Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Entrants categories

There's a discussion in progress regarding the correct spelling of this driver's first name. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I've just asked this question on Talk:Rallycross and would be grateful for replies from those familiar with WP policy and the topic. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Would it be good to have some way of signifying when a driver did not complete an entire season in their racing career summaries? Feel like it would aid readability and help the reader understand their results without necessarily having to navigate to each season individually. Many drivers compete, or have competed, part-time in various series. The idea is to have a double dagger in the "races" entry with the footnote "{{smallsup|‡}} Competed in less than 50% of races held." MB2437 13:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Rather than have a dagger which then requires a key, I would suggest the addition of a footnote instead. We don't necessarily need a seperate footnote for each season. In instances where drivers had multiple incomplete seasons, one generic footnote would be sufficent ("[Driver] did not compete for a full season") and let the prose deal with the rest. SSSB (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would also be opposed to a blanket rule of x%. Context matters. The most obvious example, in the 50's in F1, part time appearances were very common and it feels silly to add dozens of daggers/notes to their articles. SSSB (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Most drivers who competed in that time period do not have the table being discussed, see Juan Manuel Fangio, Mike Hawthorn, Stirling Moss, etc. Part-time amateurs in Formula One generally only have the World Championship and non-championship results matrices.

::If dozens were added then so be it; it clearly signifies part-time campaigns to the reader. I feel as though 50% would be a good cut-off point—is it even worth noting if a driver competed in 80+% of races? MB2437 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I fully get the idea behind this but I don't think it would actually work in practice. As SSSB said, some drivers (pretty much who are retired or not actively racing) will not have keys under their racing career summary. I'm not fully against either option (footnotes or a key) but my main concern is implementation. To stay standardized, it would have to be implemented on a ton of articles, and also be constantly maintained at the end of each season. In my opinion, if it's not standardized (on some pages not all), then the reader may just assume that they did a majority of the season if they don't see a footnote. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::The smartest way to deal with that would be to go series-by-series for current drivers, then work back through time to whenever these tables had standardly been added. There won't be many of these for careers pre-dating the 21st century. MB2437 21:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to notify interested parties that I've started a discussion at WikiProject NASCAR on creating a baseline standard for our NASCAR race article titles. glman (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: Thanks for bringing up this topic here. It should also apply to racetracks, by the way. --Mark McWire (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Shea Holbrook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a promotional puff-piece for a non-notable racing driver. Said driver has mainly competed at club-level, which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMOTOR, and her results in the only notable series she did participate in (W Series) also do not warrant either notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2001:8003:268E:A800:D427:F295:4555:BB5B (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:While I don't have time at the moment to work on the article, a quick look shows the potential to meet GNG - linked sources on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

We need to once and for all put to bed the concept of using "entrant" titles and start using "team" ones project-wide; for season, team, driver and event articles. The opening two paragraphs will include reasoning from the new Iron Dames article, which prompted the opening of this discussion, before diving into arguments.

To begin with, we need to dispel the idea that there is a "precedent" for either form. During the first discussion, User:SteeledDock541 claimed {{tq|there is a precedent that has been set across hundreds of motorsport team articles that use entrants in the results tables}} – ever since tables started being used on motorsport-related articles, which Wikipedia started accepting around 2006-2007, both forms have been used project-wide, not just in team articles (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_NASCAR_Winston_Cup_Series&oldid=89925442#2002_Team_Chart using teams in 2006] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001_Shell_Championship_Series&oldid=105313308#Teams_and_Drivers using entrants in 2007]).

Additionally, we must also remember that not everyone who visits a motorsport article is someone well-versed in the sport itself, let alone its' jargon. When a clarification was added to the Iron Dames article simply stating "The entrant column indicates what title the car was entered under, not the team which ran the car.", this was countered by User:MSport1005 who claimed {{tq|The word "entrant" needs no clarification to anyone who understands basic English.}} Ignoring the unnecessarily inflammatory nature of the comment (from a user who has been accused of uncivil behavior multiple times before), this statement is incorrect as 'entrant' in the English dictionary is defined as "one that enters or takes part in competition". On a general level, teams enter competitions regardless of discipline, meaning the terms are interchangeable to a non-motorsport fan – keep in mind also that the Iron Dames are a unique case in that:

:a) to quote the lede, "Iron Dames do not operate their own cars or mechanics in motorsport competition, outsourcing operations to other teams and providing them with drivers" and therefore are not a team, and

:b) they also operate in equestrian sports, meaning motorsport-specific jargon should be used sparingly as language for one isn't language for all.

Firstly, entrant titles break WP:COMMONNAME. Entrant names are liable to cause confusion as they are usually tied to sponsors and sponsors regularly change teams – as an example, multiple teams have competed under the title "Supercheap Auto Racing" throughout the history of various Australian categories including the Supercars Championship, and there have been occasions where the title was transferred between teams during back-to-back seasons (e.g. 2007 under Paul Weel Racing and 2008 under Paul Morris Motorsport). Continuing with the Australian example, two cars from different teams at the 2017 Bathurst 1000 (one from Brad Jones Racing and one from Walkinshaw Racing) were sponsored by Boost Mobile, leading to both cars being entered as "Boost Mobile Racing" – if we used the 'entrant' naming convention, readers may be confused into thinking that the two cars are run by the same team. Consistently using the team name will give users a better understanding of the topic at large, especially if Wikipedia is their first port-of-call for information.

