Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Trimming of event and lead sections

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

I have worked my tail off to expand articles such as Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Charlotte Motor Speedway, Bristol Motor Speedway, and other NASCAR facilities across the United States from problem-riddled articles into fleshed-out, GA/FA eligible articles. I just feel as if this argument needs to stop; and I've finally decided to come to a consensus with the WP:MOTORSPORTS group. Please let me know what y'all think; personally, I think that the trimming of at least the leads by Mystic is unnecessary. I do however understand the events and I've tried to trim that down; but no matter what, it keeps getting reverted. I just want all this to stop. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this with a fresh pair of eyes, the current lead for Las Vegas Motor Speedway is far too short given the contents of the article. I can understand where MysticCipher87(alt-account) may have wanted to trim things down a little bit, but to leave it in its current state without providing much of an explanation other than "Trimming" or "Simplifying" in their edit summaries has me understanding why Nascar9919 is feeling frustrated.

I'd suggest trying to find a middle ground. Given that Nascar9919 only did a partial revert of MysticCipher87(alt-account)'s removal, it appears he is willing to make some concessions here. I'd love to hear from MysticCipher87(alt-account) as to why they've made the changes they have and why they feel they're necessary, but I will firmly say that the Charlotte and Bristol articles' leads are much closer to what I'd expect from a GA/FA-level track article than the current Las Vegas one is. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I find myself siding with MysticCipher87. There's too much nuanced detail for the basic statements of what the tracks are and why they are notable. This is what the lead is for, introducing the article. The history of auto racing in the 1940s and the man's name who founded it aren't important to people who will only read above the break of Charlotte Speedway. And even now in it's trimmed state, the point that Las Vegas speedway is served by the interstate and the boulevard is unnecessary to most people at this point.

I will give you much credit for the effort you put in. And in relevant appropriate sections below the break, no content should necessarily be removed. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: Like what BcSchneider said: a middle ground should be found. I'm completely fine with making concessions. But the extent to what Mystic is doing is I think too extreme; one short paragraph seems way insufficient for the facility. In my opinion, paragraphs that summarize short briefs of the history and amenities found at the facility should be fine. Perhaps combine the amenities and the first lead paragraph like in Kentucky Speedway and cut down on the history. To be honest, I included the interstates as I was taking inspiration from the only other NASCAR facility to get a GA (Auto Club Speedway) but now that I think about it, the article is outdated for GA standards and could possibly warrant a GAN. But my main argument is I believe Mystic is cutting out too much; and right now, with no explanation for the leads. As for the events, I've already made my concessions; but they keep getting reverted. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying that this is the lead I looked at when I made my initial comment. Like I said, something in between is probably best - the originals were likely too detailed, but I think we also need more than three sentences. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know enough on the subjects to agree or disagree on reaching a middle ground. But I will say content is relevant or notable, or it's not. You can't be half pregnant. It's not helpful for the reader that two editors drew an arbitrary line somewhere to prevent a dispute escalating. Rally Wonk (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: What do you think should be in the lead? I think that a shortened history and brief overlook on amenities should be included. Also: how long do you think it should be? I can see why 3 paragraphs might be a bit long; but a singular 3-sentence paragraph just doesn't seem to cut it. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk & @Bcschneider53: PS, I think for now that me and @MysticCipher87(alt-account) need to stop making massive edits on these pages and go back to some old version before all this started until we can get a consensus on what and what not to include. It's getting way, way too disruptive for the reader with proper grammar being thrown to the wayside. Let's at least restore some old version on all pages and then decide what to do. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: going to spur the initiative and revert to an old version of the page of what I thought was a middle ground for the events section. Feel free to tell me y'all's thoughts for the event section once I'm done. Also going to restore the two pages that have the original leads as well so a discussion can be started on those and what to include in a lead. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:Lead. I'm not familiar with these tracks so cannot really say precisely, but I think all I would want to know from the lead is where it is and when it was built, what the track is/was used for, and what makes it famous/unique amongst it's peers. Everything else can be below the TOC, within appropriate headings.

