Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 3

message: For this as yet unused section of the portal, should we aim for recent quotes of interest or notable quotes from any era? I think I would prefer the latter, as they tend to be more interesting/amusing. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this. Notable quotes from history is more interesting and probably fits better with Wikipedia, leave current quotes to WikiNews. Mind you, if we go this way, Murray Walker will probably need a whole sub-page for himself... Pyrope 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter, definitely. As Pyrope says, otherwise, it's verging on WikiNews. And there's so much we'd miss out on. 4u1e 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. I'll set up a management page like we use for the DYKs, then we can rotate them easily. I was wondering if we should have reference for each quote, since it's quite important to prevent mis-attributed or made up quotes: not necessarily visible on the portal, because I suppose that would need embedded URLs (no good if the source is not online). How should we approach verifying the quotes? Adrian M. H. 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should definitely be ref'd somewhere, it's all too easy for the apocryphal versions to creep in otherwise. They don't need to be ref'd on the portal itself though. Can the refs be added as a footnote on the management page? 4u1e 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking of. I think we could have them footnoted on the management page and then copy the content without the ref. We can thrash out the details once we have some quotes together. Adrian M. H. 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have created the Portal:Motorsport/Quotes (management) page, so we can start thinking of some good quotes to put on it! Adrian M. H. 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh heavens yes, we need to keep on top of the source citations. Maybe a line at the top of  the page, or a notice, to the effect that any unsourced quotes added will be struck out without discussion? Otherwise we really are going to open a nasty can of worms. Pyrope 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we have just a single quote on the portal and use the "random content" template, it would mean less work for us ;-). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, today, I was wondering whether one quote per day might be good, but I didn't know if there was any automated script that would do it. Either way, I would be happy to take on the task of  updating the quotes if we do it manually. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. With feeling. :D 4u1e 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a perfectly respectable website, no better or worse than any other source that we use. The three quotes that I added were chosen because they are well known and already familiar to me; looking for a source for each quote brought up that website each time. If you two want to restrict us to printed material, then you'll have to count me out; not everyone has printed material. To compare someone's genuine efforts at research to "improperly sourced anecdotage" is unreasonable (particularly using edit summaries that describe the material as unsourced). Adrian M. H. 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not printed material only, but reliable sources, which can be online. I too am uneasy with Brainyquote, because I have no idea what it is. For all I know it rips all its material from Wikiquote, same as Answers.com and countless others do from Wikipedia. 4u1e 06:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the Damon Hill quote, using Grandprix.com as a reference. Joe Saward seems to have done the original interview, probably for one of the papers, rather than the site, as it was in 1993, but it's reproduced there in full. 4u1e 07:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, I have reinstated the Dale Earnhardt quote. A few more minutes manipulating Google turned up a fansite with a direct attribution to a specific book, which I am much happier with. Pyrope 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Adrian, no personal slur intended at all, sorry if it felt that way. Rather, it was a go at brainyquote. The site as it stands is just another poorly put together dumping ground, and certainly isn't of the same quality as the excellent GrandPrix.com, BBC.co.uk, F1.com, ITV-F1.com, Autosport.com, 8W and many others. My assessment that it was unsourced was reasonable under the interpretaion of the term from WP:SOURCE. Just because a "fact" appears on any old website somewhere does not make it true, and the huge number of apocraphal quotes floating around mean that just because you have heard it before it isn't neccessarily real. Pyrope 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Motorsport/Quotes]] 

message: There is a little thing about this article I wish to clear up. In the paragraph on his crash at last weekend's GP2 race in Magny-Cours, the article says he made contact with both Michael Ammermuller and Kazuki Nakajima. Now perhaps this is just me but there are several things wrong here:
*Looking at the videos of Viso crash it would appear that the Venezuelan only made contact with Ammermuller.
*In this article it says that Viso made contact with "a  slowing car" - no plural so how can it be both as the Wikipedia article currently states.
*Noting Ammermuller's car span following contact with Viso - If Viso had made contact with Nakajima, now come his car didn't spin like Ammuermuller's car did?
*Interestingly, the GP2 press office had an interview with Viso a the following day when he was released from hospital - Note the last sentence of the second answer, "I just touched the car in front and was flying" - Once again no plural.
But then there is some inconsistency with Autosport's material, in this week's edition they have an article about the accident it reads, "...and ploughs into their rear wheels" - suggesting that Viso made contact with both Nakajima and Ammermuller. So now, with this material to consider, we now have to ask: What really happened at Magny-Cours and who did Viso crash into prior to taking off? Ammermuller or Nakajima or perhaps both. 
Anyway, as DH always says, thoughts? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernesto Viso 

