Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 4

message: Noting the recent creation of :Category:Australian Go-Kart drivers, I'm considering creating a parent "Kart drivers" category (and possibly renaming the existing category to "Australian Kart drivers", for consistency). My question is: Do we consider Kart drivers to be "racecar drivers", i.e. would :Category:Kart drivers be a subcategory of :Category:Racecar drivers (and likewise, would :Category:Australian Kart drivers be a subcategory of :Category:Australian racecar drivers)? DH85868993 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon so, yes. Karts are racing vehicles, certainly (just not very car-like in a strict sense) and "racecar drivers" is just the US term for "racing drivers", and karters are racing drivers. Adrian M. H. 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes too. When I go to kart races it has the same look and feel as car racing. It is competitive racing using a different vehicle. Many kart drivers move up to cars when they get old enough. DH98968993, why don't you propose merging the categories and let's see what wikipedians as a whole think? Royalbroil 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Racecar drivers should itself be renamed.  Motorcycle racers would better fit under racing drivers instead of racecar drivers. The359 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motorcycle racers wouldn't fit because they are riders, not drivers. Readro 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a neutral term to encompass all people who race some sort of motorized vehicle so we can name a parent category to all of these categories? There are people like Ricky Carmichael who span the gap between motorcycles and racecars. How about racers? Or would that term include runners/skiers/etc.? Royalbroil 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so. You'd probably have to name a parent category something like "Motorsport participants". Readro 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then some could argue that it could include notable team personnel, etc. "Motorsport competitors" would, I think, sound more specific to those who are out on the tracks. Adrian M. H. 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Motor racers"? Just a thought. Pyrope 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Chr, and I would expand it to call them a starter class for every genre of motorsport. I like Adrian's term "Motorsport competitors". Royalbroil 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are karts racecars? 

message: * 7 September - expires 12 September
** 'Green Issue' in Motorsport (PROD by User:Recury; "The 'Green Issue' in Motorsport is an issue surrounding the whole of auto racing to reduce it's Carbon Dioxide emissions contributing to Global warming.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a few references to show that he is notable. I'm not that familiar with Drift Racing, but I'm pretty sure the D1GP is among the top levels of the sport, and he is also the head of Proton Motorsport. AlexJ 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: (Edited) I've found a collection of useful news reports from throughout the early 1990s. They appear to be part of an archive. Often "fresh" news reports include minor elements not widely remembered in later years.
Series events described include CART, Formula One, British F3, rallying, Marlboro Masters and Eurocars. Largely oriented toward British motorsport. It offers statistical goodness for races long forgotten.
The main link is http://www.teamdan.com/archive/almanac.html.
Readro has kindly informed me this is all from the GEL Motorsport Information Page
I have added information to the following articles including references:
#Jan Magnussen - details of his dominant F3 season with Paul Stewart Racing.
#Kelvin Burt
#Argentine Grand Prix, 1994 Formula One season and 1994 European Grand Prix - there was apparently an aborted 1994 Argentine Grand Prix, causing the race to move to Jerez under the Euro GP banner.
#Damon Hill - official test driver for Williams in 1991, not just 1992.
and I am considering creating 1994 British Formula Three season as a stub - but then again these go back only to 2004 British Formula Three season so it would be an odd duck. 
-- Guroadrunner 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthy collection of 1990s racing news stories 

message: Discussion here. Davnel03 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Formula One]] up for FAR

message: Does this project's scope include F1 Powerboat Racing and other forms of non-land based motorsports? 84.64.25.108 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at this time. The workload is so unbelievably enormous as it is that I don't think we could widen our remit any further. Adrian M. H. 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: As part of the process of sorting motorsport/auto racing stubs, I have created :Category:Motorsport stub templates for existing stub templates. If you're looking for a suitable stub template, you can check there. If you find any that have not yet been added, please include them. In due course, I think we should get more organised with stub categories so that they are easier to track. Adrian M. H. 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub sorting 

