didn't actually set the fastest lap. SSSB (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I must say that F2 does something weird their by passing on the points to the next eligible driver if the driver setting the fastest lap wasn't classified in the top ten. Even more so because their regulations do no explicitly state that should happen. The wording is the same as in F1 and in F1 if the driver setting the fastest lap is not classified in the top ten no fastest lap point is awarded at all for that race (e.g. Kevin Magnussen at the ). Anyway, fields labelled "fastest lap" in tables and infoboxes should list the actual fastest laps and not the one that was awarded with points if it wasn't the same one.Tvx1 17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it's definitely weird. I initially thought that whoever had edited the pages had just made a mistake interpreting the rules, but after looking it up it definitely is done that way. I think given that there are championship points attached to it we should keep the notes in the table (just the other way around to how they are now) but I do think something could be done about the infobox to allow for having both the driver who set the actual fastest lap, and the driver who scored the points. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To properly present a calendar
There is an RFC at Talk:2020 World Rally Championship. Interested editors are free to comment. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

World Touring Car Cup/World Touring Car Championship
World Touring Car Cup (WTCR) might be seen as incarnation of World Touring Car Championship (WTCC). Although, when WTCC adopted TCR rules, each competition (or each incarnation) had its own article. User has copied the list of WTCC winners into World Touring Car Cup championship. I think we shouldn't have duplicate information. I think that either both articles remain as they were before edits, or we should merge the articles. I bring the discussion tho here so we can reach a consensus regarding this.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would weakly prefer a merge but I don't really mind. The thing to bare in mind is that there is a lot more continuity between the most recent WTC Championship and WTC Cups than there was between the old and new WTCCs, mostly due to the large gaps in time. Would anyone have even noticed that the 2018 World Touring Car Cup was the first since 1995? The navbox in the article only refers to the 2017 seasons of WTC Ch and ITCR. Also not necessarily relevant but the concern I raised in Jan 2019 (when I didn't know any better) is still true: Talk:World Touring Car Cup is still a redirect to Talk:World Touring Car Championship! A7V2 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add that I agree that either they should merge, or they should stay separate, not something in between. A7V2 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that the competition has had different formulas it has ran, but each of the series I've listed have held the "Touring Car World Champion" title. Even if the formula itself changes, the title stays the same. The Supercars series has undergone name changes and has all their champions listed on the one table. Formula 1 has undergone so many different regulations and those pages are also all shown together within tables (hell, F1 even ran to Formula 2 specs in the 1950s). The same can be said about Le Mans, with Group C, GT1, LMP and now Hypercar categories. I get that the TCR had their own World Championship prior to being amalgamated with the WTCC, but we really should show the holders of the FIA title as a continuation of the previous incarnations of the series. What do pages show when something like boxing federations join? It's the only other similar set-up in sports somewhat like this one? - J man708 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - I agree with you that they are more or less the same (especially the current WTCR being a continuation of the WTCC), but what I am (and I think Rpo.castro is aswell) saying is that IF we decide not to merge the articles then each should only contain a table of its own winners so as to not duplicate information. But my preference would be to merge the articles since, as you say, it only really amounts to a name change. A7V2 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right about what I think. I'm not against a merge of the articles. Just the duplicate information. If there is a consensus to merge, I think its the best way (although WTCC 2005-2017 came from the success of ETCC).Rpo.castro (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to be REALLY specific then the WTCC 2005-2017 actually started as the Italian Touring Car Championship but I think that is most definitely a bridge too far! I don't think merging even the 2000-2004 ETCC with the WTCC article would be a good idea though as it would be quite confusing. However it's interesting (and perhaps relevant to the current discussion) to note that European Touring Car Championship is a separate article to the European Touring Car Cup which indirectly replaced it (indirectly since it was really the WTCC which replaced the ETCC for 2005). A7V2 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again I agree with you. I just mentioned the connection but I'm not in favour of merging 2000-2004 ETCC with WTCC. Just some information and See also link or so. And both ETCC's are similar case like WTCC/WTCR.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So should we merge the articles then? If we decide to merge them into World Touring Car Cup (which I suggest is what we should do as it is the more recent (and current) name), then I think Talk:World Touring Car Championship should be moved to Talk:World Touring Car Cup which shouldn't be a problem as the latter is only a redirect anyway. A7V2 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to oppose merging these articles. While they are related, they are seperate championships. The current event, the World Touring Car Cup, is not a World Championship and the winners are no world champions. Listing the winners of these event together would therefore be misleading. Formula One, on the contrary, deals with one world championship class continuously held since 1950, even if a couple of them were held to Formula Two regulations.Tvx1 17:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's an important distinction between a World Championship and just a "cup", but I think in terms of listing the winners together it can be made even more clear than it currently is at World Touring Car Cup if we had subsection breaks between the different "phases", with titles making it clear which year was the Championship, and which years only a Cup. A7V2 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are different series with different technical regulations yielding different titles for the winners within the same general class of motorsports (touring cars). Listing them together would not improve things for our readers. It would be like listing all winners of the F1 World chammpionship and all the international F2 championships together.Tvx1 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "different technical regulations" is totally irrelevant. Clearly Formula One's regulations have changed over the years (and conveniently ignoring the fact that it didn't used to be the "F1" World Championship, just the World Championship), and the 1987 WTCC obviously had different regulations to the 2017 WTCC, for example. And are the titles really that different? In Formula One the "World Constructor's Championship" wasn't always a World Championship (instead it was only an "International Cup" until 1980). Also many of the years the World Sportscar Championship wasn't actually a World Championship either but they are all listed together too. To me the WTCR is the continuation of the WTCC in the same sense that the various World Sportscar Championships are continuations of each other, and that the current Constructor's Championship in F1 is a continuation of the old International Cup. A7V2 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirects of race articles to season articles
This is a fairly common issue (well I believe it's an issue at least) across motorsport articles which I have noticed: often in an article about a given racing season that there will be a table containing a list of winners, pole setters etc, and a link to a race report, but then all or most of those report links are just redirects to the same season article. As an example, see 2017 World Touring Car Championship, 2016 World Touring Car Championship or (from Russia onwards) 2015 World Touring Car Championship. In many cases (Formula One races being a likely exception), things like 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Slovakia are very unlikely search terms, and most readers would navigate from either the season article itself, or possibly from a table on a driver or team's article. This is quite unhelpful to the readers, and I believe having bluelinks rather than redlinks in these sections discourages article creation.

