Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR#Standard race track infobox

I am wondering if all races pages are moving toward common names, or just those with many diffrent names/a major sponsor switch? Like Nascar [series] at [Track name] type moves. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:@MysticCipher87(alt-account): Personally, I support this move for all series if this is the route we want to take. Having sponsor names can affect the neutrality of a page title. Having a common name instead of a title where you can essentially pay to have your name for a title makes far more sense in my opinion. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Following up here, as we have some dysfunction going on. We need to discuss whether we rename to "NASCAR [Series] at [Track name]" or "NASCAR [Series] race at [Track name]" or "...at [Shorter track name - Michigan/Bristol/Daytona] etc. Probably need to ping more editors too. Some pages obviously shouldn't be moved to this - only ones without a clear and consistent common name. glman (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Support NASCAR [Series] at [Track name]. Not sure how to handle including "fall" or "spring" races, since it does not seem beneficial for readers, but obviously articles like the cup series at Daytona should not just have the Daytona 500 lumped in. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• In most cases there should just be an article called "NASCAR [series] at [venue]". There are a few cases where individual pages are needed for different dates, although the only definitive examples I'm aware of are the Daytona 500 and the Cup Series summer Daytona race and the Coca-Cola 600 and the Roval 400. A separate article regarding the Bristol Dirt Race might also be warranted, although that only lasted a couple of years so it might not need its own article. Whether those article titles should include sponsors is a matter for a separate debate regarding what the WP:COMMONNAME is. For the most part having two separate articles for different dates seems to just cause confusion about the continuity where dates have been added and removed and moved around in the calendar. At the very least the situation with Nascar articles seems somewhat less of a mess than the situation with Indycar, where the scope of many of these articles is often extremely unclear regarding the continuity between AAA, USAC, CART, Champ Car, and the IRL. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Which standard should be used for NASCAR races where a common name is not stable due to rotating sponsorship?

NASCAR races are generally named for sponsors - due to the nature of the series, sponsorships change often - even yearly. Many races never have a consistent common name. Due to several past discussions after race pages were being moved yearly, we moved to generic names for races without clear common names. However, variation has occurred and there is a need for a consistent framework in our Wikiproject. Three common variations are:

• Full track names (16 titles): NASCAR Cup Series at Dover Motor Speedway
  
• Abbreviated track names (27 titles): NASCAR Cup Series at New Hampshire
  

Note: these would not override race titles with a clear WP:COMMONNAME.

Option A: NASCAR [Series] race at [Full track name]

Option B: NASCAR [Series] at [[Full track name]

Option C: NASCAR [Series] at [Abbreviated track name]

Option D: Other suggestions glman (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status = resolved

|result = Consensus is that pages should not *all* be moved due to the result of this discussion - when moving pages, a move proposal should still occur. When applicable, editors should propose moving pages to Option B. glman (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis dependent on WP:CRITERIA. Generally a title like "NASCAR Cup Series at Dover" is preferable to "NASCAR Cup Series at Dover Motor Speedway" due to its WP:CONCISION, but sometimes more WP:PRECISION may be necessary. The scope of these articles is also an issue. In many cases races at a particular track are split into two-or-more articles without a particularly clear reason beyond "well, the Daytona 500 and the Firecracker 400 have separate articles so these need to be separate articles too". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think this is fair and certainly there should be flexibility in the naming of these articles - however, we should discuss the bottom-floor standard and then include this reasoning for outlying cases. We only have so many of these pages - I think we can come to a consensus on most. glman (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging {{ping|MysticCipher87(alt-account)|Yoblyblob|Royalbroil|Nascar9919|HumanBodyPiloter5|FMecha|GhostOfDanGurney|45BearsFan|Zrcook610|A7V2|BD2412|The Bushranger|Doctorindy|ZappaOMatic|Luks25|Finn Shipley|ColtsFan9372|Brycenrichter|Cavanaughs}} and linking WP:TITLE for review.