message: In light of the recent tragic events last Saturday, it's no surprise that Colin McRae's article has been given a major over haul (and about time too ;-)) but of course that can also start an edit war (and the subject is one that you guys could probably guess) and I've already been called accused of "disrespecting the dead" for trying to keep the article in-line and consistent with other Motorsport biographies. Anyway, as well as the infobox, I've also tried the following which works on the other bios:
*I've tried the tried and tested, Colin McRae (DoB, PoB) is a British [...] from Scotland. See here .
*And I've also added a hidden note to try and fend off the mis-use of the Scottish flag in the nationality field. 
So my question to you guys is this: What have I done wrong to be accused of "disrespecting the dead"? Have I've been doing everything so far correctly? What should I do now? Thanks guys. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't done anything. I think it might be best to let this one lie for a couple of weeks, let the raw nerve edges soothe down a bit. The death of a prominent Scot is always going to get the ScotsNats knickers twisted. I fully agree that his nationaility is British, not Scottish (which doesn't exist), but I see no harm in having him described as Scottish in the lead. No point in starting an edit war with the fly-bys right now though. Pyrope 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, your right. I'm just a little obsessed with everything being consistent with each other (the way of the "Aspie" ;-)). Besides, if it keeps up than it'll turn from an Edit War into a War of Personal Attacks, or even worse: Legal threats. :-(.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one who wants consistency. I tried to formulate a policy about utilising "British" and the Union Flag instead of the constituent countries' flags in infoboxes, but it was shot down by the nationalists and accused of all sorts of things - needless to say I'm not going to be taking part in any more policy discussions. I don't mind talking rationally with people but when character assassination is brought into a discussion it just isn't fun any more. Readro 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Readro's first taste of guideline development was not a friendly one, unfortunately. I have rarely seen that many talk page posts in such a short period of time. I hope it won't put you off completely, though, Readro; it's not normally that bad! As for the McRae article and others; I agree with all of you about how it should be presented, but nationalistic fervour is very strong. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear... I may have unwittingly fanned the flames on this one just now. I saw that the McRae article's infobox was entirely missing its "Nationality" field, filled it in (as "British") and then noticed that there had been some controversy, so I made a Talk page post there pointing out that what people wanted the status of Scotland to be was irrelevant; what it actually is should inform our choice, and as of this moment it's part of the UK. Oh well, too late to change that now, though I stand by what I said. Apologies if this causes people trouble. Loganberry (Talk) 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter Loganberry. Fact is, we have the "evidence", as it were, to back up our theory that McRae is British. Besides, what your doing is in line with WP:BB, yes? ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nationalists are out in force again - Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice_board#Nationality POV-pushers reach a new low. Readro 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah! I was ready to point out the rally tables are fully of wrong flags. I've actually had to revert two people twice about "nationalities" in the WRC championship tables (more because of McRae than anything else). It was actually kind of funny to see people reverting Matthew Wilson from British to English, considering his father Malcolm is a Welshman. And if that's not a clear case of an ambiguous "nationality" inside the UK, I don't know what is. --Pc13 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colin McRae 

message: The webmaster at over 120 official forums (from local drivers to NASCAR drivers) is objecting to WP:NASCAR's removal of his forums from driver's pages. He claims that we are not following guidelines because "Links normally to be avoided", is not "Links ALWAYS to be avoided". The discussion is happening at Talk:Johnny Sauter. Royalbroil 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EL problems such as this are far too common. Sometimes, you can explain things until you're blue in the face (or have RSI). Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the EL guideline is too soft and woolly. For example, official sites are encouraged, particularly in biographies, but fora are discouraged. Which, of course, leaves official fora in limbo. I'll keep an eye on that discussion and chip in if I think it will help. Adrian M. H. 11:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums are essentially conversation in nature. If there is content in a forum of a significant nature then that content should be placed on the site concerned. Even if the driver is quoted directly, it can frequently by the driver's PR spin doctor writing the quote on the driver's behalf, because he drivers can't be trusted to voice an opinion that might cause problems with a commercial relationship. Using the tag official does not make a forum, not a conversation in nature. -- 11:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official forums

message: We should have an active role in all of the motorsport categories at Wikimedia Commons, the shared media (mainly image) repository for all Wikipedia projects. Category:Motorsports and its children categories are of great interest to this WikiProject. I know it's not technically part of this WikiProject's scope, but it certainly affects us greatly. I have done many edits helping organize this structure, and many of us have uploaded images. User:Morio has taken a very active role in helping organize there, and is no doubt knowledgable about motorsport. Morio has listed his/her English as basic. We should reference this structure someone prominent in this WikiProject's scope. Thanks to User:Barno for bringing up this topic on my talk page. Royalbroil 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that User:Morio is active here on the English Wikipedia too. That's not my point. My main question is wondering if we should have a listing of Commons category here at WP:MOTOR for reference. Royalbroil 04:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Commons

message: We discussed a month ago about the possible deletion of all A1 Grand Prix race article, and possible downgrading of the WikiProject to taskforce status. As of now, the first race of the new season has yet to be created. This suggests to me that the notability of the series has decreased, and therefore the race articles should be deleted. The WikiProject is inactive at the moment also, the last topic on the talkpage was the topic I brought up a month ago! So, back to the subject, should the race article be deleted and should the project be downgraded to taskforce level? Thanks, Davnel03 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the contributions of their member list, two users are still active in the project.  User:Peanutter67 has contributed to a few A1GP articles, while User:Rollof1 has been updating the 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix season article.  Rollof1 has also been contributing to various A1GP articles since he registered in August. Don't expect race reports to appear immediately - the race was run a mere two days ago.  The359 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need about ten - fifteen members for a WikiProject. Two people is nothing - thats why it should be a taskforce. Davnel03 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That rule would eliminate all but WikiProject F1 and WikiProject NASCAR most likely.  The WikiProject Proposal page suggests 5-10 participants to start a Project.  There is no page that I've seen suggesting how many are required to maintain a project. The359 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and the first race report has just arrived! Pyrope 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think it's potentially a dangerous road to go down. Lots of F1 race reports do a worse job than the A1 ones at implying notability. Even though they will eventually claim notability, at present the same argument could (and may well) be used against the F1 ones. Assuming this happens, we'd then have to re-create the results tables for each report as we write them, plus go thorough articles and remove red links etc. Think carefully about the potential knock-on effects of what you're suggesting before proceeding. On your argument about the article not being written yet, remember that there is no time limit for us to finish Wikipedia by. As someone once said "The world does not end tomorrow, and if it does then we're wasting our time here." AlexJ 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the word won't end tomorrow! Yeah, you have a point. Davnel03 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding or not adding new content doesn't determine the notability of all prior race articles - that's faulty logic to me. I do not support Davnel03's conclusions, although WikiProject's articles should be monitored occasionally. I don't see a reason to shut down the WikiProject as long as someone is keeping the project's articles maintained except if it is part of sweeping changes. An interested Wikipedian could start contributing and energize the WikiProject. Remember, one race does not make a season. I would support changing the IROC WikiProject to a taskforce of WP:MOTOR since the series appears to be ended (at least for now). Royalbroil 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know I have updated all(or at least most) of the A1 GP articles to include information from the first round. Peanutter67 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A1 Grand Prix race articles and downgrading continued....