message: The article on Gurney flap has recently been greatly expanded by some people over in :Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation.  The history element from Dan Gurney has been placed on the article, but I figure more from the standpoint of racing useage can also be added.  If anyone has anything to offer, feel free to add it.  I've already added a decent picture of a Gurney flap, and figure someone knows of more that might be available.
The article is also up for DYK nomination, so this'll likely be on the Main Page. The359 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gurney flap]] 

message: fyi, Boost (automotive engineering) has been WP:PRODed by someone. 132.205.44.5 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boost (automotive engineering) 

message: WikiProject Motorsport can now claim its first Good Article, as the article was promoted today! This article was developed as a direct result of this WikiProject. The article was discussed on this talk page, and User:4u1e was willing to mentor me and help expand/cite the article. The article was strong in his Formula One career, but weak in all other aspects of his career. Royalbroil 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to both of you. That has increased WP:MOTOR's GAs by 50% by my reckoning, so the more the merrier. Adrian M. H. 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! So what was the first GA then? Royalbroil 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of mine; F3 Euroseries. I have a couple of articles in mind for a complete rewrite and GA development, time willing, so we might have some more soon. Adrian M. H. 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice article. I do remember you mentioning the article now that you point it out. I propose that we keep track of all the Good and Featured articles that WikiProject Motorsport inspires. GA & FA from child WikiProjects would not be included, except if they were inspired or collaborated by this WikiProject (like Andretti was). Royalbroil 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like that suggestion. Nothing wrong with patting ourselves on the back now and again. A small section on the main project page could serve as an encouragement for such efforts. Adrian M. H. 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I thought Mark Webber was the first GA of the Motorsport Project? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would belong to the F1 project. I think of WP:MOTOR as being (primarily) about the large quantity of content that does not have another project. Adrian M. H. 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Adrian's comment, but I would add: ...or made significant contributions to multiple child WikiProjects. Royalbroil 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, absolutely. Hence the focus Mario's article. Adrian M. H. 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mario Andretti is now a Good Article [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] 

message: The transponder article does not mention its use in racing. I think it has widespread use: several local track in my area use transponders. Would someone with references please add a racing section to the article? Royalbroil 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transponder]]

