Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

I've seen a lot of "(x entries)" added to the {{code|starts}} parameter of infobox racing driver, particularly for drivers in F2 and F3. It seems this has been done to parrot the format of infobox F1 driver. In a lot of cases, these are incorrect as drivers are entered into whole events, not separate races. This statistic is also generally unverifiable. Should we keep these? MB2437 19:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note One way of keeping them could be to change the {{code|entries}} figure to the number of events they have contested, as it would better align with the {{code|poles}} parameter. MB2437 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Within the context of the F1 feeder series, I can understand a desire to mirror some of the information included in the Formula One infobox. However, if a statistic can not be verified using reliable sources, then it should not be included on Wikipedia. RegalZ8790 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Problem is, in the feeder series there are two races per entry. Tvx1 10:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::My initial though is that if a driver competes in a Formula 2 race weekend, gets pole position, wins both races and sets the fastest lap in both races, his stats should be incremented as follows:

::::*Entries +1

::::*Starts +2 (becuase they started 2 races)

::::*Fastest laps +2

::::*Wins +2

::::*Podiums +2

::::*Poles +1

::::Right? SSSB (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that was my thinking; we should either consider entries as the number of race weekends entered, or scrap the figure altogether. MB2437 04:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I say scrap. Tvx1 09:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am in agreement with @Tvx1 - scrap. RegalZ8790 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Per the consensus above, I have manually removed these figures from each current FIA Formula 2 and FIA Formula 3 driver infobox—not sure if there is a search-and-replace tool that could help with this. MB2437 23:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Electricmemory If I understood correctly, the AWB software that you mentioned on the AOWR page can perform the search-and-replace function that @Mb2437 is asking about. Assadzadeh (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Test driver be merged with Test drive. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at WT:DATE § Concern over adjacent numbers of different values in motor racing article titles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Left guide (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I recently created a list of international kart racing champions. Would it be worth creating a similar list of FIA World Champions? The list would cover drivers and manufacturers recognised as FIA World Champions in Formula One (1950–present), KWC (1964–present), WSC (1972–1992), WRC (1973–present), WTCC (1987, 2005–2017), GT1 (2010–2012), WEC (2012–present), World RX (2014–present), Formula E (2021–present), W2RC (2022–present)—plus any others I've missed. MB2437 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest no, primarily because it would have too much detail when the segregated lists that exist are more useful to most users. In the 2000s there were world champions in the support championships of WRC, kind of like now in WR2C in 4 categories and with co-drivers, it would be too much info for one page.

:Secondly, somebody will inevitably add the 'X Trophy' winners and so on, and not understanding the 'world championship' part of the scope. Not sure the scope exists alone somewhere as notable itself either. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::On the first point, the support championships would only add a couple dozen names to the list—worth noting that they are still World Champions and the importance of that title is lost across several articles. The second point would be addressed in the lead; to meet WP:FL criteria, the inclusion criteria would be clearly laid out.

::Either way, it seems odd that we have no real definition of World Champions across the project, which are often conflated in the separate lists with various Trophies and Cups that do not hold World Championship status e.g. Formula E, WEC, KWC. MB2437 15:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What definition do you need? The two words say it all. If there was an article FIA World Champions, what sources would you use? Nobody really treats all the championships together.

:::I think in 2010 there were 3x World Rally Champions, 3x SWRC champions, 3x PWRC, 3x JWRC - there's 9 items from one year already that I don't agree with adding but do technically belong. Then somebody who believes WRC2 and WRC3 are World Rally Champions will add them to the list...

:::As a related question, I'd like to ask if List of FIA championships can be rearranged into parent and support series together instead of by circuit, rally etc. Formula 2 doesn't exist without Formula One etc. It better fits my understanding, and that's why I added promoters too. I said on Formula 1 I'd like to read about that kind of thing but somebody told me it was too detailed for wikipedia. As if there's no interest in what Liberty Media do in F1! Anybody feel the same?

:::Anyway, I think that could be a better root list that could have links to each of the lists of world champions too. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, if they are the "Production World Rally Champion" or the "Junior World Rally Champion" then that says it; junior World Champions have also been present in kart racing since 2010. Hidden comments could be used where necessary to alert editors, although the inclusion (and exclusion) criteria would be laid out immediately in the article and potentially in each section. Outside of rallying, the definition has historically been pretty linear besides F1 Constructors'—sources universally regard International Cup winners as World Constructors' Champions retroactively.