message: I have listed the Motorsport Portal for peer review at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Motorsport/archive1. I think we could get it to featured status. Adrian M. H. 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After working on it over the last few days, it's almost ready for a request for that coveted little gold star. I have re-jigged just about everything, rewritten bits and pieces, found a host of great photos (12 included now, and I was holding a few back even then), and it now has three pages instead of one! Although one of those needs a bit of work yet. I hope you all like it so far. Shuffles off sleepily. Adrian M. H. 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Portal peer review|Portal peer review]] 

message: How ironic - 2 peer reviews requested in less than 3 hours! I have just posted a request for a Peer review of the Alan Kulwicki article (Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Kulwicki/archive1). This is the first NASCAR driver article that has been prepared seeking Good Article criteria, and I intend to improve it until it meets Featured Article criteria. Please review and comment, especially you F1 contributors who have taken numerous articles to FA. Royalbroil 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alan Kulwicki]] peer review

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update -- the AFD failed, and the article was kept. It is now firmly at "stub" or "start" status. Guroadrunner (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Discussion: John Haugland 

message: Japanese Formula Three Championship was created recently. I would have named this All-Japan Formula 3 or a variant thereof to reflect its proper title, which it has had since its creation (as far as I can remember). The article's title was presumably chosen because of the usual pattern for F3 series, although "usual" is probably not the right word, since we have only two three that fit this pattern and they two of them have a matching history. So should it be renamed? I am asking this here because the article's talk page is likely to be a very lonely place. Adrian M. H. 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, the MOS says to go with the most common name. In this case, this would be All-Japan Formula 3, with a redirect from JFTC. To give an example of this guideline in action, the usual pattern for international rugby teams article is "Country national rugby union team". However New Zealand are more often referred to as the All Blacks so that is where the article is located. My suggestion would be to move it. AlexJ 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex's points all sound fair to me. Pyrope 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying, guys. Much appreciated. I'll go ahead and make the move, and have a go at improving the article as well. It's essentially unsourced. Adrian M. H. 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question seeking some consensus 

message: *I've added 1984-94 and 1998-2001 issues of Stock Car Racing and 2000-04 issues of Dick Berggren's Speedway Illustrated to the library at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Library.  That's just the issues retrieved from various storage so far.  My father had SCR going back to 1965, but I don't know how much of that collection got auctioned off when he died.  These will be useful mainly for NASCAR and short-track USA drivers and events (including big dirt races that didn't get much other national coverage), so I'm cross-posting this mention at the talk page for WikiProject NASCAR. Barno 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorsport library: ''SCR'' and ''DBSI'' added 

message: Formula Atlantic and Formula Pacific are currently redirected to the Champ Car Atlantic page. This ought to change really, shouldn't it? Readro 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Formula Atlantic is Champ Car Atlantic. The name change alone isn't enough to warrant two articles. Formula Pacific is not jogging my memory right now. Adrian M. H. 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Formula Atlantic actually started in the UK. As well as the American series, there were Australian, Canadian, Irish, Japanese, South East Asian, New Zealand, South African and British Formula Atlantic series. Formula Atlantic should be for the formula, Champ Car Atlantic is just a series which happens to be the only one currently running to the formula. Formula Pacific was very similar and was in New Zealand and Japan. Readro 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that it had more than one series at one time (although some of those that you name are surprises to me; Irish?) but the North American series is and was the most notable of that category. It's the only one that stuck around. If you are confident that you can gather enough verifiable material to write about the formula as a whole, then by all means go over the redirect, but I wonder whether that would be possible. Adrian M. H. 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of articles in Autoweek, Road & Track, and other magazines covering mainly the USA side of it for decades, but most are print-only and not online.  (I assume there are other print mags that gave substantial coverage to other nations' Atlantic series.)  Examples found through a quick Google search:  from Road & Track;  from Autoweek via findarticles;  in Deep Throttle's history section (probably not a reliable source for notability but provides historic details for deeper searching).  Once enough good sources are located, I would support a separate article for worldwide Formula Atlantic, with the US stuff summarized briefly there and a "main" tag pointing to Champ Car Atlantic with more details. Barno 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Also, modern Champcar Atlantic has evolved quite some way beyond the global version of Atlantic (known at various times and places as Pacific and Mondial as well). The global era was dominated by a Ford Cosworth two litre while the US survivor has since adopted control engines, Toyota and more recently I think a Mazda based engine? So there is more than enough to support seperate entries for Gloabl version and Champ Car version. Perhaps the global version might be title Formula Mondial as the name was created to overcome the Atlantic/Pacific nomenclature clashes and explain the mergin in the initial paragraph? Suggestion only. --Falcadore 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula Atlantic 