I plan to start nominating these redirects for deletion, but first I think it would be helpful to establish some kind of guideline regarding this. I do understand there are some arguments for making these redirects, especially for future events so as to avoid pointless deletion nominations for articles that will inevitably be recreated, so I propose that any redirects from races to season articles should be deleted once the season is two calendar years old (ie as of now redirects to seasons up to and including 2018 should be deleted, and then for split year seasons I don't know, maybe as of now up to and including 2017-18, and as of July 1 up to and including 2018-19).

I'm interest to know how others feel about this as even if there isn't support for my above proposal (or something along those lines) I still think on a case-by-case basis a lot of these redirects really should be deleted, in particular those mentioned in the first paragraph. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - this seems pretty reasonable to me. I would go further though and say that if the race is a redirect to the championship, delete it. I seem to remember a policy against unlikely redirects. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on the championship and how long ago the race was. If the season is over I would say it would be reasonable to delete them per WP:RfD rational 10. (If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.). However if that rational doesn't apply then it should be kept, for example 2020 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps is a very plausible search term, it could be deleted per WP:RfD rational 10 after the event happens but know it is acceptable as a redirect.


 * So in conclusion I will support the deletion of redirects similar to 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Slovakia, but not 2020 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps. (Just to be clear there is no policy against unlikly redirect, unlikly doesn't mean impossible see WP:RfD, someone may well search for 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Slovakia knowing that the naming convention we use. SSSB (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that someone could potentially search for 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Slovakia, I suppose. I'll keep that in mind when I get around to nominating the WTCC race articles and definitely will mention WP:RfD reason number 10, and I still believe that the majority of people finding their way onto that article would have navigated there from the season article itself. I definitely don't think redirects like 2020 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps should be deleted (as of now, that is). There's definitely every chance it will be turned into an article once the race has taken place, or even in the immediate leadup to it, but also just about all the information that could go into the article of a race which has yet to take place are indeed found in the season article (entries, date (well, scheduled date at least!), location, etc). A7V2 (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the deletion as stated above. Having those links gives us the idea that the article for each race has been created, but then it leads to nowhere. Even if you have 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Slovakia so if someone searchs for it, they will get nowhere.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Having circular redirects on older championship articles is nonsensical. It might be worth having redirects before the races happen, but when they're still redirects years after the date, they should be removed. Having red links will encourage article creation more. And on that point I think more thought should be put into creating redirects. If a certain series seems to get stuck with redirects every season, it would be better not to create them in the first place. That way we would retain red links and provide more incentive to create articles. There is no obligation that all words in a table have to be colored blue.Tvx1 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

2015 WTCC redirects nominated
I've nominated the 2015 WTCC redirects. I invite interested editors to contribute at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2. A7V2 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

2016 WTCC redirects nominated
I've now nominated the 2016 redirects ( Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10) since the 2015 ones were deleted without opposition. I will soon nominate the 2017 ones too but it's quite tedious so I can't do it right now. A7V2 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

2017 WTCC redirects nominated
I've now also listed the 2017 redirects (Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10). Probably there are other championship articles with these circular redirects but probably best to not clog up this page with them all the time. Not sure where would be best to mention them though. I don't plan to do any more in the immediate future anyway. A7V2 (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indy 500 "Box score"
I've noticed that recent years of the Indy 500 articles, eg 2017 Indianapolis 500, use the term "Box Score" rather than "race results" or some other standard term. Plus an inline external link in all capitals. This seems somewhat at odds with MOS, so I was wondering what was going on. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

2004 Euro F3000 redirects
I know I promised no more redirect discussions but this one is more complicated as the redirects were originally articles, and in my opinion they were incorrectly named in the first place. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28 to give your view. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 W Series
It would appear that the 2020 W Series may not take place, but a 10 round e-sports event is to take place. Will leave it to members of this WP to decide what info goes into the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of notations in race classification tables
An editor has raised a concern on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Formula E about the use of notations in race classification tables. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. SSSB (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

AFD
An article on 2020 Formula One pre-season testing was recently created and has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here.Tvx1 14:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

AFD notice
The article 2020 Formula E rookie test has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are welcome to contribute to the discussion here. MWright96 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

RC Car Results Table
I am slowly uploading the results and creating event pages for the IFMAR World Championships. These World Championships typically have been 50 and 120 competitors I have created these pages and included the final results. This shows the size of the event and the truely international nature of it and allows track drivers progression. Having had some discussion with User:82.26.220.45 who disagrees with the full results being included is there a concensus on whether this information should be included he suggested raising it here. See Category:IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship for the pages created so far. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My point is that Yachty4000's edits made the articles look horrible and bloated, the edits before his edits look streamlined. He has repeatedly ignored my many requests and suggestions, making excuses along the way (such as "The cars specification of the winners will be as it has commercial value and the older cars have collectable value.", personally i like it all in one place wikipedia isn't about journalism but recording facts. while the person that came 34th isn't that relevant this person in five years could be world champion and no one is preserving this.), I had no choice but to stand by my point. I have pointed to him what Wikipedia is not. I tried to bring my edits as close to other motorsport articles out there but he insists on using the flagathlete template (used in Olympic sports) rather than the flagicon one used commonly in motorsport articles.


 * Here's my reasoning -
 * Anything other than the A-main (the championship winning finals) are not an interest to the public, they are not an interest to the media and magazines. Magazines and medias (or reliable third party sources) are only pay attention to the A-main finals, nothing else and my edits reflect on that as it should.


 * Yachty4000 want to clutter the articles with placements of 11-150 entrants when the media ignore them (unless it's a brief mention of their own countrymen in those days). Can't see 90% of these passing Wikipedia notability guidelines anyway. If we include them, we have an eternally incomplete list of entrants full of empty spaces. Y4000's example.


 * Yachty4000's edits that consisted of an unnecessary list of technical spec sheet of such as batteries, servos, bodyshells and gear ratios. Y4000's example - A majority of articles about sports don't focus on such thing, not F1, not WEC, not MotoGP. I don't see this also on articles about road cycle racing except for the basics on the UCI World Tour articles (example), not stuffs nobody is going to care about. I pointed this out to him already.


 * He claims he "see nothing wrong with putting the results of a event on the wikipedia page this is common with most sports", except these people have a chance of passing Wikipedia guidelines. I made it very clear to him that Wikipedia is not a sportsheet. I'm rest my case. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly in all bar one case these are not amendments they are new pages and content. (Even in the case of 2007 Worlds it is simply completing something someone else got 60% of the way through completing Drivers_at_the_2015_IFMAR_1:10_Electric_Off-Road_World_Championship and 2015_IFMAR_1:10_Electric_Off-Road_World_Championship_%E2%80%93_2WD pages that I would ideally like not to exist hence initially integrating them onto the main page. I do not want this to distract from the points) Whenever making amendments within wikipedia I am always keen to make constructive amendments. I don't wait 1-25 years for someone else to write the content then delete 90% of the data they have compiled within a couple of hours of it being published. This is not the wikipedia way and you can always find wikipedia policies to back up arguements either way. I have had constructive contribution interms of referencing etc. and again rather than carry on undoing revision have brought the conversation here.