message: appears to be unused. Is there any intention to use it, or can it be deleted? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is earmarked for a number of pages, mostly existing stubs together with some articles that need to be created. It fills a specific rôle for which the other driver infoboxes are not the best fit due to the transient nature of a junior racing career. Adrian M. H. 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation - I suggest that you (or someone else involved in the projcet) add a note to that effect, to the template's talk page. That said, it looks as though all the "...driver" templates at :Category:Motor_racing_infoboxes could be merged, with appropriate optional parameters set. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to keep the category-based system, partly because of the absence (quite correctly) of season articles for most of the lower formulae. For example, an article that uses  will have a link to the (yet-to-be-created) 2007 DTM season article, whereas a driver who competes in, say, Italian Formula Renault cannot use that field in that way, so it gets modified to link to Formula Renault instead. I think it is better to keep the most important fields unique to each template so that there is no ambiguity about which to use. I don't see any need to delete or merge these templates. Adrian M. H. 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have the link as an optional field which is hidden if left empty. Readro 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are lots of templates with "switchable" options such as you describe. By merging templates, future changes only have to be made once, rather than on every one of a range of them. The results on the page need not be changed by the merger. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having designed and worked on a number of infoboxes, I really would say keep the number down and keep it simple. There are a number of ways that you can "switch" options and make unused fields disappear. I would look at the minimum fields you want and make these compulsory, then look at things you may want to add, depending on the status of the subject. Regards, SeveroTC 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I throw this into the ballpark. I looked at the football infobox as they seemed well organised and I think it meets all the criteria. Readro 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a different situation than football/soccer, since we have several different infoboxes for drivers. Different child WikiProjects have differing needs. In F1, wins, podium finishes, and being in the points are all that really matter. In NASCAR, wins, Top 5s, Top 10s, and even starts all matter. There is a totally different philosophy. We recently had a lengthy discussion at WikiProject American Open Wheel about how to do race results infoboxes for drivers. It's hard to come up with a plan. I was just thinking about proposing a single drivers infobox for all WikiProjects this week, but I couldn't see how we could work it out. The template User:Readro/Sandbox3 is excellent for an overview of most driver's career, especially those that either stayed in one series for a long time or changed careers one season at a time like Juan Pablo Montoya. It would be very bad for someone who raced everything in one season like Mario Andretti did in the early 1970s, or people who made it to the big time for a short while and then went back down like Nathan Haseleu. The next question would be at what would be the starting and ending point? That's an easy question to answer with someone who retires in a top series. What would a journeyman who slowly falls down the ladder? What about someone like Mark Martin (NASCAR), who has continued to race in the second best series (the Busch Series) for the fun of it, and not for points? He holds the record for the most wins in series even though he doesn't race full-time in it. I love the idea, but I don't see how it could be implemented consistently. Royalbroil 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, though it needs some documentation if it's to replace all the others. Also, please use  for the entry in the birth date field. Finally, please do not use colour alone to denote data, as in your yellow backgrounds - think how it will appear printed in B&W, or sound when read by, say, a blind user's assistive software. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to merge all the xxxxx driver templates, it must support all the fields currently used for each championship. Only the present series isn't good enough because, for example, Mika Hakkinen would have DTM information, but his Career Points, First Win etc. for his F1 career wouldn't be included. AlexJ 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't help feeling that this proposal could unleash havoc. Far better to have the flexibility of multiple boxes, and as they are all pretty much formatted to a standard they stack quite neatly when needed (see John Surtees) and allow separation when a driver has a significant career in multiple disciplines (see Juan Pablo Montoya). Maintaining separate boxes allows each specialist Wikiproject to adjust their box details without risking damage to something not linked to their field of knowlege. (As an F1/sportscar fan I haven't got a clue about NASCAR for example...) The resultant code and template would be so enormous that it would be extremely difficult to use, and literally hundreds of pages would have to be changed from their current form by hand. The proposal implies changes that are far too complex for any bot to cope with. You are trying to solve a problem that just doesn't exist, and in doing so you will create many. Pyrope 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. DH85868993 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "I can't help feeling that this proposal could unleash havoc" - Such hyperbole is unsupported by experience elsewhere. One of the problems with having multiple boxes is that when something changes, they all have to be updated, rather than the job being done once. Another is the tendency for inconsistencies to creep in. The effect on John Surtees can be achieved just as easily with one template; and bots can make the necessary changes. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back after internet problems for the past 7 days. Rarely is hyperbole of this magnitude true, but this is an exception. I can't imagine attempting a driver's infobox for Mario Andretti. I invite you to prove me wrong. A case for a universal driver's infobox needs to demonstrate its extreme versatility for Andretti before it could be used. Juan Pablo Montoya would be difficult too as noted above. Royalbroil 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior series driver template 

message: I thought I should let everyone know that a huge number of freely licensed photos depicting classic F1 and sports cars were uploaded to Flickr yesterday, by this user: .  A number of these should be useful for illustrating articles covered by this Wikiproject.--Diniz (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to the set is here.  There are 178 photos available in all! ;)--Diniz (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only F1, but sportscars!  Awesome.  Now I just have to identify all of them... The359 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very special collection. I have commented there so the photographer can read it. Royalbroil 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large number of freely-licensed photos available on Flickr 

message: We need to come up with a WikiProject award for WikiProject Motor. There are several contributors that deserve the honor. Please nominate a barnstar, and add it to a gallery below. I propose that we accept designs until the end of the day (UTC) on August 15 (14 days). I propose voting starting at the beginning of the day on August 16 and ending at the end of the day on August 22 UTC (7 days). Royalbroil 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick note - make your images 120px wide if possible. Mine was 111px at first and the software screwed up the resizing for the gallery. Readro 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small idea Readro - Can you use your helmet templates and make a helmet BS one, please? You know, with the star on the helmet, similar to how the "missing barnstar" looks like.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this? Readro 21:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How about we wait with commenting until the proposals are all in as I suggested above, or should we start commenting right away? Royalbroil 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been a few days now (and I haven't got the graphics skills to offer up anything!) I will vote for AlexJ's design. He has done a good job with the chequered flag, which has not lost the weighty, metallic appearance of the star. Very classy, with a slightly dirty look reminiscent of engine oil!  Adrian M. H. 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #5 would look even better with victory laurels or something similar on either side.  I also like AlexJ's design for the same reasons as Adrian.--Diniz (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote for AlexJ's design too - more like the other barnstars, but also completely distinctive. That's not to say I don't like the others too! 4u1e 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like AlexJ's design.  When you look at it, you can still see the Barnstar texture, but you know what's it's about.Mustang6172 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My favorite is #3. I like how the helmet is universal to all racing genres. #2 is my least favorite, which is why I redrew as 2B. I don't like the gray parts of star - I like clean well-defined black and white checkers. No worries, though, as I will abide by whatever consensus determines. Royalbroil 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I too will vote for #2, it is the cleanest design and easiest to understand BOTH as a barnstar and as motorsports related. The359 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus easily has #2 as the winner. I will add it to the list of WikiProject Barnstars, and it can be used immediately. I have uploaded the image to Commons, and called it :Image:WikiProject Motorsport Barnstar.png. You can find the template for the award at Template:Motorsport Barnstar. The easiest way to award is to cut and paste the following text:         -- Royalbroil 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject award