::::I agree that the list of FIA championships needs some formatting work; I wouldn't mind creating timelines for it similar to the ones on the list above, which I parroted from Template:IndyCar sanctioning history. MB2437 15:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{See also|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing#Abbreviations for race tracks (general discussion)}}

Should we standardize the abbreviations for race tracks in season, team, and driver articles across all racing series? Mark McWire (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Many circuits have conflicting ideal abbreviations (e.g. Valencia, Vallelunga, and Val de Vienne), take place in international championships, or have multiple variants of the same track used that season. Straying from the most obvious abbreviation may get confusing. There are thousands of circuits to consider across [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_motorsport_seasons 188 active series articles]. I think, as long as driver and team articles are consistent with their respective season articles, all is fine; the track/event should be linked anyway.

:I do, however, think these abbreviations should be consistent across all seasons within individual and related series where possible, as that's when results matrices get confusing—apologies if this is what was actually meant. Standardising across CART, IndyCar, and NASCAR, as in the example above, is a good idea if feasible. It also may be worth hyphenating different circuit variants e.g. "BH-I" or "BRH-I" for Brands Hatch Indy, instead of "BHI" and "BRI". MB2437 00:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. Standardization should be focused within disciplines/series. Alignment across all disciplines/series is not probable. Nor is it necessary. RegalZ8790 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:+1 to Mb, standardizing circuit names across the whole project would take a long time and in my opinion is an overstep. As long as the abbreviations are the same within a child wikiproject/task force/series that isn't covered by one of the two, then I see no issue to have to go through all the work and effort of making abbreviations for every track. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Articles about international series, such as Formula 1, usually use the events rather than the tracks for the abbreviations. In most cases, this is the name of the country represented by the GP. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to standardize them with national series like IndyCar or NASCAR. There, the track names are used to generate the abbreviations. Mark McWire (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Track names are used in abbreviations for Formula Regional series, Formula 4 series held in multiple countries, GT World Challenge (and most other sportscar racing series), etc. There are only limited examples that follow event names (Formula One, FIA Formula 2/3, FIA WEC). MB2437 17:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I've created a draft for a potential article on club racing if anyone is keen on contributing! MB2437 04:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a rule / consensus for the destination to which the headers of points and results tables should link? I've noticed a lot of confusion regarding the link destination, especially with IndyCar and NASCAR. Sometimes the link goes to the racetrack article, sometimes to the event article, and sometimes to the event overview article if there isn't one for the respective season. In some season articles the red link is left in place, sometimes it has been changed to a link to the race track or event summary article. Mark McWire (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I was waiting to see if anyone was going to chime in before responding. I'm not aware of a rule or consensus, but in my opinion, destination links should go to the following articles, in descending order:

:1. Event's season article (e.g. 2025 Indianapolis 500)

:2. Event's overview article (e.g. Indianapolis 500)

:3. Racetrack article (e.g. Indianapolis Motor Speedway)

:Please let me know if the above doesn't make sense or if you have any questions. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NASCAR team and Template:Infobox IndyCar team both contain a parameter for listing a team's current sponsors. I am proposing to remove this from both infoboxes for two reasons: 1) Similar to the "Numbers" parameter which was removed several years ago, this parameter has become rife with unsourced, potentially outdated examples of sponsors which no longer sponsor the team, or potentially never did. 2) A parameter dedicated solely to a team's corporate sponsorship, in my opinion, is against the core of WP:PROMO, {{tq|q=y|Wikipedia is not a soapbox ..., or a vehicle for ..., advertising, and showcasing}}, as well as the subsection WP:NOTPROMO, {{tq|q=y|Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, ....}}

Sponsorship which is pertinent to a team's history (as per reliable sources; I'm sure there are countless examples) can be best described in prose with proper sourcing. Listing sponsors who threw their name on a car for a one-off race and never appeared again is the essence of WP:FANCRUFT and is best left outside of Wikipedia.

Due to the fact that this affects both NASCAR and IndyCar templates, I am posting this here for centralized discussion. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per nom. Listing sponsors anywhere is on the fringe of promotional Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per nomination. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support, largly because in today's environment - especially in NASCAR - the age of the "one sponsor for an entire season" is, unfortunatley, long-gone. Sponsors change frequently through a season, sometimes even race to race, and trying to list them all in an infobox would be a nightmare. WP:NOTPROMO doesn't apply because we're not promoting the product, we're reporting on facts, which corporate sponsorship is in the context of sporting events, for better or for worse. But an infobox parameter for it is simply untenable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support If sponsors are notable to the operation / decision-making / history within the team then they should be discussed in the body, listing sponsors in the infobox is WP:DIB. MB2437 09:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per Bushranger, looking at articles from defunct teams vs. present day teams it is clear how much sponsorships have evolved. The original intention behind the parameter makes sense, but is no longer feasible given the state of how teams have sponsors. Agree with nom that it can be covered in prose. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)