 * To answer the points raised:


 * 1) There are plenty of example where results outside of the top 10 are of relevance. Wikipedia in many ways is a spreadsheet as this is the best way to present facts. Seeing progression and recording data is definately a goal of wikipedia.


 * 2) It doesn't detract from the article if is is correctly structured. Most titles are around 60 people unfortunately I started with the largest most popular class which doesn't help me.


 * The 1993 worlds the top 3 in every final has been published I cannot find the full results anywhere on the internet to complete these or other sources. The beauty of wikipedia is that if anyone has the data they can fill it in as a collabrative effort before the data is lost. When I have time I will add more of a narative to the pages.


 * 3) Technical Specification of the top 10 of this equipment based sport are included in practically every magazine article. I think having a true summary of the top cars technical is a useful edition again I wanted to add a few more of the key components and offered the user concerned the ability to discuss which fields he doesn't like.


 * 4) It's all about personal interest there are a huge number of motorsports let alone other sports most people could not name any competitors with data on wikipedia. Indycar is a classic example it a national sport shall we just delete it as it isn't noteable? Don't answer that as while I couldn't name a current driver or more than one team the existance of this data makes no difference to me and is of great interest to others. The same is the case with RC Cars which is actually more global than most form of motorsport and connect with almost every kid at some point. All I was trying achieve was some for central complete source for this data. A number of website have been and gone with this data and now it simply doesn't exist.


 * The user implies he will go along with any consensus on here with the following "I'll take a no BS line here and stick with my decision; not just it's cluttered, it's bloated - you should raise this up with WP:MOTORSPORT" hence raising it. I am interested in others views. Yachty4000 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * re: 1) I'll give you modern examples as I told him already except he chose to be stubborn about this: LiveRC, NeoBuggy, RedRC and the qualifying too - do they pay attention to those not in the A-main or in the case of nitro cars, quarter-finals and below? Also WP:WWIN


 * re: 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS


 * re: 3) Not after 2000, largely because of space. I have magazines from 2015 such as RCCA and they ignore it...except sometimes for the winner's car if they are prepared to allocate space for it. My edits reflect on that, not the past. I wouldn't had bothered with it since old equipment is not an interest to the majority


 * re: 4) You are absolutely wrong with Indycar, accounting for over it's 100+ years of history, it's as national as say the NFL, EPL, DTM and Super GT - and they all have a thing in common...


 * My point is, because of the sheer volume of entrants, national magazines then used to focus on their own countrymen's placements. Not the point he is trying to make about Indycar vs RC.


 * Lastly, your table is too big for laptop and smart device users, only a tiny portion out there own a 4K monitor. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

, and 82.26.220.45: I've read most of the discussion above and tend to agree mostly with IP. I should preface by saying that while I know a lot about motorsport (other contributors here are welcome to disagree!), I know little to nothing about RC racing, but you came here looking for a second (third?) opinion... These articles seem to have a lot of issues, for example huge numbers of empty tables in 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship – 2WD (these could be commented out in the wikicode if its a work in progress). I'm not going to comment on the notability or suitability of the lower positions, but I think if they are to be included then it is good having it in a separate article to 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships as this article would become extremely long if every result was put in. In 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships I'm not sure I understand the purpose of putting zero seconds for all of the qualifying times. If these aren't known then they should either be removed, or the columns themselves removed and just keep the final positions. Also the "See Also" section has only links to articles which don't exist, so I will shortly remove them as this is an MOS issue.

1997 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships is also in a very poor state. In the "equipment" tables I feel that most of the entries are unlikely to be notable, I would have thought it better to focus on "Car-Motor". If there are any particularly interesting/notable uses of the other items (eg a new type of battery or a controversial tyre compound etc etc etc) then it could go in the prose. Having large numbers of empty columns looks terrible, and as IP points out it makes it difficult to view the article on some devices. As I said before, I don't know if having the full results is really necessary, but definitely it makes the article much larger than it needs to be (after all, the article is basically a 55,906 byte stub). A7V2 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you advice, I made the cleanup as advised, I had tried to in the past in a way to standardise all articles and bring it in line with other motorsport articles (with a goal of getting them to GA) but this was met with resistance by Y4000 which he responded with reverts and edit warring (see my talk section). I advised him to edit it there instead but like all the advice I gave him, he refused because he wants to edit to suit his own interests ("personally i like it all in one place wikipedia isn't about journalism but recording facts"), the edits by him was all becoming all a "me me me" edit, only to suit himself. One of such incidents was his insistence on using template:flagathlete on an otherwise non-Olympic sport (he has expertise in articles about sailing), which made the table unnecessarily wide, rather than use the template:flagicon (used in all motorsport articles).