message: Image:Wp motorsport proposed barnstar.png|A design I threw together - Readro 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed designs

message: See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). Adrian M. H. 10:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed style guideline for UK nationality 

message: Someone has nominated to rename them to "NASCAR terminology" and "Auto racing terminology" / "Motor racing terminology"/ "Motorsport terminology". Please join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_7#Category:NASCAR_terms. Royalbroil 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention of the NASCAR terms category is for terms that are used in NASCAR racing only and no other motorsport. Royalbroil 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new names are Motorsport terminology and NASCAR terminology. Adrian M. H. 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming [[:Category:NASCAR terms]] and [[:Category:Auto racing terms]]

message: I noticed a need for an infobox for governing bodies, so I have started . Just work-in-progress, though, so I would be glad to have any input that anyone can offer, such as adding any useful fields that I haven't yet thought of. Adrian M. H. 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some governing bodies might have an appropriate logo or other image, so I suggest adding an image capability. Most infoboxes have the image just below the top border. Royalbroil 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added hcard microformat markup; moved the documentation to a separate page; and renamed the "country/region" field to a more generic (and more easily typed!) "location". I'm not sure, though, that both "location" and "headquarters" are needed; in which case the latter is more commonly used on other infoboxes for organisations. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the having both headquarters and location fields. For example, NASCAR is headquartered in the U.S., and has racing series in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Formula One is located worldwide, and its headquarters needs to be added to its article. Royalbroil 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your examples sound more like, say, "coverage" rather than "location". Please note how "location" is used on other templates - we should be careful to avoid confusing editors by sing the same names for different properties. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "country/region" field is the area of jurisdiction, not the location of the organisation. That is covered by the "headquarters" filed instead. So the MSA would have United Kingdom and Colnbrook, Berkshire respectively. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how clarity of the phrase "area of jurisdiction". I suggest changing the name of the field to "area of jurisdiction". Then "headquarters" could keep the same name. Royalbroil 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I will add the image capability at some point as well. Adrian M. H. 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then label it as "area of jurisdiction" on the page, and use "coverage" as the property name in the template, to keep the naming in common with other templates. Don't reinvent the wheel. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a good reason why the name of the field and the title of the field should be completely different, and why anyone would worry whether this infobox had a field with the same name as other infoboxes? That just doesn't make any sense. Each field's name and title should be substantially the same or in some way similar to assist editors. Adrian M. H. 08:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commonality of parameter names across infoboxes (like the avoidance of using the same names to mean different things; and their brevity) reduces the burden on editors, to remember and recognise such differences. There are many examples of the displayed label being different to the parameter name; there is no reason why they need to be the same. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "This template will be used by a relatively small number of editors in this project and its siblings" - we can't know who will use it, in the future; WP:OWN applies. Kindly refrain from making personal attacks; assume good faith, and remember that your original comment said "I would be glad to have any input that anyone can offer,". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy/Pigs, since you've went there, please give us list some templates that use the name "coverage" to prove why it should be used in this application. Also, I WILL NOT SUPPORT having a parameter name different than its displayed label. There is no reason to do that. It is counterintuitive. Talking about civility and assume good faith: You come to a peaceful WikiProject to which you do not belong, probably are not knowledgable about its subject, and then you hijack a discussion to require us to change the field label to something different than the parameter name without citing one example. Now YOU'RE the one complaining that others are making personal attacks, not assuming good faith? Please leave us alone then. This field is a very minor detail in the big scheme of things, and it is SO not worth ANY drama. Royalbroil 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spending the time. As for "2006 position", that should remain as is because 2006 was the last year and we need to keep the parameter name generic so only the field label needs to be changed each year. Debut season vs. first year needs to be made the same, so good catch. On "Transmission" and "lap record", the field labels need to be different than the multiple parameters that are used to build the field. Let's change both the field label and parameter name to "Coverage" on the template in question. Then let's end this discussion, for we all have better things to do than to spend more time on something so minor as this field/parameter. Royalbroil 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine a similar thing applies to field names & labels as does to Wikilinks. It's a guideline that Easter Egg wikilinks (that is Wikilinks which don't really tell you where you're going, e.g. linking 1995 World Champion) shouldn't be used. 'Easter Egg' field names which don't clearly correspond to a field label are just as frustrating for editors. The examples you give above are all perfectly clear for people familiar with the subject whereas Coverage/Location/Region/HQ/Address can all mean the same thing or different things. We need to be as clear as possible with field gives each label. AlexJ 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; but we need to be consistently clear. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples you gave are clear though. The name, number of gears, type and differential make up the transmission, The record_time, driver, team and year make up the lap record. You can't mistake these for anything else. AlexJ 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox 