message: Hi. Just in case you haven't noticed, the Swiss have changed their minds about overturning their circuit racing ban. I know a few articles were changed earlier in the year when the first vote appeared to show that they would, and I have altered the most obvious (Swiss GP, 1955 Le Mans, etc.) to reflect the new info, but there may be more that I haven't spotted. Please keep your eyes peeled. Pyrope 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss U-turn 

message: I started its article today. I noticed on the hillclimbing article that someone said that the race is now defunct, and their website is down. Can anyone confirm? The tense of the article needs to change if its defunct. Every winner of the climb already had an article! Royalbroil 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. This article has quite a bit of information, although it's six months old. The domain racetothesky.com expired 10 days ago, and I can't find anything about the 2008 event on archive.org. Prolog 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and thanks for the link. I updated the article about the event's uncertain future. Royalbroil 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Race to the Sky]]

message: The oval track discussion brings up another problem: there is an article called Short track motor racing that talks a little about short track racing, then has a very incomplete list of dirt and asphalt short tracks across Canada and the U.S. There is another article called Dirt track racing in the United States which has another very incomplete list of the dirt tracks in the U.S., which is a subset of the short track article (minus the asphalt tracks). Any thoughts on how to proceed? Royalbroil 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't see how useful those lists would be (combined or not).  It would probably be best to cut those loose.  Then we can just put the rest of the information into Short track motor racing and if that article grows until it needs to be split, we'll cross that bridge when we reach it. Mustang6172 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with either moving the list of dirt track to the short track motor racing article or deleting it altogether. What should the content of the dirt track racing in the United States artice be then? If the list is kept: a few sentences, then a link to the the short track racing article? If not kept, then what? Royalbroil 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I thought I made this clear.  The dirt track article would just redirect to the current short track article. Mustang6172 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sounds reasonable except for one thing - the short track motor racing article then doesn't take a world view - it's only about the U.S. Royalbroil 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia is not a directory, the lists should be dropped.  Text (not a table) in the short-track article, and in the dirt-track article if kept, should have a few facts, referenced to the National Speedway Directory: number of tracks in number of states, state with most tracks, min and max track lengths, if there are outliers then something like "98% of US dirt tracks are between one-quarter mile and one mile in length".  The dirt-track article, for which I can find enough book references in the Coastal 181 catalog to keep, should have a few sentences of history of the biggest dirt sanctioning bodies such as AAA, IMCA, USAC, NASCAR, DIRT, and WoO.  Maybe bits on the more notable regional Midget and Late Model touring groups.  Definitely it should have (though harder to cite) a section about trends in car classes (such as the boom in Midgets right after WWII, followed by the boom in stock cars), speedway construction/closings, and technologies.  I'll add some book listings from the catalog to the dirt article's talk page, so people can look in libraries. Barno 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the direction that Barno has proposed. Sounds like we all favor removing the list of every track in every state. It's impossible to upkeep, and falls outside of the bounds of an encyclopedia. Royalbroil 02:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dirt track racing vs short track racing

message: I don't have time right now, but the British Touring Car Championship page has no images. Here is a source with lots of nice images to choose from, all free licensed : http://www.flickr.com/photos/gluemoon/sets/72057594110758877/
Action desired -- add images to BTCC page. Also, in theory, Jason Plato and other top drivers.
-- Guroadrunner 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend using the "Experimental Service" on Commons for a MUCH quicker download. I brought it up here. Royalbroil 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those are already at Commons, I think, but I have added the link to the touring car taskforce in case any are missing. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[BTCC]] lacks images (so here's a source) 

message: Penske co-owned a race team that raced at Indy this year. An anon from Waterford, Michigan (near his high school), who has obvious strong feelings against Penske, has complained that the article is written from biographies on Penske's website, so I rewrote the article from scratch using only reliable sources. An anon opponent claims an article from yahoo is wrong. He/she supposedly talked to everyone from a librarian at a state school to the dean at a university, at all disagree with the article. Please review the article to see whether or not what I did is proper, and comment on its talk page. Everything that I put into it gets disputed. Royalbroil 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first task is to identify the reliability of all pertinent sources. If the opponent rejects information that is consensus-agreed to be a reliable source, then the opponent is in the wrong, and the matter can be taken to an arbitration committee. --Chr.K. 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jay Penske]]