 * His reasoning came off as rather selfish like wanting to appease collectors (cars specification of the winners will be as it has commercial value and the older cars have collectable value) and wanting to preserve data for a future WC (wikipedia isn't about journalism but recording facts. while the person that came 34th isn't that relevant this person in five years could be world champion and no one is preserving this). My decision to restrict it to the main final (or A-main) is based on the fact 1) most of these drivers in the finals have a good chance of getting articles based on notability guidelines 2) anything other than that, 90% of these will never be notable. Again, thank you for the advice. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging only works when occupied with a signature (in the same edit), I'll pinged him for you.
 * No need to ping me on this page unless it's not clear who you're replying to (or I suppose if you want a quicker response or whatever, I really don't mind if people DO ping me)... but you need to sign your post or I don't get the ping!
 * re IP: I think you are overestimating the quality of my advice! In any case, not that it matters at the moment since there are no race reports, but I feel the articles like 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships which have separate 2WD and 4WD competition would benefit from having the order of the article more like 2wd report, 2wd results, 4wd report, 4wd results. Other than that, I don't know, it's not my place to go around dictating how an article should be (especially one I don't intend to edit) but if other specific unresolvable content issues come up I'm sure bringing them here would be a good idea. A7V2 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinging you on behalf of the IP becuase he forgot to sign, but then I forgot to sign...how embarrassing. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move in progress
There is an ongoing move request at Talk:2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship concerning the precense of "FIA" in the article title. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. SSSB (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 Formula E season
Two questions about 2020–21 Formula E season: 1. Why the article still called 2020-21 season if it wouldn't feature any 2020 races? 2. Why it still contains "season" in the title instead of "Championship"? As far as I remember the consensus was to keep season for the articles which feature non-championship races, while FE clearly doesn't. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect to the "2020-21" issue, I noticed that the other day, but then I noticed that the official provisional calendar (published on the 19th of June), still makes reference to the "2020/21 season" and "2020/21 calendar" (although there is one instance of "2021 calendar" near the bottom of the page). So perhaps it's still officially the 2020/21 season (even though there are no races in 2020)? Acknowledging that perhaps it's not, and the FIA just didn't update the page properly. DH85868993 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards to 1, to all revolves around commonname. There was a WP:RM at Talk:2020 Supercars Championship (where the opposite logic applied) which was closed as not moved because it was still being refered to as the 2020 Supercars championship and not the 2020/21 Supercars championship. The same would apply here (but in reverse)
 * As for point 2: I have no idea and wouldn't oppose a page move to that effect. SSSB (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As for point 2: I have no idea and wouldn't oppose a page move to that effect. SSSB (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with SSSBRpo.castro (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I too agree with what SSSB has said (although note the question of the 2020 Supercars name is now moot as the series won't run into 2021 after all). I would say in the case of 2020–21 Formula E season (or "...Championship") that it should stay as 2020-21 since that's what it was supposed to be. If we were to apply the logic of only putting years that had races then what would we do with totally cancelled championships, eg 2008–09 A1 Grand Prix season? While we're on the subject I recently noticed 2013 New Zealand V8 season which arguably should be moved to 2012-13 New Zealand V8 season since it was supposed to start in late 2012 but the first race was cancelled, however it definitely looks like it should have been "2012-13" as opposed to just "2013", for example on the list of champions: . A7V2 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the page be called 2020–21 Formula E World Championship since it becomes an official world championship next season? Wild8oar (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We use the common names, not the official. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And how can we decide, what a "common name" is? The F1 article is called 2020 Formula One World Championship. Is that a common name? Wild8oar (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think you can prove that "2020–21 Formula E World Championship" is the common name in this case then start an WP:RM. If you cant prove it's the common name (or there is no consensus that it is the common name) then such a move would be baseless and counterproductive to Wikipedia as a whole. Oh, and WP:COMMONNAME is determined by what the majority of sources call it (if a majority exist, with F1 it doesnt, we have had many discussions on F1s commonname, the most recent was closed a few days ago). SSSB (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only policy we look at. Since this is more than an aesthetic name change the sport went through (becoming an official world championship has many consequences), WP:PRECISE, for instance, needs to be taken into account as well. Considering the presented facts, I think a move of the article is justified.Tvx1 16:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And what actually are the consequences? I see only the meaningless label change, since the inception we already had races at three continents. We don't have any regional or continental FE championships, so the word 'world' in the title means literally zero at the moment. "Formula E" is precise and common enough. To justify article move reflection of the actual title usage in the third-party sources should be considered as the first step. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If affects the regulations. The way nationalities are dealt with is differen, for instance. Also an officially recognized world champions is simply quite different than just the winner of a series. This is much more than a meaningless label change. When the World Touring Car Championship lost its world championship status, we installed a new naming scheme for the succesor series’ season articles. When a championship is promoted we should take a similar approach. This really shouldn’t be up for dispute.Tvx1 22:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, don't see it as a major change. How Nelson Piquet Jr. as Formula E champion would differ much from Pascal Wehrlein as Formula E World champion? Both guys will be just FE champions in the overall FE history. WTCC case is quite different as it hadn't omitting of the word "world" and it was a merger between WTCC and TCR with the adoption of the different technical regulations. The championship has died in his previous iteration because of the manufacturers' loss not because the loss of status. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Corvus tristis. Is there any significative difference between Formula E or Formula E Word Championship? In WTCR, besides the facts that Corvus tristis referred to, in this World Cup there is no place for work-teams (well, at least on paper). And the "W" in WTCC/WTCR is for World. There are a lot of touring car competitions.Rpo.castro (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Broadcaster and viewership information in NASCAR and IndyCar articles.
I noticed that the articles on ongoing NASCAR and IndyCar seasons included USA broadcaster information in the calendars. The NASCAR Cup series article even had a full table detailing the USA viewership per race. Since no other season articles within WP:MOTOR's purview scope include this sort of information, in fact not even the previous season's articles of these racing championships include this, I decided to remove that information. However, I was subsequently met with considerable hostility from a pair of WP:NASCAR editors (e.g. ). I really thought it wasn't Wikipedia's duty to tell fans where and when they can watch a race and whether they can attend one. Moreover such information has only a really limited usefulness since once the races are over it becomes pointless. Additionally only the US broadcasters were listed. What about all the others who show these races all over the world? I really thought WP:MOTOR's stance was not include broadcast schedules (let alone a ones exclusive for one country). Am I really that wrong then?Tvx1 15:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These should be removed. It is unencylopdic to be listing when and where people can watch the race. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, especially a TV guide which only focuses on one nation out of nearly 2 hundred. SSSB (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MOTOR leads not to a direct guideline but in WikiProject NASCAR/Standards its clear: "These should be removed or not included: ...Television networks in calendar...".Rpo.castro (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (note I've linked to this discussion in the relevant wikiprojects). I have to agree that these should be removed from both NASCAR and Indycar articles since Wikipedia is not a tv guide. The part which could be considered encyclopedic (at least it is included in other sports articles, (eg 2020_AFL_season and countless others) is the start times, but this doesn't seem to be in dispute. A7V2 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be there. "The new normal" is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks Rpo for pointing us to the guideline at least for NASCAR, looks like there should be some other wholesale changes to articles as well. The point about being American-centric is also a good one. The fans allowed category was just straight weird, too.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 02:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Across US motorsport articles there is an excess detail of television coverage. The names of all on screen broadcast staff are labelled. In a lot of articles the broadcast staff are given more, much more attention than the competitors. Lengthy lists and tables on race articles while only race winners are mentioned amongst drivers and nothing about race officials. --Falcadore (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It turned about to be much worse than I thought. Nearly all of the NASCAR premier class season articles had the US broadcasters in the schedule,often completely unsourced, against WP:NASCAR's own standards. I've removed them now. In the process I stumbled on articles on seasons as far back as 15 years ago still telling our readers things that "will" happen that season.Tvx1 16:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that recently reverted  who added a list of broadcasters for UK and USA on some Grand Prix articles such as Monaco Grand Prix. I have myself now been removing similar lists from a few NASCAR and Indycar RACE articles (eg GMR Grand Prix) but I suppose arguably the consensus here only applies to season articles. To be very clear I assume we don't want these lists in any articles (except perhaps specific articles about broadcasting and such, or potentially individual race articles?). I am clearly in favour of removing these. A7V2 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we dont want those in race articles. The list was non- notable (very clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED), unsourced and none of them were complete (there are 196 UN recognised countries, even listing even an incomplete list of 20 for every season for every Grand Prix would generate stupidly large lists). Lists of who broadcasts individual races dont not belong on Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with SSSB. It's not something you would have in an encyclopedia. What it the value of that information after the event took place? And we are not speaking about non-regular events (such as Live Aid concerts, there it would be more plausible to have a broadcasters list). So I think that those kind of information doesn't belong to those articles.Rpo.castro (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