:(An aside - we probably also need to discuss the merging of spring and fall races into single articles, but that should be a separate discussion imo. Please don't hesitate to ping other users who may be helpful or have participated in similar discussions. Some users feel strongly that *no* sponsorship names should be used - however that's not the main focus of this discussion imo. glman (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC))

::{{ping|Mark McWire}} glman (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|MysticCipher87(alt-account)|MysticCipher87}} Just as an aside, I would argue (if/when it comes to that) that "[series] at [track]" is a better title than "Toyota/Save Mart 350". It more accurately tells a casual reader what the article is about (I feel that only NASCAR fans such as us would already know what "Toyota/Save Mart 350" means) while avoiding the WP:PROMO issues (to expand on Mark McWire slightly) that caused this push to move to [[series] at [track] titles in the first place. It's also supported by recent articles in RSs such as CBS and ESPN.

:Part of why Coca-Cola 600 is still at that name is because it's both a crown jewel race and a race with a consistent naming sponsor, thus it is much more likely that casual readers know what the article will be about. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::We've had this discussion before, but I believe WP:COMMONNAME allows for titles like this, even though they exist for sponsorship reasons. For example, Food City 500 is clearly the common name of that race. glman (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option B with special cases for especially notable races like the Daytona 500 and other major/crown-jewel events. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Good point here - I've clarified my initial post to focus on pages without common names. glman (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option C, generally, unless the full track name is needed for recognizability or disambiguation. I don't think we need "race" in the title, because the "R" in NASCAR stands for "racing". I would not be terribly averse to option B if it came down to that or one of the others besides option C. BD2412 T 15:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• No standardized option - A rigid standardization scheme which does not allow for nuance would create WP:AT issues down the line. We have cases like NASCAR Cup Series at Mexico City where typing out the full track name is cumbersome and unlikely to be said in common usage, but cases like NASCAR Xfinity Series at Nashville Superspeedway where typing out the full track name is required for disambiguation purposes. And in the few cases where a consistent sponsor becomes the COMMONNAME (ie Coca-Cola 600) such a rigid scheme would fly in the face of WP:AT. HumanBodyPiloter5 is right, nuances like this should be handled case-by-case. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As said, I think case-by-case is certainly still overriding - but establishing a general consensus will help the baseline going forward. We do not have to incorporate this into the standards, but it will be a helpful discussion. glman (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::In that case, option B is preferrable to me as per others. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option B with exception of very well known race titles like Daytona 500, Charlotte 600, Southern 500, etc. I am all for avoiding any sponsored titles. This also applies to race tracks. --Mark McWire (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• I am between Option A and Option B. "Option A" could work with tracks that have only single races while "Option B" could work with tracks that multiple races. I would also keep the names the same for Crown Jewels (Daytona 500, Coke 600, Bristol Night Race, Southern 500) and races that kept the same name for a long time and not changing anytime soon (example Toyota/Save Mart 350 being the race name for almost 2 decades) MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option B, going with what Mark McWire said, im in favor of using "(series name) at (full track name)" with the exception of crown jewels, however, I am curious what we'd do for names like "Bristol Night Race" (i know we might just end up scrapping it as an "important" race and merge it with the Spring 500) and "Chicago Street Race", same with issues like the Southern 500/Goodyear 400 and the Daytona 500/400, i feel like it's wrong having "Cup Series at Daytona/Darlington", given how notable their names are. I feel like we'll have a solution for those issues at some point. 45BearsFan (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option B with special exemptions for exceptionally notable races like the Coca-Cola 600 or the Daytona 500. Essentially, same as Yoblyblob. However, I do think that we need to avoid sponsor names as much as possible. Now, the only exceptional name that could cause a conflict with my view are either the Coca-Cola 600 (traditionally known as the World 600) or the Coke Zero 400 (known as the Firecracker 400). I would like the community to take a look at a case-by-case basis, but I personally lean towards giving the races their traditional names. Another note, I also think the "Craftsman" from "NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series at (insert race here)" should be removed. One, it's a sponsor that could probably threaten neutrality, and also "NASCAR Truck Series" makes for a more concise title. I would like the Truck Series to simply just be referred to as the "NASCAR Truck Series" without any mention of a sponsor, but that might be a discussion for another time. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I fully agree on trying to avoid sponsor names, truck series i think is the common name of the series, and we can easily use the traditional name for events like Firecracker 400, World 600, Rebel 400. "The (traditional name), known as (current name) due to sponsorship reasons" could be much easier to manage than the current sponsor name 45BearsFan (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tqq|One, it's a sponsor that could probably threaten neutrality}} Er, how? I mean, I agree in principle, since the series was the Camping World Truck Series for a number of years, but that reasoning doesn't strike as logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yeah, this makes no sense. WP:COMMONNAMEs can clearly be based on sponsor titles. Coca-Cola 600 and Food City 500 are clearly common names over traditional ones. As another example, many professional football stadiums use their common sponsored names. glman (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What about the second-tier series? Xfinity is ending the sponsorship next year and NASCAR does not currently have an official generic term for that series ("Grand National Series" is no longer in use since 2002/2003). "NASCAR second-tier series at..." would be WP:COMMONNAME violation. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 05:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Exactly - we'd have to come up with our own name or a wholly unused generic name that isn't the common name. Even from a simple search "NASCAR Craftsman Truck" is still more common than "NASCAR Truck" despite both being used atm. glman (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We'll have to wait and see on this one per WP:CRYSTAL. We simply have no way of knowing if NASCAR names it after another corporate sponsor, revives "Grand National" or does something else. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option B, with exceptions for the crown jewel races. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• In leaning towards Option B with exceptions for crown jewels and long-term sponsors, NASCAR Busch Series at Pikes Peak International Raceway was an edge case one as abbreviating (C) could lead to confusion that it was held at Pikes Peak International Hill Climb (discussed here).
  Relatedly, I mentioned to WT:AOWR earlier regarding moving of Michigan 500 (failed) and MAVTV 500 to a way that would be inclusive towards CART ("American open-wheel races at..."). However, the second one is likely going to be "IndyCar Series at Auto Club Speedway" instead. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 06:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think discussing here is crystallizing that we have a baseline of B, except in cases where there are other tracks with similar names/in the city, and that we still should discuss before moving. Good thoughts! glman (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option B, with the exception of any Crown Jewel races. ColtsFan9372 (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• No standardised option - This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Generally sponsored titles should be avoided outside of cases where they're a clear long-established WP:COMMONNAME (ie. Coca-Cola 600), but when a WP:NDESC is used it needs to be formatted in whatever way best aligns with WP:CRITERIA. "NASCAR Cup Series at Texas Motor Speedway" is preferable from a WP:PRECISION viewpoint, "NASCAR Cup Series at Pocono" is preferable from a WP:CONCISION viewpoint. Sponsored titles cause issues with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO, tend to be unstable and lack WP:RECOGNISABILITY, and are sometimes just downright nonsensical and border on being shibboleths (ie. "Centurion Boats at the Glen"). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