message: Before I go into details, I'd like to mention that this is a very rough idea and may be controversial.
I was reading over some of the sports related articles on Wikipedia.  I noticed several articles that compared sports with common origins (ex: Comparison of cricket and baseball, Comparison of American football and rugby union, Comparison of rugby league and rugby union, etc.).  Those articles seem very good at helping people familiar with one sport learn about another.  It would seem logical to propose we try something similar motor sports.  Something along the lines of Comparison of Formula 1 and NASCAR NEXTEL Cup or a more vague Comparison of open-wheel racing and stock car racing would seem appropriate.  Thoughts? Mustang6172 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I forsee is that there are so many different forms of motorsport, that which ones do we pick to compare? The359 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why stop with two? A bulk comparison of a dozen major categories with tables? --Falcadore 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting an article that consists of a table comparing most major types of motorsport, along with some text? Royalbroil 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has been brought up at WP:American Open Wheel Racing. We would like to have an article comparing the two IndyCar series. Royalbroil 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per request for my opinion and revival of this issue, I think we need a breakdown of motorsports in a fashion resembling the scientific breakdown of biological life, which (currently, and for the foreseeable future) holds seven classification rankings based on the scope of the definitions involved...the Animal Kingdom different from the Plant Kingdom, among the most basic (see Taxonomy, as well). As this sort of breakdown could apply to all manner of subjects, I think we need to begin construction of one here: though NASCAR and English Touring Car racing are quite different, they are more alike to each other than they are to assorted open-wheel, "pure" racing cars. If this goal is approved, our first task would be to determine the most fundamental ("kingdom") technical regulation differences in motorsports branches, and then work outwards. --Chr.K. 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison article(s)

message: ....this car? Driven by Geoff Lees, apparently a RALT, but I don't know the chassis model, engine supplier or series. Adrian M. H. 16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the car, but with Nigel Mansell at the wheel. He debuted with the car at the 1980 Marlboro Trophy, 6th round of the European F2 Championship. Nige also drove it in the next round at the Limborg GP in Zolder (most likely place for the photo), and later in Zandvoort. Tom Gloy drove it fo two rounds, and Lees took over for Hockenheim, final round of the series. --Pc13 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would presumably make it the RT2-Honda F2 car that Lees ran at Hockenheim, at the end of that year? That car was certainly #34. If it were the 1981 model I would have expected the Honda-dominated livery. Pyrope 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work guys. The European series, Honda motor, RT2, 1980. Excellent. Off to upload it to Commons now. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone recognise.... 

message: :Also posted at WikiProject Grand Prix motorcycle racing
I have just found this while wandering around the portal sub-categories. It has not had any edits since 2006! Would anyone consider reviving it? Adrian M. H. 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (also posted this at the other talk page) I added info in all the fields and I think the portal can "go online" hopefully more people will find out about it and contribute to it then I will also be adding more info in the next few days. My motorcycle racing knowledge is limited to circuit racing (motoGP, superbikes etc...) if the portal scope can be limited to that I would be happy to maintain it by myself otherwise I can handle that but others must handle the rest (off road etc...) Chris Ssk (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Portal:Motorcycle racing]] defunct? 

message: :Cross posted to WP:F1
The Formula One FAR has ended, with the article being delisted, as the required improvements were not made to the article. Davnel03 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And?  I'm not exactly seeing the reason for declaring this here? The359 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:MOTOR is WP:F1 parent project, so I need to notify both projects. It doesn't change the fact that the article has been delisted. Davnel03 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not contesting that, but what is there to announce to WP:MOTOR?  It's a clearly WP:F1 subject?  And if you were going to notify all involved projects, why didn't you notify WP:MOTOR when the article was up for review, not after it had already been delisted? The359 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I did notify this project. It's not fault if no action was taken. Davnel03 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can post a comment about anything that they think is relevant or of interest, as long as it relates in some way to the project, which this does. Davnel's previous post about the review didn't raise much interest in me, admittedly, but only because I don't do anything related to FAC or FAR. It was certainly relevant to us. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had scrolled back to see if there was a note about it and missed it because there had been no replies.  Withdrawn. The359 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Formula One]] no longer a featured article, demoted to B-Class status 

message: All of these articles talk about the same thing: people who volunteer or work the corners at a circuit/track. We need to come up with what to name to use for a combined article for these terms and redirect the others to it. The article should talk about the different uses of the like terms. "Auto race workers" is not a common name. "Marshal" is a common name that most English speaker understand. There are some other terms like "corner worker" or "safety worker" that should be considered too. What does everyone think? Royalbroil 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marshal (auto racing) or Marshal (motor racing). Adrian M. H. 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Marshal (motorsports) or Marshal (motorsport) would be better.Mustang6172 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, to keep with the main article's name, we should go with Marshal (auto racing) and have redirect links from the other suggestions of course.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motorsports officiation, which then allows for division down into all terms used. --Chr.K. 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marshals do not officiate; stewards, scrutineers and race directors could be considered to officiate. Adrian M. H. 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're workers who answer to the officials/organizers, and hence are part of their "offialdom." I'm sure the fan in the stands sees them as part of the authority system of the race/race course. Motorsports organization? Sounds either redundant, or people could ask "Which one?", defeating the point. --Chr.K. 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A marshal in the UK is viewed as an official (although not licensed). Also - corner worker is not an appropriate name, there are plenty of marshals who have to do their job at a point on a straight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.232.124 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Only to say that the spelling should use a single L and that whichever term is not used should become a redirect. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I meant to use the single "L", so I updated the link. Since both the single and double L are used in the United States, I meant to use the version with wider use worldwide. Royalbroil 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Motorsports officiation would still distribute into lower-tier levels such as course workers, race marshals, and so forth, in the way this very project distributes into the sub-projects on the more specified forms of the discipline. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A similar role called a rally marshal is used in rallies. Rally marshals are located along the course of a rally, at road junctions to keep non-competing cars off the course, at spectator points to control spectators, and to perform time keeping duties at time controls.  They can come to the aid of a car that has a crash, but this would be unusual due to the length of a rally stage and the low probability that a crash would occur just near a marshal.
Perhaps it could also be moved to the end of the introductory section.  This is a page about Track Marshals after all. And if it's too wordy, how about just the first sentence and readers can use the link to inform themselves further. Ghodgskiss (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Track marshal]] vs. [[Auto race workers]] vs. [[rally marshal]], etc.