message: Discussion here. Davnel03 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing, as that is the most appropriate WikiProject. Royalbroil 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I've nominated for deletion 

message: Per a discussion with 4u1e; we've agreed to put the article on peer review; feel free to comment on possible improvements that could be made here. Thanks. Davnel03 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brabham BT19]] 

message: I would suggest that you take advantage of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting system and create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport (or similar) page that would include notification for nominations related to this and all child WikiProjects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust the process (in which I actively take part) to delete the crap and keep anything that really is worth keeping, but I suppose that it could be useful to keep track of nominations and outcomes. We don't see very many, though. Adrian M. H. 09:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Sorting 

message: I think we need to finally fix the whole infobox issue. I believe that a total merger is unwise for the following reasons:
* The need for a large number of unique fields for Formula One, NASCAR and the WRC (possibly one or two others as well?)
* The need for specific infoboxes for a small number of major and unique events such as  for the 24 Hours of le Mans. At a stretch, these could be merged into one single "event" infobox.
* A single template with as many fields and sections as we all need would be huge and difficult to manage, which is counter to the intention of the merger proposal.
However, I have come round to the idea that at least some of the other infoboxes can be supplanted. These include , , ,  and , for example. I am in the process of working on a new design that I hope can replace  and cover the needs of the other similar templates. It is displayed in use here for both current and retired drivers. If this works out, we could have as little as four or five driver templates, including:
*  (In a new format)
*  (May need to keep one or two of the others, but I think they could be merged if so desired)
*  (May need to keep , but the WP:F1 staffers are the best judge of that)
*  (Needs improvement and expansion)
We could even have just one "special event" infobox as well, but personally, I have no specific opinion about that. It is the driver infoboxes that really need to be sorted out at this time.
Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I guessing correctly that the new driver infobox template was inspired (sort of) by the footballer's template? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should try and keep the 'seamless stackability' of the templates (i.e. make the name,photo & nationality optional for each and have them in similar style and size). In addition I think current & former F1 driver templates can be merged, with two different 'pro-formas' provided in the documentation to be used for current or past drivers. AlexJ 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Alex: Agree totally. I will make those fields optional later today. To Skully: No, because I have never seen the football infobox. Football? Eugh!! ;-) Actually, the nearest thing I had to inspiration was the cyclist infobox. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do we need all the unique fields for the top series? Couldn't we relegate them to a separate table? Readro 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the wins/starts data, we have those already in almost all driver templates; they are interesting and informative and I don't think that relegating them anywhere would serve an purpose except to reduce their at-a-glance availability. Readers like to go to, for example, Fernando Alonso or Andy Priaulx (needs a main infobox, actually) and see at a glance how successful they have been in their main field of endeavour. Adrian M. H. 14:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And they are all optional, don't forget. Adrian M. H. 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have the expertise, but if you ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates (I'll add a pointer from that project's talk page to here, shortly), I think you will find that techniques exist to overcome your concerns. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose concerns do you mean? Adrian M. H. 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only real concern that I have is the big issue; namely, how to rationalise the templates without losing certain very important templates and ending up with one huge template. Naturally, I think that my proposal can provide that sensible middle ground between what we have now and what some people, yourself included, have favoured. Adrian M. H. 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If we get to the point where we need to start changing over to a new template or make any other changes to affected articles, I have compiled a list in my link directory of templates that are likely to be merged/deleted and the articles that use them. Adrian M. H. 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  merge fairly easily (there's about 5 differences plus the extra British F1 stuff which goes at the end). There's the question of converting the 600-odd articles that currently use the templates but when the new style is agreed on we can convert as and when entries are updated, providing the new box is accepted at WPF1 of course. An example (not with all features added yet) can be seen here AlexJ 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That all looks really good. I like how you've used my design; that shows, I think, that we're on the right track with this combination and the degree of flexibility that we can get. I'll seek some feedback from the WP:AOWR members tomorrow to see if they need any changes or additions. I'm not yet 100% certain how best to handle the changeover if we adopt the new design. It is too different to simply merge into the existing , so I might take a two-step approach. Keep it in a dedicated user sub-page until all the articles that currently use  are changed over (should not take me too long) then over-write the old template with new one and the only bit that will need to be changed is the name of the template on the affected articles (about 50 or so). The only other option that I can think of is to create a new template and use that instead, but  is by far the most logical name. Adrian M. H. 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are a lot of articles, HermesBot can do the last step (changing the name of the template on the affected articles). AlexJ 00:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new driver infobox that Adrian proposes looks reasonable to me. I haven't used the Champ Car driver template, so I won't comment as an "expert" user for WP:AOWR. I agree that the 4 driver infoboxes should remain because their uses are so different. I don't want to see the new driver infobox get too complicated. Royalbroil 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution for the infobox issue 