I have nominated a couple articles for NASCAR drivers for deletion, see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Martin (racing driver)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Goodale
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Malycke

These discussions are held because these are not sourced to article containing significant coverage, database sites, entry lists, and results do not indicate significant coverage, see WP:NOTDATABASE. There are a lot of articles in the same boat as this, a lot of one-off or part-time ARCA/ARCA East and West drivers, or Whelen modified drivers, see (a very incomplete) list of examples I have grabbed from these profile-fitting drivers.

• Cody Kiemele
• Ben Peterson (racing driver)
• Henry Barton (racing driver)
• Jonathan Cash
• Anthony Nocella

I have not done WP:BEFORE searching on the drivers, they are just examples of articles which do not currently show notability through independent, reliable sources, and significant coverage in said sources. Notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards do not provide for presumed notability for drivers in ARCA, even full-time drivers in the series I mentioned. Is the best course of action to nominate all of these for deletion one at a time, try to PROD them, or is there something I'm missing here.

Pinging User:Finn Shipley as the creator of a lot of these, and the creator of all the articles I mentioned. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Yoblyblob}} The correct notability guideline (or SNG) for NASCAR drivers is at WP:NMOTORSPORT, but also I'll remind that some drivers might pass WP:GNG on their own merit despite not meeting any particular SNG.