Secondly, with the exception of situations where a company owns a team that it sponsors (e.g. Red Bull Racing), entrant titles break WP:PROMO. 99% of the time, entrant titles are a form of advertising (WP:NOTADVERT) for team sponsors and excessive use of them – e.g. a particular entrant title used across multiple teams in one season or one team in multiple seasons – could be considered an indirect form of promotion and advertising. An example would be the teams using Mercedes-AMG cars in the 2021 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, as having every entrant begin with "Mercedes-AMG Team..." is unnecessarily repetitive and starts to read like a Mercedes advertisement. Additionally, Wikipedia does not use the sponsored name of a team in any other sport; Caltex sponsored the Australia men's national soccer team for a period that included the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but are not referred to as the "Caltex Socceroos" in any Wikipedia article during that period.{{cite news|url=https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/caltex-australia-socceroos-all-way|title=Caltex Australia with the Socceroos all the way|publisher=Socceroos|date=4 December 2017}} Using the team name is a neutral and factually accurate way of referring to competitors.

Thirdly, the use of entrant names can be misleading and break WP:ACCURACY. To use an example from Japanese motorsport, various teams used the title "Ponos Racing" between 2021 and 2024 as a means of advertising PONOS Corporation, however Ponos Racing was set up by the company as a separate team in 2025 – for the 2024 Super GT Series, using the entrant name "Ponos Racing" instead of the operating team "GAINER" misleads the reader into thinking that the Ponos team ran the car when it did not yet exist. Using the team name clarifies these situations for readers who are not specialists in the subject.

Fourthly, having to list multiple entrants for a single team is very messy and contradicts WP:MOS. An example of this is Team WRT in this table, where not only do multiple entrant names apply to cars from the same team, but some cars have multiple entrant names across the season. In this example, it's clear that Team WRT are the operating team and the additional information is both superfluous and overcomplicating matters. In the event that multiple teams are collaborating on an entry, such as Manthey Racing and EMA Motorsport on Car #91 in the 2024 FIA World Endurance Championship, the full names of the teams involved should be listed with separation via a comma or a slash.

Furthermore, flags for teams should only be used in World Championship articles – use elsewhere could be considered MOS:FLAGCRUFT.

Finally, before I COAL, I am pinging a few recently active administrators ({{ping|Andrewa|Drmies|Liz|Ponyo|Victuallers}}) to help moderate the discussion as external opinions can only be helpful in this situation. 2001:8003:268E:A800:4815:64B4:791A:D066 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC) 2001:8003:268E:A800:4815:64B4:791A:D066 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree. It would be impossible to implement anything project-wide; not even the rules and regulations across one particular governing body can support common definitions of these words. As Iron Dames article neither calls it a team or entrant in the first two paragraphs, and this article was last edited two days ago, I don't know why this is mentioned.

:WP:Commonname is about article titles, Nothing about the rest of your text suggests article titles are a problem project-wide, and I don't believe it is.

:I believe WP:Promo has not been interpreted correctly here. The policy isn't about sponsorship existing within the topic, it's about Wikipedia not being used primarily for promotion. A football team accepts sponsorship to display the logo on a shirt, I'm not sure if footballing governing bodies accept overt sponsorship in team names but it's common in motorsport. If a sponsor becomes part of a team, entrant or constructor name; than so be it - usually they do not become common name and into article titles. None of these articles exist to extol 'the incredibly tasty, nutritious and great value for money Red Bull drink that gives you everything you need to have a great and successful day because it gives you Wiiiinngs!' The Mercedes-AMG example links to a table where the full details are expected; that is not breaking WP:Promo. In prose elsewhere I don't think anybody else would be expecting to write or read the full names repeatedly like this, and that's regardless of sponsorship remaining in the shortened or common name. "Iron Dames" is a commercial venture too, as are many teams and entrants regardless of sponsorship. If this article is written like an advert; then it too could break WP:Promo.

:The Japanese example is like an exception that could be found to any project-wide rule. Little to discuss, or too specific, for me.

:Team WRT - These have to be separated by entrant as the articles are about the competition, not the motorsport business. You would have to explain why the same team is listed multiple times in the championship standings table which would have also not followed its sources.

:On flags - I agree to restrict to international championships where sources can be found. Quite often difficult to source and you can see editors are guessing and using a logic of their own when it's usually unnecessary. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I typically use entrant as we standardly state the full entry name—I'll add that I believe these, for reasons stated above, should only be mentioned in racing career summaries and entry lists. This term also disambiguates from chassis and engine manufacturers, which are stated across a range of disciplines.

: Also standard is that flags are not used for national championship articles, where each of the teams/venues are of a single nationality, see 2016 F4 British Championship for example.

: I'm not sure why you are pinging unrelated admins; this project has over 100 members and does not need {{tq|external opinion}} for such a matter. MB2437 13:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Leave me out of this please. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged above I will express an opinion. I think the article title policy already covers such cases without needing a specific article naming convention. So this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Or to put it another way, to implement such extra rules as seem to be suggested above is pure unproductive instruction creep. I could be wrong. Examples of the problem, please? Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{tqq|entrant titles break WP:PROMO.}} No. No, they do not. I seem to recall once upon a time the BBC World Service had a policy of not mentioning any company names, which resulted in some truly hilarious workarounds by announcers. This policy was eventually changed for very good reason, and this...truly bizzare misinterprtation of WP:PROMO seems to be gathering steam and needs to be nipped in the bud. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a hidden proposal to delete Iron Dames? AFAICS, it is a sponsorship scheme for women drivers. No need to discuss, there is a formal way of doing this if so. Rally Wonk (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It's not a sponsorship scheme as you put it, it is a bona fide auto racing and equestrian team. SteeledDock541 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

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)