message: I have just finished the process of changing the 54(!) articles that used  to the new design, kept here for this task. So that's the manual bit out of the way. With no articles using it, I have been able to update  to match the new design and I will use a bot (or AWB?) for the simple task of changing the name of the template on each article so that they point to the new design in its proper place. Now we just have to deal with the articles that use the other templates that can be replaced (BTCC, etc.) but that can be done over time, I think. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: As part of the 2007 Le Mans Series season, results pages for individual events have been placed on Wikipedia, just like most every major motorsports series (Formula 1 has a results page for every race ever run).  Someone has decided to nominate 2007 1000km of Spa, as well as the three other results pages for the 2007 season, claiming that because the majority of the article is a results table, it fails WP:NOT#INFO and should be deleted.  This would affect the majority of F1 articles that do not yet have race reports, the majority of Sports Car Racing articles so far, as well as any other results page made by any other series.  Please voice your opinions of this at the AfD discussion. The359 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sticky issue. I participate regularly at AFD, both assessing and nominating, and I tend to favour a fairly firm approach. If I was assessing 2007 1000km of Spa in particular, I would request that text and references are added (the absence of source citations is a big problem) in order to keep it. Point #4 of NOT INFO needs to be addressed, certainly. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point 4 could certainly be addressed with the addition of a race report, but this holds true for the majority of individual race reports ranging from Formula One to Indianapolis 500 to 1000km of Spa.  I hardly see the results of an event as simple "statistics."  The359 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I, but I think that a lot of AFD regulars are going to look at these kinds of articles somewhat unfavourably. Part of the underlying problem is the lack of the assertion of notability that comes from having little or no text. Motorsport fans like us know whether an event is notable, but that isn't enough if we don't manage to include some encyclopædic prose and good sources in any such article that currently lacks them. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the race result should have reports and that it should be added, and I certainly hope that all of them can have reports added.  But as you know from the F1 race reports, there are simply so many that it is impossible to full all of them with reports at the moment.  This will become especially hard when we get into older events where there are no readily available reports of the events. The359 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race results AfD, could affect all motorsports projects 