:If the only sources available after doing a BEFORE check are racing-reference (especially since it's also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE now), DriverDB, or other purely database sources, then PRODing them is probably alright. Otherwise, anything that might be questionable as to it's depth of coverage would be best to send to AfD by itself. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 19:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the input, I might start doing some proposed deletions (after a before-check of course), but it seems to have become a thing for certain users to create pages for every driver who has made a start anywhere Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably sensible to split this topic off from the previous discussion about article titles, and I would like to expand upon and explain my perspective further. Whilst I probably follow Nascar more closely thank 99% of Europeans do, I'm still a part of the more casual audience for it. I have friends who follow it quite closely, so I'm peripherally aware of it, and if I hear that a race was good I'm reasonably likely to go and watch a repeat of it, but I don't watch every race and constantly keep up to date with everything that's happening. Whilst this puts me outside of the range of people who are most likely to be editing articles about Nascar (who are mostly likely to be people who are already deeply-invested in following the league), I believe it probably places me closer to the average person who wants to look up information about Nascar on Wikipedia. Generally speaking there seems to be a clear divide between tracks where one of the dates holds particular prestige over the other and tracks where what people care about is the combined history of all races at that track, regardless of what time of year that particular race was held. In cases where a circuit doesn't host a "crown jewel" race the articles covering the history of different race dates at those tracks can often be quite confusing to follow, especially when the number of dates per year has changed over time or when the races have been shuffled around the calendar some times. Personally, I would like to propose the following:

1. All Cup Series events at Daytona should retain separate articles. This seems fairly uncontroversial.
2. The Coca-Cola 600, Roval 400, and (formerly) the All-Star Race should have separate articles from all the other Cup Series races that have taken place at Charlotte (in particular the former Autumn oval race that was held at Charlotte before the Roval was introduced). I'm not quite going to say that the Roval has attained the status of a "crown jewel" event, but it's clearly its own distinct thing at this point.
3. The Southern 500 should retain its own article separate from other Darlington Cup Series races. How the rest of the history of the Cup Series at Darlington gets handled is a subject for those more knowledgeable than me to discuss.
4. There's an argument to be made for separating the article about the oval Brickyard 400 from the article about the road-course Indianapolis Cup Series race, although since the latter didn't seem to last very long it might not be necessary.
5. Similarly with the Bristol Dirt Race, its relatively short tenure makes the necessity of having a separate article about it debatable, but still worthy of discussion. Given the Bristol Night Race seems to hold a certain elevated level of prestige compared to the other date there it's arguable that those articles should remain separate, but it's more worthy of discussion than the cases where there's already a fairly clear consensus like Daytona or Charlotte.
6. Personally I would prefer to see most of the other articles about the history of different Cup Series race dates at a particular track merged into single articles about the history of Cup Series races at that track. For example, winning at Talladega is highly prestigious, but in discussions of the history of Nascar or the track neither the Spring nor the Autumn dates get singled out as more important than the other, and teams or drivers are usually described as "having won [x] number of times at Talladega" instead of "having won the [Spring/Autumn] Talladega race [x] number of times". Separating out the articles about the different dates just makes it harder to keep track of the history of the Cup Series at that venue as a whole, at least from my perspective.
7. There should probably be a distinct article covering the history of the final race of the Cup Series season, regardless of what venue it has been held at in a given year, alongside other articles about the general history of races at the tracks that have held the finale. The scope of the article might need to be discussed, for example whether it should only cover seasons since the Chase was introduced.

HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:On 4/5/6, I totally disagree with combining races. Someone has already been doing it without discussion, but separate races are clearly notable on their own and combining these articles only creates confusion. On 7, this may make sense once the race rotates, but prior to the playoffs the final race was not as big a deal as it is now. glman (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Cause confusion to who? Personally I find the current situation, with arbitrary separate articles about separate dates of dubious independent notability from one another to be highly confusing. If I just want to know which drivers have previously won at a particular track it's currently necessary to track that information down across multiple different articles, and unless one already has an encyclopaedic knowledge of which events happened on which dates figuring out where a specific piece of information might be is often a challenge. This is particular severe when events at a track haven't even stuck to a consistent time of year and it becomes unclear what information should fall under which lineage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)