, - Thanks for your input. I only really asked since while there was a lot of discussion above which pretty much everyone agreed this information should be removed from season articles there wasn't anything specifically about race articles so I wanted to be sure. I will removed more of these sections as I come across them. A7V2 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well after nearly 100 edits I can proudly say that every race past and present (bar a couple that were quite well referenced or seemed notable-ish) in the top 3 NASCARs and in the IndyCar Series has been removed. Occasionally there was a bit of prose which I did read to make sure there was nothing worth keeping and if there was then I did. A7V2 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently there wore still a number of the NASCAR Busch/Xfinity series season articles including US broadcasters in the calendars. I've removed these now.Tvx1 23:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow thank you for your service. Wouldn't want to have too much useful information in these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.181.169 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFULness is not a reason for content inclusion. SSSB (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome IP, I live to serve. Seriously though if it's broadcasters and such you are interested in have a look at articles like NASCAR on NBC. Putting that information on race articles gives it undue prominence however (and a few other issues, see the discussion above). A7V2 (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or consult an actual TV Guide.Tvx1 19:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

F2/F3/GP2/GP3 Fastest Laps
As has been suggested recently on the 2020 Formula 2 Championship page, the question of how fastest laps should be dealt with. This was actually brought up in April, but not much discussion actually happened then. In Formula 2, Formula 3 and their predecessors, the tables consistently list the driver who scored points for fastest lap and in some cases a note if the driver who actually set the fastest lap finished outside the top ten. This has lead to many drivers receiving the credit of setting the fastest lap on their page (Infobox, career summary & results table), even though they technically only scored the points and did not set the actual fastest lap. Similar has occurred in Formula E although their tables do the opposite and list the fastest lap setter with a note saying who scored the point, which is then reflected in the results table with the points scorer in italics. The question is who should take precedence in the tables - the fastest lap setter or the points scorer. And then how this is reflected on driver pages. Also of note is that Driver Database lists the driver who scored the points for fastest lap as receiving the fastest lap, as can be seen here for Christian |Christian Lundgaard. RewF12012 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed this for the 2019 F2 article and changed them all to the driver who set fastest time, with a note giving who received the point (see a brief discussion here). Definitely the column labelled "fastest lap" should always be the driver who actually set the time, with a note in the cases where another scored the point. Driver tables should probably also reflect this. Note that DriverDB is user created and not a reliable source. A7V2 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In fact, it could well that the person who applied that at DriverDB did so because Wikipedia did so at the time. It doesn't dictate us what to do in any way.Tvx1 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Lundgaard's FL was awarded in a different race, and in error. --Falcadore (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the system of listing the driver who scored the point is counter-intuitive if another driver actually set the fastest lap. The heading is "fastest lap" not "fastest lap point scorer". SSSB (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with all users above: Fastest Lap means...Fastest Lap, and has been like this all the time (and the only way to compare, like Senna had X fastest laps in his F1 carreer). The points system for fastest lap is a different thing, need to mention yes, but as secondary. This points system might change, might end, but the fastest lap will always prevail even if no points are given for that.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Rpo.castro raised a good point, so I'm in support. I just want to know do we have any official stats about FLs or at least reliable third-party sources? P.S. I hope that after the discussion the changes will be implemented for all described articles, not just for 2019 and 2020 F2. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The formula 2 and formula 3 websites have (at least a partial) archive (e.g. F2 2018 Bahrain where it lists the fastest lap for each driver. I also found a website which does this for GP2 (Sepang 2016 but I am unsure as to its reliability. SSSB (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw these. I just hoped that we can retrieve info somewhere in the stats format: driver - number of FL/s. But it seems, that only user-edited DriverDB do this. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GP2, F2, GP3 & F3. I'd imagine that a lot of the information would have came from Forix initially, before they became a Motorsport Stats company. Inferred here. Craig  (talk)  18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "Fastest Lap" and "Fastest lap point". The two should not be confused. Fastest lap is a statistic which has always been recorded. Awarding points for it and using different rules for establishing who gets that point is a recent development and one that should be indicated seperately to the long-standing statistic. --Falcadore (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for F1R2020
Hi, everyone. Invite you to discussion. Little background of the discussion: I have created templates F1R2020, F2R2020, F3R2020. They allow to update results data in one place, at this moment they may update only if the cell without link to the round article/circuit article which are featured in the tables of the driver articles. There is only one problem, the template with this option becomes more complicated. Would love to see your opinion there if it would be useful for you the option to update all the data at once. I can produce the same templates (and stat templates) for any other series if will be support for this. , pinging you because I have seen your update edits in my watchlist, sorry if missed someone or you did not want to be disturbed. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverse grid poles
According to official FIA supplier of motorsport results - Motorsport Stats, FIA considers the reverse grid poles in GP2/GP3/F2/F3  equal to the saturday poles. So it makes the decision to omit the sunday poles from "Results" table and treat them differently in statistics look like a clear case of WP:NOR. What is your opinion on that matter? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are the only ones who don't recongise these poles (also noting that by definition pole is who starts at the front regardless of circumstatnces) then we are engaging in OR, clear as day. If there are some sources which don't recongise these poles then it is less obvious. Regardless we should follow the governing bodies view on the matter and if this is unclear then we should follow what the majority of the sources suggest. SSSB (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know only that DriveDB do not recognise these poles in their stats. Have not seen any other sources which support this fan-edited database's approach. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We probably shouldn't rely too much on the "official" statistics (eg see Independent sources). That being said, pole is given for the reverse grid races in the 2019-2020 Autocourse. I do worry that this is placing undue weight on what is ultimately a non-achievement, especially since the earned pole position pays championship points. Perhaps the pole-sitters for race 2s should be in itallics, and/or an explanatory note could be put on the "Pole Position" column? A7V2 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that now I can't verify by the independent sources that Callum Ilott has 2 poles during his F2 career, while we have the source that clearly says that he has five poles. Even DriverDB in the season overview marks the reverse grid poles as poles. Yes, it has a note in the season stats, that only poles from timed qualifying sessions counts. But we need to have sources which confirms why we pick only saturday poles, not just because we consider it as a non-achievement. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I must admit I slightly misunderstood the problem, thinking you were only referring to the season summary tables, eg 2019. You're right that if we are going to keep the career totals like in Callum Ilott we unfortunately don't seem to have a choice unless there are reliable sources only counting the earned poles. Interestingly enough in Ilott's case, his own website doesn't count the reverse grid poles: . A7V2 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , so what are your thoughts? (pinging you due to the contesting in the fastest laps discussion) I see only two options: 1. Callum Ilott poles: 5. 2. Callum Ilott poles: 2.