message: I propose that BMW Motorsport be renamed as BMW in motorsport:
* for consistency with Alfa Romeo in motorsport, Porsche in motorsport and Mercedes-Benz in motorsport
* because the article is actually about BMW's involvement in motorsport, rather than an entity named "BMW Motorsport"
Any objections? DH85868993 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I support the proposed rename.  "BMW Motorsport" makes M3's and other high-performance versions of BMWs.  "BMW in motorsport" is consistent with an article about motorsport involvement by the whole company, not just the M division, and it's consistent with the other "manufacturer in motorsport" articles. Barno 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. With the Toyota feature in this last week's Autosport maybe I should do an article on "Toyota in motorsport". --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sensible, DH85868993. Skully, that is a great idea; I'll keep an eye out for it and help out if I can (though I don't buy any motorsport mags any more). Adrian M. H. 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. DH85868993 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair comment regarding BMW Motorsport redirecting to BMW in motorsport. Sometime within the next couple of days (unless someone else beats me to it) I'll go through all the articles which currently link to BMW Motorsport and (if appropriate) change them to link to BMW in motorsport instead. Then I'll turn BMW Motorsport from a redirect into a (stub) article about the entity/team by that name, similar to Alfa Corse. DH85868993 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated about half the links to BMW Motorsport to point to BMW in motorsport instead. As discussed, I've converted BMW Motorsport from a redirect into a proper (but very stubby) article. But I wonder whether it could/should possibly just be a redirect to BMW M - are they the same entity? DH85868993 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From everything I've seen, they are the same basic division, or at least were at one time.  However the racing teams have always been known as BMW Motorsport, and the road cars obviously always as BMW M.  I think that both articles can be kept seperate, with BMW Motorsport being the race team and BMW M the road car division. The359 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BMW M (the division) is nowadays responsible only for the special road car models and related development, though there is theoretically potential for a marketing department to opt to associate the title in some form with other activities, such as the M logos that have appeared (and presumably still do) on the cylinder head covers of the company's Formula One engines. I think that is basically how BMW chooses to arrange it these days (though it could make it easier for us!) Adrian M. H. 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rename for BMW Motorsport 

message: I have come across articles on a few local drivers with no experience in national or regional series. Is there any precedents in AFD discussions for articles like these? What about if the driver was very successful at the local level and won several local track championships, like Bobby Wilberg? He likely was the subject of multiple press appearances independent of the source. Royalbroil 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability guidelines aren't so much about the success or ability of a driver, just that he/she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". In general drivers in national and regional series tend to meet this criteria while local ones do not but there are always exceptions and if well sourced (with multiple reliable sources), there is no reason why local drivers should be deleted just for being a local driver. AlexJ 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability standards for drivers

message: Right, several driver articles that have moved from one kind of motorsport to another have two or three different tables in their articles, eg Juan Pablo Montoya, Jacques Villeneuve and Timo Glock. I am proposing that we "combine" the tables so that there is only one table in articles, not two or three as there are in some current articles. My new idea is here in my sandbox. What do you think of it? Davnel03 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose to deal with NASCAR where there are close to 40 events per season? Readro 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we really should have results tables positioned close to the text to which they refer, not all stashed down at the bottom of a page so that to refer back and forth while reading needs continual scrolling. This combines all the tables and prevents them from being shown appropriately. What's with the craze for combining things at the moment? Pyrope 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has never been a discussion at WikiProject NASCAR to create a table in this form for NASCAR drivers. I favor your proposal for all other series. Royalbroil 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would Non-Championship F1 races be included in the table for example? It seems very much weighted towards the current day organised championships as opposed to older drivers who competed in several series at once as well as one-off events. AlexJ 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only done it with Timo Glock in my sandbox to see what it would look like. Davnel03 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, I was just asking how it would be adapted. If you propose we do something, the obviously every 'What If?' scenario needs to be met satisfactorily before we can go ahead and use the new system. BTW, what's the meaning of the random bolding of words you use? AlexJ 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a NASCAR table in the Juan Pablo Montoya article. To be honest, I think it could use a rethink because it looks really squashed. I'm not sure this format works so well when there's so many races. Readro 13:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for tables in article

message: Hi all, I'm bringing this up here so it gets more attention from people knowledgable about the subject. I've created a section at WikiProject Automobiles to discuss whether race cars are covered by that project, I'm thinking of things like Formula 1 cars; are they really covered by the project? Anyway, to prevent a discussion happening on 2 talk pages, please discuss it over at Wikiproject Automobiles. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with WikiProject Automobiles 