My POV is against what feels like filling column inches like a newspaper because they're seen as available. I quickly looked at Kentucky Speedway and the opening paragraph is telling me about a track manager who left the job 4 years ago. If he is a significant person or achieved something significant for the track I'll need to be told why here, else if he is not, it doesn't fit the MOS.

It says "Kentucky Speedway is served by Interstate 71 and Kentucky Route 35." at the end of the first sentence; and in Description > Amenities section it's pointed out that "Kentucky Speedway is located at an intersection between Interstate 71 and Kentucky Route 35." There's no link with the significant point about traffic congestion mentioned in the second paragraph, but when reading about that in the relevant section, the roads are mentioned a third time, which for me, is the only place to mention them. Road access is expected, it's not an amenity and we're not here for directions. We have the location in the first sentence and the address in the infobox, it's enough.

I read the second paragraph several times and struggled to maintain attention. If I can rewrite this in plain English it would read something like: "The facility opened in 2000 following a rise in popularity of stock car racing in the 1990s. However, the first NASCAR races were not held until 2011, following legal battles between the track's original owner and NASCAR, and a change of ownership in 2010. Racing at the track ceased in 2021 due to [whatever]". Were there no notable racing incidents or wins at this track to mention here?

I don't want to sound aggressively hyper-critical so hopefully I'm being helpful. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: No worries! Be as open and honest as you wish. For the case of Kentucky Speedway- I see what you mean with the last person who ran the track. I believe that it's important enough to put who owns the facility and who runs the track; but in this case, no one is running it. I'll end up deleting that; your point makes enough sense. For the interstate problem: truth be told, again, was inspired by Auto Club Speedway putting that into the lead (which again, I now realize is outdated and probably needs a review.

As for the history: will be honest, they might be a bit too detailed now that I think of it. I honestly did struggle a bit since there's only two circuits on this project that have GA status; I tried my best to summarize the major developments of a facility. Things like owner changes, financial troubles, etc. I was blind going in and for me, leads are some of the hardest things to write in the world. I can say I tried my best with what examples I had; but, I will state that they were a pain to write and I still think about how to properly summarize the history of a facility in a lead. Kentucky Speedway was probably the worst one I wrote... need to fix that. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rally Wonk: Shortened the lead up by a bit. Let me know your thoughts; if it's still too long for you, let me know. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, all well and good to have a discussion about what should or shouldn't be on the pages but this isn't even that - this is just one user making mass reversions without any conversation or really any explanation provided. Shouldn't be too hard to come to a compromise especially with a bunch of users here clearly interested in working it out - would be great if @MysticCipher87(alt-account) could provide a bit of explanation or accountability though because this looks entirely too frustrating. Toffeenix (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to trim it down because some of the stuff is already there or it's repeated a bunch. The event section should just be about talking about the races and not go into too much detail, as it's already in the page and it's just getting repeated or it's on the race pages. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@MysticCipher87(alt-account): OK, I'm not going to argue that I may have been a bit too detailed at first. But I've tried my best to make concessions; why do you still keep reverting them? If you're not happy, a discussion to reach consensus would have been nice. The mass reverts to each other are just disruptive at this point. Also, initiating a discussion before making sweeping changes to a significant number of pages and first gaining consensus on the topic would have been great as well.

And about the leads: why? One paragraph isn't going to cut it. Again, first gaining consensus on the topic before making changes to a significant number of pages would have been great instead of what's going on right now. I'd like to revert to an old version of a page, discuss and gain consensus on what we can keep or discard, and make the proper edits from there to end this once and for all. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 16:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your "concessions" are still adding mass amounts of trivia to the articles. For example, [1], you restore two paragraphs o pure trivia to the lead paragraph, and you again restore nonsense about the Ferko lawsuit, when that is adequately covered in its own article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus on Auto Action as an unreliable source prior to listing on RS/N