message: I'm actually working on A1 Grand Prix, Formula 3000... racing teams and involvement series timeline is sometimes not easy observable. So what did you think about timeline like this one I made with DAMS team :
1988	                          	1990                      	                          	                          	                          	                          	1995                      	                          	                          	                          	                          	2000                      	                          	                   	         	         	2005         	             	2007         	
    	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	International Formula 3000	                   	         	         	GP2 Series   	GP2 Series   	GP2 Series   	
    	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	24 Hours of Le Mans       	24 Hours of Le Mans       	24 Hours of Le Mans       	24 Hours of Le Mans       	24 Hours of Le Mans       	24 Hours of Le Mans	Euro FRV6	Euro FRV6	WSbR         	             	             	
    	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	FIA GT                    	FIA GT                    	ALMS                      	ALMS                      	                          	                   	         	         	A1 Grand Prix	A1 Grand Prix	A1 Grand Prix	
    	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	                          	FIA Sportscar             	FIA Sportscar             	                          	                   	         	         	             	             	             	
Maybe with various colours/row according to motorsport type (GT, endurance, rallye...), in template if it's possible... - Rollof1 13:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we include a team that only ran a partial season in series?  Say, just showing up at the 12 Hours of Sebring?  Would you add the whole ALMS season to that year? The359 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You missed FIA GT, but the idea sounds great. --Pc13 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 12h of Sebring is a major race, so its possible include as 12h of Sebring and not ALMS. Meanwhile ordering series is essentials: 24h of Le Mans in the same row than FR V6 Eurocup don't seem logic. (nb:FIA GT added) - Rollof1 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above, great idia Rollofl! Just one point, for a team such as Williams or Ferrari who have been an one single category, in this case Formula One, for a long time. However, both have ventured into minor side projects, with my "specialist knowledge" being Williams the BTCC and Le Mans team quickly comes to mind for them, so how would one go about trying to fit a table 20 years long with a 2 year spanning bar underneath and still have enough room for one to see what the small two year bar reads? Sorry if it sounds complicated, just ask me if you don't understand ;-).--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was actually more about teams just doing one-offs in a series.  For instance, JetAlliance Racing, an FIA GT team, running one race of the Le Mans Series.  Would you include the Le Mans Series on the chart even if it was just one race? The359 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I wouldn't bother with different colours for different racing series - I'd just use one colour for "filled in" squares and one for "blank" squares - that's the system most (all?) the timeline templates in :Category:Automotive timeline templates use. Also, I'd like to see all the years filled in in the top row, so readers don't have to count. DH85868993 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racing team timeline 

message: The previous discussion brings something up: We should create a comment (computer programming) at the top of each template that were created by this WikiProject. The note should discuss that the origin of the template (if needed: the templates that it replaces, a link to its creation discussion, etc.), a link to WP:MOTOR noting to discuss major changes here, etc. The comment section warns anyone who wants to update the template to not make changes so that they know that changing it affects a large number of articles. Royalbroil 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the templates are in peoples watchlist, then any ham-fisted changes will be spotted and reversed quickly, so I'm not sure its really necessary. --Falcadore 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a waste of someone's time if they do good faith edits to the template not knowing what it affects. A paragraph of a few sentences is all that I'm proposing. Royalbroil 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like...  ?? Pyrope 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - well put. Royalbroil 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not conforming with project protocols" makes it sound like the projects in question own the pages in question, even templates. They do not, so long as the change to the template is in line with the mission of Wikipedia as a whole. Hate to split hairs, but I've had them split enough on me. --Chr.K. 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same Chr.K. - as an alternative we could just add the  to the documentation which mostly does what Royalbroil requests, in a standard style but minus the assertion of ownership. AlexJ 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't start this thread thinking that WP:MOTOR has ownership, just that major changes to the templates should be discussed here first. I suppose the later half of my last sentence implies ownership. The template was created by this project to standardize the infobox because many circuits host races from multiple series. This WikiProject coordinates things that affect all motorsport series. The sentence "Any edits not conforming with project protocols will be reverted" should be toned down significantly or even better deleted altogether. Otherwise we could request that any changes to the template be discussed on the template's talk page. If someone has a proposed change, then the first person to notice should leave a note here noting the discussion. That plan would require that contributors in this WikiProject should put all of these template on their watchlist. It would be nice to inform any updater to the template that consensus on this template was discussed by contributors belonging to numerous WikiProjects so that they know to discuss major changes to the template.  The "Intricate template" doesn't talk about discussing changes to the template at all, so I don't see its relevance here. Royalbroil 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Motorsport templates