The issue with the second option is that is still probably contradicts with the official stat while with have the only counter-source for this is DriverDB. Maybe somebody have an alternative idea? P.S. What are you thinking about the A7V2's proposal with the result table? Corvus tristis (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, hard question no doubt. I would prefer the second option, because I have always thought as pole postion as being the fast in qualifying. So starting at first in some race just because you were the 10th (or whatever) in the previous race, hasn't, for me, the same value as being the fastest in a qualifying session or even in a qualifying race (like Blancpain or SuperBikes). But pole position, in fact means being the first on starting grid. That's it. So I think we have just to look for the sources. What do most reliable sources tell us? Probably not a lot of sources for this kind of info. So I would follow the 1st choice (unless there are more sources for option 2) even if I would like more the the 2nd, but well, this is not our point of view.Rpo.castro (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably the first choice, although I like Rpo.castro, don't think they should be counted as poles anyway. Another consideration is comparing it to how other series count reverse grid poles, I can see it turning into F2 and F3 may be the only series that seem to count them as poles to record as a stat. Which is frankly just annoying, but if it needs to be done.. RewF12012 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The British Touring Car Championship has three races - qualifying sets the grid for race 1, finishing positions set the grid for race 2, and a random reversed grid draw between 6 and 10 sets the grid for race 3. The BTCC website and Wikipedia infoboxes of BTCC drivers only count the race 1 pole as a pole position in their stats. Which I think is entirely sensible as the whole point of the pole position statistic is to basically record who was fastest in qualifying, not who was lucky enough to get a reverse grid pole. The season page 2019 British Touring Car Championship also lists 10 polesitters rather than 30. Qualifying on pole position in race 1 also means a driver gets 1 point, but not in races 2 or 3.


 * However Motorsport Stats seems to count poles from each race. For example: Rory Butcher has the fastest time in one qualifying session (Knockhill 2019) so the BTCC website lists him as having one pole position, as does his Wikipedia page. However Motorsport Stats says 3 pole positions - he started race 2 on pole as he won race 1, and also had a reverse grid pole in 2018.


 * Likewise Colin Turkington is listed with 42 when in fact he only has 21. Presumably it's just easier for their statistics to include all races where a driver has grid=1 rather than exclude all those not in the first race of a weekend. But I don't see why Wikipedia has to follow that same model and ignore the differences between poles for races 1, 2 and 3? Boothy m (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that nobody denies here that information about poles scored in the qualifying sessions is more valuable and important than a finish on the eighth/tenth place converted to the first position on the grid of the Sunday race. The problem is that if we keep the information the way we keep, we will keep to fail compliance with our verifiability policy, it will be our synthesis of the information. So I think the option with the note will be the less evil. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Guys, apologize that I'm rushed with the editing and adding the info about sprint poles and I didn't even look to the official site. Here is clear proof that the promoter do not consider the reverse grid poles as a poles: "With pole position last weekend, Callum Ilott became the first double pole-sitter of the campaign." (Ilott has also a reverse-grid pole, so the stat pack should have featured it). So would it be a good idea to have unified note with reference to such articles? Something like "Ilott has a three poles with one reverse-grid pole, which series officials do not count to the pole statistics. " Or it would be unencyclopedic and will look like an assumption? P.S. Sorry if I bothered with this stuff, just want to finish with it. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell me if I'm wrong but it seems that only motorsport stats is counting all starts in #1 as pole-positions, while fiaformula2 or btcc website don't count them as poles. Do we have enough verified sources that just count real poles, and so using the first option? That would be much easier.Rpo.castro (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem that only two sources are actually counting poles (tracking all-career statistics) in F2/F3/GP2/GP3 series at all. The others (including the Official site) just don't do it. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Driver Notability
Hello all,

I was browsing the notability section for motorsport and I stumbled across this quote.

"A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series."

Is there some sort of threshold of prize money a series needs to meet? Is there a list of series that are deemed to be professional? And also, how many races or seasons does a driver need to race for them to be deemed notable? Or does WP:GNG triumph over all here?

Thanks. SmackJam (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (For the benefit of those who may not know where to find the guidelines: Notability_(sports))