message: I have started this new section on the basis on AlexJ's comments about the WikiProject:
Agree with the 'downgrading' of the Wikiproject to a taskforce or similar but not with the logic you've used (if we used that, and considering probably 80% of F1 race reports are incomplete then WP:F1 would be under threat!). If there are only a handful of contributors, then having it as a taskforce allows a central place for discussion without the need to maintain a WikiProject itself. Less administration means more time to write articles. Perhaps we should start a separate discussion on this below and leave a message on the talkpage of all listed members of WP:A1GP. AlexJ 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the suggestion was that we see how well they do with their upcoming season in a few months before deciding what to do with them? The359 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I would rather do. I don't want us to start making what could be seen as a bullish move. I noticed that the project's talk page activity picked up last month after two silent months. That said, there is no real harm in gently sounding out the interested parties to see what they think. On the upside, they would receive more direct access to input from this project's members. Adrian M. H. 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go to say that the activity's picked up to much. There's never been much real discussion on that talkpage. It only picked up last month yes with three comments, one about the lack of activity on the talkpage, one about a point to do with the standings, and the other Royalbroil made informing them about this conversation! Davnel03 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think a Taskforce would suit A1GP far better than a WikiProject. The change wouldn't affect their goals - they'd have their own introductory page and talk page located at a subpage of WP:MOTOR (Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/A1GP and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/A1GP). The WP:MOTOR banner on each article would have an option to add the line "This article is supported by the A1GP taskforce". It basically just removes the administration aspect of running the Wikiproject. I know WP:Video Games uses taskforces successfully for several different video game series (e.g. Grand Theft Auto series has a taskforce) each taskforce having between 10-25 participants. This seems a similar number to WP:A1GP's current membership. AlexJ 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to downgrade it to a taskforce. I'm not sure if that would give it a new impulse of activities tho. I personally am in a busy time of my life so I contribute less to Wikipedia than I would like. I also haven't been able to watch many A1GP races so I am even more limited in contributing to this project at the moment. Felsir 08:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: STOP! A handful of people, including just one member of the Wikiproject is not enough to go ahead with the changes. I was thinking of a timescale measured in months, not hours, for the change to allow everyone to voice their opinion and to make sure we're out of the off-season before making any changes. AlexJ 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep your cool please. It was only a suggestion. Thanks, Davnel03 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davnel, if you start saying things like "I will transform it into a taskforce" then expect people to shout at you. You were the one at fault there. Pyrope 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One word mistake, get over it. I made a mistake, everybody does. Davnel03 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct thing to do would have been to apologise for rushing into it, not telling someone to "get over it". It's ironic that you mention WP:CIVIL because your last comment is fairly rude and you might want to avoid that in future given that you're on shakey ground as it is. Readro 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this OK? It's not up to scratch, but its something. Davnel03 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until enough people agree before starting to draw up ideas. Given you have little interest in the series Davnel, it's probably best to leave regular contributors decide on how they want it to look. AlexJ 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Do we agree on keeping the race report articles though? Davnel03 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but that's for discussion under the appropriate heading above. AlexJ 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with Alex about that. Give it some time (months is about right) and if it gets enough support from the people who are most affected, let them have the biggest say in what happens. Adrian M. H. 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the original proposal to downgrade.  I don't think I have ever really understood why a subject as narrow as a non-world championship series should have a project to itself.  As one of the contributors (for a while the only contributor to some pages) I would have no objection - it would in fact give the series a not too dissimilar status to that held by another one of my old pet projects, improving and creating Speedway Grand Prix articles. Jsydave 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible downgrading on A1 GP WikiProject to Taskforce status 

message: As per this discussion, I've created a series of "<country> auto racing teams" categories, e.g. :Category:American auto racing teams, :Category:Austrian auto racing teams, etc. Currently, these categories are included as direct subcategories of :Category:Auto racing teams, and hence are intermingled with the "racing series" subcategories, e.g.:
::Category:Auto racing teams
::      :
:::Category:French auto racing teams
:::Category:GP2 teams
:::Category:German auto racing teams
:::Category:Grand American Road Racing Association teams
:::Category:Indy Racing League teams
:::Category:Irish auto racing teams
Are people happy with this, or would you rather see all the "country" categories grouped under an "Auto racing teams by country" subcategory, to separate them from the "racing series" subcategories, e.g. 
::Category:Auto racing teams
:::Category:Auto racing teams by country
:::   :
::::Category:French auto racing teams
::::Category:German auto racing teams
::::Category:Irish auto racing teams
:::Category:GP2 teams
:::Category:Grand American Road Racing Association teams
:::Category:Indy Racing League teams
DH85868993 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...by country" is tidy and logical, and seems to be the preferred approach elsewhere. I would recommend that option. Adrian M. H. 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the second option for two reasons. First, it is confusing to have the two ways to sort teams intermingled. Second, by country is the preferred approach used elsewhere per Adrain. Royalbroil 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. The same system works well over at Commons, where the "Racing cars by country" seems to work as a logical grouping. Pyrope 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the second option too to keep things tidy - "A place for everything and everything in its place" AlexJ 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DH85868993 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto racing team categories