message: Do we really need this? Does it offer any advantages over ? Looking at :Category:Temporal templates, no other sports seem to have their own version of the template. DH85868993 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make more sense to change its category into a motorsport sub-cat of future sporting events, which would actually be quite useful. Adrian M. H. 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Keep" - personally, I like it, but I can understand they overlap and can cause redundancy. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, except the soccer ball is used for ANY future sport, including golf, hocket, American football, rugby, baseball, swimming, cycling, anything.  So the soccer ball logo is not meant to imply that it's only for use on soccer articles. The359 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Future motor sport]] 

message: :: Update - Done! check it out, we have two images now:
The goal is to show the differences between the AVUS' 43-degree banking at the Nordkurve ("The Wall of Death") and the turns at the Daytona International Speedway (31 degrees) and Indianapolis Motor Speedway (11 degrees). Guroadrunner (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the first one looks much better and easier to read. The359 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely #1. The X axis and Y axis are critical for reference. Royalbroil 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Kulwicki is not up to GA standards yet. Several of the things brought up in its Request for Comment need to be addressed yet. I don't plan to have it evaluated against the GA criteria for a while. Royalbroil 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd stick with Option 1.  Less cluttered and easier to read. The359 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with The359.  Option 1 is easier to read.  But your information is wrong.  Indy is banked at 9 degrees 11 minutes, not 11 degrees.  You might want to change that before putting it in an article.Mustang6172 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9 degrees 12 minutes. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer Option 1. But note the two minor errors: "Tack" should be "Track" and the end of the word "Indianapolis" is cut off. DH85868993 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd go for Option 1, other than the other issues raised here, could you make the text smaller to accommodate "Indianapolis". Willirennen (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversely, I'd prefer option two, but with the circuit names made a touch smaller, the degree annotation moved to the end of each line, and the external key ditched. Pyrope 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of both. Start with #2. Add the heading "Track Banking" or "Track banking comparison" or "AVUS track banking compared to Daytona and Indianapolis". You don't need the label both underneath the line and in an external key. I prefer the label below the line because it gives enough room to spell the entire name out. The full name of each track needs to be spelled out for readers less familiar with the tracks. Units are important, so the degree symbol after the number needs to be used. The X axis should be labeled 0 degrees (on the right) and the Y axis 90 degrees (on the top). The "0" at the origin should be removed if possible. Otherwise you could place a white box in a higher level over the "0" to remove it from view. Royalbroil 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, a title is a must! As for axes, the problem here is that radial data is being shown on a cartesian plot. Arguably, "x-axis" and "y-axis" are spurious terms to use in relation to this plot. It might just be better to ditch the y-axis altogether and rename it a "schematic diagram". Just a thought. Pyrope 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all of your input on this. Pyrope's comments are especially important because I had used a line chart generator to create those plot points, meaning the lines "look" accurate but I'm not sure if they actually are. With this in mind, I'm working with a buddy who's an engineer (and thus understands math better than I do) to do this up in Excel or another charting program. Watch this space sometime next week. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if this part has been mentioned, but it would be even better if the graphic included banking data from more than just three tracks. Bristol for instance, a short track, is 35°, two more than Talladega and four more than Daytona. Comparing all the major world tracks might be best of all. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Chr.K.'s last post. Having more than three tracks would make the graph more difficult to follow. Daytona & Indy are probably the two most well-known tracks in the U.S. overall. The reason for having the graph is to show that AVUS has very high banking compared to other tracks, not to have a graph of all major tracks. Royalbroil 13:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Royalbroil, if this is just being used for a limited comparison. In addition, if one were constructed to compare a number of tracks, I would prefer that a proper track cross-section be used. Many banked tracks (e.g. Monza, Brooklands) used a parabolic profile, while some are a relatively flat bowl, and others (e.g. AVUS) use a flat upper section, and a parabolic apron. Set these against the tricky convex shape of the Nürburgring's Karussel and it would make a fascinating diagram. These profile differences make or made quite a difference in the way that drivers approached the banking. Pyrope 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. A few tracks in the United States use progressive banking. Progressive banking means that the outside racing lines have higher banking. This allows for side-by-side racing all of the way around the track since the cars on the outside keep higher speed through the corners. I don't know the exact shape of the tracks (if they are parabolic). For an image of a parabola in this context, see Parabolic trough. Board track racing circuits regularly had 60 degree banking! Royalbroil 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that many were intended to be parabolic, even if it was only as exact at 60' wide concrete can be made. Brooklands (left) is noticeably steepening toward the rim. Pyrope 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with adding Bristol because they just changed the banking into a progressive, cup-like track. Monza's banking isn't in use (although thankfully not torn down yet) and many casual readers wouldn't have recognizance of it. Brooklands, maybe, but Daytona and Indy are two of the biggest epicenters in racing. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math question 