 * I had no part in writing that requirement and I don't particularly like it either. Probably a lot of "professional" series have very little prize money these days since its more about sponsorships, not to mention the fact that prize money is so secretive. I've seen that the total prize money for F1 is around $900 million, but supposedly each team was spending an average of $300 million, so total spend around three times the amount of prize money which certainly seems trivial, and that is in undoubtedly the most professional series in the world! Creating a list could be problematic too since many series include Am drivers who likely aren't notable, or one-off appearances (especially in the past) by "also-rans" who are unlikely to be notable. The guidelines also state a driver is presumed to be notable just for having driven at all prior to WW2 which is quite odd. The only consistently applied standard I've seen is that a driver is presumed notable for having driven in any (F1) World Championship race, but apart from that I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a New Page Patroller who's done more of that in recent months, at points I have wished for a WP:FPL-type list for motorsports. WikiProject NASCAR/Standards gives WikiProject NASCAR's take on their realm (series names need updating because, well, sponsorship) if that helps.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 00:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing with that NASCAR list is that it contains very few series, and the NASCAR series (at least the top 3) have been stable for quite a while, and the top 2 for several decades. I think it would be far too difficult to create such a list for motorsport in general just due to the sheer number of series there have been over the years (not to mention all the drivers who drove at an equivalent level to many series of today but without any formal championship to win). It could be possible to come up with a non-exhaustive list but really if the bar is set as low as the Trans Am series just about any race series someone would want to write about would probably pass anyway (noting that few current Trans Am drivers have articles). A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought a lot about this and re-wrote this several times. The thing it, that this would be a great discussion. What is a professional motorsport competition? Is really it an important criteria to define if a driver is notable or not? In other sports (or in the most popular) its easier to draw the line between professional and not professional. But in sport? Formula 2 and 3 are competitions for young drivers aspiring the Formula One. It's part of their training (as being part of a U-18 or U-20 team in team sport) but no doubt in a very high level with very professional teams and environment. But most single seaters series (Formula) are either one step in the ladder to become a professional driver or for gentleman drivers. Which are enough to be a criteria to turn a driver notable? Not easy to tell, there are so much. Then in most sportscars and touring cars competitions we have the Amateur drivers. Some required them. Like ELMS. Its the second step to WEC and the prize is a direct entry to 24H of Le Mans. Quite a big prize. But even in the top category, LMP2, an amateur driver (Bronze) is required. And in sportscars championships we have so many guys doing just one race in all season: they just want to run and they buy the experience. Even if the competition is very important, taking part in just one race, without something more, makes that driver notable? I know we have this in teams sports guidelines. If a guy makes a single match in a top division team, even if he later gets off the map, he meets sport notability guideline (if I'm not mistaken) but for example a GK sub that goes to the bench in every single game for FC Barcelona fails to meet that guideline (this is/was really an AfD recently). Its more likely this second guy having non trivial media coverage, then the one-off guy. So what's my point? I think this criteria is not really a good one. It's a guideline not a strick rule. I think if is the only criteria that a driver meets, then he is not notable. That's only my personal opinion.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trying to dispute the effort that it would take - from what I gather, FPL is kind of in shambles at present. I also get that motorsports is tricky with gentleman drivers and the like. I've generally gone off of GNG when I do review those pages - the Formula 3 champion probably has enough SIGCOV to warrant a page, but somebody competing part-time in Indy Pro 2000 probably doesn't. I appreciate the dialogue surrounding this, the point about junior formulas being equivalent to junior national teams is a good one and something that I had not thought about before.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I missed this topic when it originally came up but I figure I'd chime in since I am the editor who originally wrote the lines in question over 10 years ago. My intent was to create a universal guideline to differentiate professional series and amateur series. Ultimately having non-trivial media coverage does matter. If a Bronze driver completes a full season in ELMS, i would say that he does qualify for an article despite being a Bronze driver. However, yes, one off drivers in sports-car series who participate in lower classes or partial-season far-junior formula car drivers likely do not. I think the goal is that we're trying to create a dividing line between a driver someone would actually want to look up and one who is putting up a page just for vanity who likely nobody ever would look up. The fact that there's simply hundreds of classes of auto racing around the world makes it incredibly difficult to create a universal rule but using the general notability guidelines is probably a little too rigid, especially for drivers who competed before the digital age, who likely had non-trival coverage that is now completely lost to time unless you want to spend hours scouring microfilm/fiche. The incident that spurred it was a number of full-time British F3 and Indy Lights drivers were getting AFDed. Anyway, that's where the guideline came from and I'm welcome for suggestions to improve it, but remember that the improvement needs to encompass the entirety of motorsport so it can't be tied to FIA grading for example. Drdisque (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