Australian publication Auto Action has recently been purchased by a local team owner (article). As this publication also has a history of dubious reporting and speculation, and with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian motorsport seemingly a dead sub-project, I would like to gain consensus from the community prior to listing at RS/N. MSportWiki (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• No doubt you are raising this due to the recent "incident"! (struck first part, but certainly the recent incident is relevant) For those wondering about the context in case they missed it, especially if outside Australia, AA initially posted this article https://autoaction.com.au/2024/10/14/cowards-attack-send-erebus-engineer-to-hospital (note the headline in the url) which has since been taken down (no retraction seems to have been published but they did publish a toned down article [2] similar to ones published by others). See this nine news article for a summary of the original article [3] which includes quotes from the original AA article. I think especially with the lack of formal retraction, they are at the very least unsuitable to be used for any article about Erebus Motorsport or anyone associated with them, past or present (Brodie Kostecki, Todd Hazelwood, Betty Klimenko, etc), and frankly probably not for anything controversial/"breaking"/speculative. Although they are sometimes known as "Auto Fiction", I don't believe that their general reporting is unreliable, however. Are there any particular instances in wikipedia articles that you are concerned about? When I've used AA for sourcing myself it has been simple reporting of facts, race reports etc. A7V2 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  My concern is not a single incident as you suggest, as that wouldn't be anywhere near enough evidence for it to be listed (although their response to criticism of that article is quite damning) - rather, my concern is about WP:COI and their history of sensationalist reporting. MSportWiki (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that that was the only issue, more that it was what brought this to your attention and/or was the straw that broke the camel's back. Certainly for me it has greatly impacted my view of the publication given their existing mediocre reputation which I was willing to look past as they tend to have amongst the best coverage of lower level motor sport in Australia. I have struck the first part of my comment in any case. As to my last question, I was under the impression (correctly or otherwise) that for a source to be brought to WP:RS/N there should be a specific concern about the use of the source on Wikipedia? Certainly, as I said above, I would object to using them as a source as of October this year, for anything concerning Erebus or anyone connected with them, past or present, for the obvious COI reasons. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing repeated information in track pages

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

Good article reassessment for 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship

2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

About Prototype Cup Germany

Hello all,

These articles exist:

• 2022 Prototype Cup Germany
• 2023 Prototype Cup Germany
• 2024 Prototype Cup Germany
• 2025 Prototype Cup Germany

But I can see that the en.wp article Prototype Cup Germany has never been created.

I seek your opinions about this.

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have now started a very rough draft on my sandbox page for the series. I'll try to add more context over the next couple days, and I'll put it into a draft once it has more bulk. I've already found some sources to add.

(In my opinion, if there are 3 seasons all with wiki pages, there should be a page for the series as a whole). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think remove them all. Wikipedia is not a results service, and the notability of this cup needs to be demonstrated to justify the proposed article. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Iron Lynx / Iron Dames article split

Please be aware that there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits about splitting Iron Lynx into Iron Lynx and Iron Dames. Thank you. MSportWiki (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Update needed for notability criteria

This might be a controversial opinion, but I feel as that WP:NMOTORSPORT has to be updated for junior formulae feeder series. It does not reflect the expansion of the pathway in recent years, and does not have criteria for W Series/F1A drivers. This has caused lots of confusion for AfCs and AfDs, with there regularly being arguments or disagreements on the policy. Overall, it is unclear, and could use improvement.

F2 (still called GP2 on the page) and F3 need to be added; currently, all drivers are given articles if they are in either of these series. This is an unwritten precedent.

This is my own opinion, but I think the following could work:

- Completion of one full season or a race winner in Formula Regional

- Completion of one full season or a race winner in W Series/F1 Academy

- Podium finish in the Macau Grand Prix (single seater version)

- Champion or vice champion in a Formula 4 series

As I stated in the introduction, changes are needed as the current system is not working. I'm not sure exactly how this guideline can be changed, but I want to bring attention to this issue. We could possibly start a formal discussion to change the current policy, as I would assume consensus would be needed. (apologizes if this is phrased badly, I'm not good at formal talk page posts). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This I agree with. The things listed above some drivers have articles and news pieces written about them. However due to the notability criteria some pages are nominated for deletion even though the said drivers have plenty of articles written about them the articles aren't considered notable because they aren't listed Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with these types of raced-in-a-series based rules. Somebody with no knowledge of motorsport should be able to establish notability of a participant from the sources that are available to create that participant's article. That's the only criteria necessary. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)