message: Which do you like better? This is to indicate the banking of the Nordkurve in contrast to two other well-known tracks. Note that because they are SVG, they can be modified further. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd stick with Option 1.  Less cluttered and easier to read. The359 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with The359.  Option 1 is easier to read.  But your information is wrong.  Indy is banked at 9 degrees 11 minutes, not 11 degrees.  You might want to change that before putting it in an article.Mustang6172 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9 degrees 12 minutes. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also prefer Option 1. But note the two minor errors: "Tack" should be "Track" and the end of the word "Indianapolis" is cut off. DH85868993 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd go for Option 1, other than the other issues raised here, could you make the text smaller to accommodate "Indianapolis". Willirennen (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversely, I'd prefer option two, but with the circuit names made a touch smaller, the degree annotation moved to the end of each line, and the external key ditched. Pyrope 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of both. Start with #2. Add the heading "Track Banking" or "Track banking comparison" or "AVUS track banking compared to Daytona and Indianapolis". You don't need the label both underneath the line and in an external key. I prefer the label below the line because it gives enough room to spell the entire name out. The full name of each track needs to be spelled out for readers less familiar with the tracks. Units are important, so the degree symbol after the number needs to be used. The X axis should be labeled 0 degrees (on the right) and the Y axis 90 degrees (on the top). The "0" at the origin should be removed if possible. Otherwise you could place a white box in a higher level over the "0" to remove it from view. Royalbroil 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, a title is a must! As for axes, the problem here is that radial data is being shown on a cartesian plot. Arguably, "x-axis" and "y-axis" are spurious terms to use in relation to this plot. It might just be better to ditch the y-axis altogether and rename it a "schematic diagram". Just a thought. Pyrope 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all of your input on this. Pyrope's comments are especially important because I had used a line chart generator to create those plot points, meaning the lines "look" accurate but I'm not sure if they actually are. With this in mind, I'm working with a buddy who's an engineer (and thus understands math better than I do) to do this up in Excel or another charting program. Watch this space sometime next week. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if this part has been mentioned, but it would be even better if the graphic included banking data from more than just three tracks. Bristol for instance, a short track, is 35°, two more than Talladega and four more than Daytona. Comparing all the major world tracks might be best of all. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Chr.K.'s last post. Having more than three tracks would make the graph more difficult to follow. Daytona & Indy are probably the two most well-known tracks in the U.S. overall. The reason for having the graph is to show that AVUS has very high banking compared to other tracks, not to have a graph of all major tracks. Royalbroil 13:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Royalbroil, if this is just being used for a limited comparison. In addition, if one were constructed to compare a number of tracks, I would prefer that a proper track cross-section be used. Many banked tracks (e.g. Monza, Brooklands) used a parabolic profile, while some are a relatively flat bowl, and others (e.g. AVUS) use a flat upper section, and a parabolic apron. Set these against the tricky convex shape of the Nürburgring's Karussel and it would make a fascinating diagram. These profile differences make or made quite a difference in the way that drivers approached the banking. Pyrope 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. A few tracks in the United States use progressive banking. Progressive banking means that the outside racing lines have higher banking. This allows for side-by-side racing all of the way around the track since the cars on the outside keep higher speed through the corners. I don't know the exact shape of the tracks (if they are parabolic). For an image of a parabola in this context, see Parabolic trough. Board track racing circuits regularly had 60 degree banking! Royalbroil 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that many were intended to be parabolic, even if it was only as exact at 60' wide concrete can be made. Brooklands (left) is noticeably steepening toward the rim. Pyrope 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with adding Bristol because they just changed the banking into a progressive, cup-like track. Monza's banking isn't in use (although thankfully not torn down yet) and many casual readers wouldn't have recognizance of it. Brooklands, maybe, but Daytona and Indy are two of the biggest epicenters in racing. Guroadrunner (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AVUS revisited

message: 2007 was the first season where WikiProject NASCAR contributors did individual race reports. There were a few races in 2006 with race reports. Right now there is no race report navigation box for NASCAR and one needs to be created (as discussed here: WT:NASCAR#2006 Race_results). I'm wondering if we (at WP:MOTOR) should create a standard race report succession box that could/should be used for all racing series? The differences between existing templates is relatively small. Some one of a kind races might eventually benefit from a generic nav box, so a generic nav box should be built for them. A list of current templates: F1 uses , A1GP uses , the 12 Hours of Sebring uses , Sportscar Racing use , V8 uses , and old Grand Prix use . I suggest starting with  because it has everything that might want to be added to a race. It has 2 templates in one: the same event last and next year plus last and next race in the current season. Royalbroil 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race succession box

message: *I just saw on WP:DELT that the article China Formula Renault Challenge has been proposed for speedy deletion.  Is this series real, and if so, can someone find a source to meet WP:V?  If so, please slap a "hangon" tag on the article until it can be cited. Barno (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is already deleted, but its a real Formula Renault 2.0L series : frdsports.com. I'm working on all Formula Renault series and I generate probably the Asia Formula Renault Challenge page in the near future than include the China Formula Renault Challenge. The page was deleted but its content wasn't pertinent so it's no big deal. - Rollof1 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Thank you! Barno (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Formula Renault Challenge?