disambiguation precedent for a racing facility?
Is there a precedent for how to disambiguate a racing track (also known as racing circuit)? I see that the article title Meridian Speedway is already taken for a section of railroad track (surprisingly!). The NASCAR West series raced several times at the track in Meridian, Idaho (United States) and I was considering starting an article.  Royal broil  00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've never heard of a rail corridor being referred to as a "Speedway" before. In answer to your question, yes there are a few. Generally they are to differentiate between other race circuits. Beijing International Street Circuit (Jingkai) for example (although I notice that the other Beijing International Street Circuit is not disambiguated). There's also several tracks in Brazil that are all called Autódromo Internacional Ayrton Senna. A more useful example might be Ascot Park. I would recommend something along the lines of "Meridian Speedway (race track)" and moving the other article to "Meridian Speedway (rail corridor)". JohnMcButts (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just call it Meridian Speedway (speedway)? In all seriousness though, probably after creating the article you could start a move discussion to determine a primary topic but for the moment I would think something like Meridian Speedway, Idaho or Meridian Speedway (Idaho) would be a suitable title to start with. Then the existing article could be moved to something like Meridian Speedway (railway/railroad) but not before the new article is created. A7V2 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Junior series results
Guys, for the past years we had a consensus to remove all the result tables for the series below Euro F3 level because of the lack of notability. User:Sparkle1 is fan of Arthur Leclerc, wants to give as much coverage as possible and to form a new consensus, but he probably doesn't know how to start discussions and only knows the revert button. Is the consensus active or probably we really should include F4 series? Honestly, I don't have any opinion on inclusion and certainly don't need edit war, I just try to respect the consensus, while Sparkle1 doesn't. IMHO, at least it will be good for the inclusion of the results of Formula Renault Eurocup and Formula Regional European Championship which use F3 chassis because Euro F3 no longer exists.Corvus tristis (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I shall happily participate in this conversation but would far prefer the insensitive and nonsensical accusations to be made on a talk page and not here, that is just attacking the motive of my editing. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The changes that you are proposing would affect more than just one article, so you are obligated to form consensus here. Probably for you will be better to explain your position on the results coverage and maybe community will support you. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "obliged to form" that may well be the case in your eyes, and may well be the standard way of carrying on. It is though much more collegiate and polite to talk I the tone taken on someones talk page and not publicly on a wikiproject. I think that's enough of complaining about rudeness and motive questioning. Always assume good faith and always talk to the person before leaping to conclusions. Never assume others know what you think they should, ought or must know. Everyone has a different experience level and knowledge level. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with results tables of "lower" championships, I have even previously added some before being told of notability. The thing with these lower championships is that the majority of drivers don't have or aren't deemed notable enough for pages just yet. That being said, when/if they progress to a championship which gets tables and they get a page then sure add in these results tables. One more point to consider is you mention Formula Renault Eurocup which, unlike Formula Regional (which is basically the new name for the older Regional F3 championships), is a series that has been around for many years so would we do tables for only when the series uses the F3 chassis and not it's previous chassis or do we go back and do tables for all the previous Eurocup series drivers? RewF12012 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ladder to F1 is always changing with the addition and supressing of competitions, and this leads that a certain competition was extremely relevant in a season and can become irrelevant, non-notable after. For example, in early 2000's there were 2 main path to F1: Formula 3 Euro Series and World Series by Nissan/Renault (that the F Renault Eurocup is a descendant). They were relevant because they were right below the F3000/GP2 (now Formula 2). And right below this there were several regional competitions. With GP3 introduction (and even more with FIA Formula 3 new life) and with each constructors driver's academy, all the competitions below got less and less notable. Wikipedia is and encyclopedia. When we think of an encyclopedia we think about reading long articles, but looking at most sport articles we get ton's of articles that are just a collection of tables. So instead of adding more and more tables with the position of each race in every single year, why the notable results for the lower championships are not written in text instead of more boring tables? "Driver x competed in competition Xpto between 2018 and 2020, achieving 2 wins, 4 podiums in 18 races". Or a description season by season. IMO its a lot better then getting more and more colorful tables. WP is not just a stats report.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Three points: All of wikipedia is public, including all talk pages. There is no privacy on Wikipedia and you should not assume otherwise.
 * You should not assume that simple statements of fact is rudeness. Wikipedia has always preferred objectivity to subjectivity and many policies and guidelines are based around this.
 * If you find Wikipedia's guidelines about notability too restrictive perhaps you should focus editting of drivers who fall short onto Fandom Wikis. For example Motor Racing Wiki --Falcadore (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain I understand the issue here (apologies for being an idiot if that's the case!): Arthur Leclerc is presumably notable (if he's not then the page ought to be deleted). All notability rules and guidelines, including Notability (sports), only relate to whether or not an article should exist. If he had only competed in the 2018 French F4 Championship and 2019 ADAC Formula 4 Championship then he would not be notable, but notability refers only to articles, not to content within articles, so that cannot be the reason to remove the tables. Note that those same tables in dispute on Leclerc's article appear in the two season articles above. If there is a consensus to not include these results tables in driver articles for series below a certain "level" (and of course with motorsport that "level" may be difficult but not impossible to define), then it ought to be based on something relevant to content, rather than "notability". A7V2 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have a more concise career summary table rather than lengthy and opaque race-by-race tables. The information is not unreported. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But then that argument can be used to justify the removal of these tables for all championships for all drivers (including in Formula 1), an idea I'm not particularly opposed to, but given that just about every driver has several of these tables I doubt there would be much support for their removal. A7V2 (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is, a drivers career at lower levels is not lost if it does not have those lengthy race-by-race coverage tables. The long and more complicated table is not the only table option available. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility in results tables
An ongoing discussion at the Manual of Style's Accessibility page about results tables might be worth this project's attention. Although it primarily focuses on NASCAR driver tables, universal aspects like the use of small text for finishing results are among the main discussion points. Zappa⚡Matic 20:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:French F4 Championship drivers
Hi. Can someone check the Category:French F4 Championship drivers? Because it is not possible to understand championships includes. The description reads: "This category contains drivers who have competed in the F4 Eurocup 1.6, Formula Renault Campus and Formul'Academy Euro Series since 1993", but it has the name of the French F4 Championship and there are some (only a few) drivers from the current F4 FIA regulation. Isn't a subcategory of Category:Formula 4 drivers. Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is French F4 drivers really a notable category? I had thought previously that the level of F4 was insufficient notability. --Falcadore (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking to see if draft article's subject is notable
I'm having trouble figuring out if Draft:Jaylyn Robotham is notable per the sports notability guideline. If it is, I will accept the draft asap. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi SL93. Unfortunately the notability guidelines in WP:NMOTORSPORT are a bit unhelpful (specifically and especially the first dot point). In Robotham's case, the draft to me at least (but I'm not expert on these matters) seems to satisfy the GNG as there is certainly some non-trivial coverage of him, especially the Auto Action article . Of course this is "crystal balling" a bit (or a lot, but I have seen this argument in AFD discussions), but I think that if he is not quite notable now, he probably will be in a couple of years time given his performance so far. Sorry if this isn't particularly helpful! A7V2 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and accepted the draft per the two media companies (Speedcafe and Auto Action) that covered it. I do hear that three sources are needed at minimum otherwise, but I don't think that is always the case. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why ask if you were just going to approve them anyway?


 * I would agree that he is on the cusp of GNG, but not quite there. The Toyota 86 series, although it gets some coverage as part of the Supercars package, isn't really a professional series, and Super3 is obviously a third-tier series.  Also agreed that the Auto Action article is a good start, most of the other references don't really add much to his notability.  If he were to win the Toyota 86 or Super3 series, or progress up to Super2, then I think he'd meet the guidelines as he'd have more press coverage.  A glimpse at Super3 season articles shows the majority of those drivers lack articles, while Super2 seasons tend to have articles for their drivers.  The359  ( Talk ) 01:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't originally my intention to approve it anyway. I didn't want complaints about there only being two media sources covering him, but now I think I shouldn't care. Anyway, I did find more coverage which I will add to the talk page for potential expansion. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Though if anyone disagrees with me on GNG being met, nominating it for deletion is always an option. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't want complaints about there only being two sources, so your solution was to...approve it? Talk page is not the article page, if you have nothing to add to the article, then you haven't made your case.  How about save people the trouble of having to nominate it and wait when you're already asking for outside opinions?  The359  ( Talk ) 02:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what you want from me when what’s done is done...unless you’re just looking for an argument. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bigazzi/Rafanelli
My knowledge of touring car racing is limited, so hopefully someone with knowledge of the history of the sport can shed some light on this.

I've been trying to research this for a while but have yet to come to a conclusive answer. Bigazzi Team, the notable BMW factory-supported touring car team run by Aldo Bigazzi and Gabriele Rafanelli before moving into sportscars around 1996. Sometime in the 1997-1998 off-season, something occurs and Bigazzi Team stops existing. In its place, we get Team Rafanelli run by Gabriele Rafanelli as a BMW factory-supported team and housed at the same premises at Bigazzi Team. At the same time, Paolo Bigazzi (not sure of the relation to Aldo) founds Scuderia Bigazzi as a small Alfa Romeo team in the Italian touring car ranks. Both teams claim relation to Bigazzi Team, with many news reports and history articles listing Team Rafanelli as a continuation of Bigazzi, while Scuderia Bigazzi themselves refer to Bigazzi Team as part of their history.

So, is Team Rafanelli a continuation of the Bigazzi Team under a new title and new ownership, or should the teams be considered three separate entities? To add to this confusion Gabriele Rafanelli also ran an F3000 team for 1999-2000 under the World Racing Team banner, although I assume they should be counted as part of Team Rafanelli and not a separate entity. And what in the world caused the split amongst Bigazzi and Rafanelli? The359 ( Talk ) 20:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Roman Staněk
An editor has asked for help for Roman Staněk. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Car Racing or help improve the article. SSSB (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)