Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

Proposal: remove "Sponsors" parameter from Template:Infobox NASCAR team and Template:Infobox IndyCar team

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the "Numbers" parameter which was removed several years ago, this parameter has become rife with unsourced, potentially outdated examples of sponsors which no longer sponsor the team, or potentially never did. 2) A parameter dedicated solely to a team's corporate sponsorship, in my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, Wikipedia is not a soapbox ..., or a vehicle for ..., advertising, and showcasing, as well as the subsection WP:NOTPROMO, 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)

Support removal. Borderline promotional, difficult to maintain (especially nowadays), and typically trivial. On the rare occasion where it is notable (such as a works team, or a particularly strong association such as Marlboro with Penske back in the day or STP with Richard Petty) that can be discussed in prose. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Support per nomination. RegalZ8790 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment Can we say that consensus has been reached yet? Regardless, the sponsors parameter has already been removed from Template:Infobox NASCAR team by SteeledDock541 (who has been blocked indefinitely) and from Template:Infobox IndyCar team by SmokeyBandit512 (who was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of SteeledDock541), along with a slew of other articles. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there is unanimous consensus. MB2437 02:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Lake Erie Speedway

This has been unsourced for 13 years: please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Apart from entries in statistical databases and the official website of the race track, there are probably no other linkable sources. Mark McWire (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I found spontaneously are news articles about current races on the track and their winners. Mark McWire (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This might be better to inform the Wikipedia:Wikiproject NASCAR subproject as editors who are well versed in grassroots stock car racing may have a better chance of viewing it. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, folks! Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Race car log book

Can somebody please (a) add reliable sources and (b) clarify some of the details? Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally can't find much on this besides forums, not sure if this would even qualify for an article. I don't think it would get contested at PROD, but others may disagree with me GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing before. Aircraft? Yes. Race cars? Uh- - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Neither have I, but sadly I'm an armchair fan so figured I just never heard of them. The concept of it makes sense, though. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd propose moving the term and definition to Glossary of motorsport terms#L. MB2437 04:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent solution. RegalZ8790 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the page has probably been linked at least somewhere, I'd also suggest making it a redirect to the glossary, rather than deleting it altogether. MB2437 21:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It links to two other pages. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, the content is unreferenced, and it seems to fail WP:V. Merging it elsewhere is not indicated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, they certainly exist and the content is verifiable,[1][2][3][4] it simply fails WP:GNG. The term is in use by Motorsport UK and Motorsport Australia, not sure on related use outside of English-speaking countries. MB2437 04:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Merger WP:IROC into WP:MS as TF IROC

I propose that WP:IROC become a taskforce of WP:Motorsport

An editor has requested that Wikipedia:WikiProject IROC be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/taskforce/IROC, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 65.93.183.181 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject IROC#Requested move 14 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject IROC#Requested move 14 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Too much slop

We have a major issue if articles like Zack Scoular, sourced only to routine news reports and interviews with the subject, are allowed to pass AfD.

if this is the standard by which BLP articles are allowed to be established, then essentially we admit that articles of low-tier drivers are allowed to be simple database entries, which is a violation of WP:NOT ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We have quite an avid community of editors who frequently update junior articles beyond merely being a database. The reason Scoular passed AfD (unanimously) is because the article has room for expansion from the subject's SIGCOV. MB2437 18:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment I will add that I think our main issue is how outdated WP:NMOTORSPORT is; it is totally useless in such discussions. MB2437 18:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

After the RfC a couple years ago that pretty much just nuked NSPORT in it’s entirety, NMOTORSPORT makes pretty much no difference in notability or driver articles considering they need to meet GNG regardless. For articles created after the RFC, sports related articles have to meet GNG as a whole and not the SNG. I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding of the RFC outcome GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of any of the subject specific notability guideleines is that they are an indication of articles that will always pass WP:GNG. For example, F1 drivers should be part of Wikipedia:NMOTOR because a Formula One driver will always pass WP:GNG, it is impossible to be in Formula One and not pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia:NMOTOR exists so that if someone's article doesn't have enough sources within the article to show WP:GNG someone can look at Wikipedia:NMOTOR and go "it has been established that someone with this level of success will almost certainly pass GNG, the sources simply haven't yet been added to this article. Therefore, this article should be kept, because the sources do exist somewhere, they just haven't been added to the article." At no point should Wikipedia:NMOTOR overrule WP:GNG. If WP:NMOTOR includes a category of driver which is not certain to pass WP:GNG, that category should be removed. SSSB (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Major issue? No. I agree there are far too many statistics, pivot-tables and list-making and it can bring an article down in quality IMO; however people are attracted here to contribute that. I've come to realise there's no ideal expectation for how other editors should be contributing nor a project-imposed limit to what can be written about and I've also somewhat given up on 'high quality, reliable, secondary sources'. They don't exist and/or there'd be little articles to write within this project.

At one end there is this guy's article with its 'this happened then that happened and then that' routine news based sourcing; and at the other end something like History of auto racing which IMO will always be a largely 'meh' article because the scope is far, far, too large to be worth spending any time contributing to with researching the high quality, scientific papers and reliably published sources that Wikipedia's policies expect all editors are doing. That could be a major issue but there's no perfect page. I see you have recently contributed to 2025 IndyCar Series, that isn't so different is it? It's a developing subject, formed by news reports, not exactly found in scientific journals etc, etc. We can only contribute what we see to be an improvement, which is the heart and soul of WP, not a major issue. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"High-quality" is only a pre-requisite for WP:FA. MB2437 21:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I would note that (1) the continuing tightening of notability requirements is something that greatly troubles me, but (2) even that aside, this isn't "slop" as the term is used nowadays, and (3) regardless of (1) and (2), the sources and content to establish notability don't have to be in an article, they must merely exist; only contentious material about living people must be cited. If you're concerned about the content of an article, improve it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Individual round pages for F1 feeder series

So, I know I'm one of the people who makes the round pages for F2/F3 this year, but after trawling through some old seasons I wonder if it's even necessary for feeder series to have individual round pages? Much of what gets written there is already covered on the series pages: results (in the form of championship standings tables), pole position, brief summaries. So the individual pages just end up being repeated info and stat tables.

Now, some rounds are notable. For example, 2019 Spa-Francorchamps Formula 2 round, even though the races were cancelled, received significant coverage because of the accident. But the vast majority are just yet another race, and can be adequetly summarised on the series pages instead. So, the question is what do we do with these pages: leave them (and keep making them), redirect them back to the series pages, delete them? - Mitchea99 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to have an indepth look, but from what I've seen the sources do exist for an indepth quali summary, and weekend anaysis beyond what is covered at the season page. It would never be as indepth as F1 pages, but they certainly can be as good as any F1 race report (just shorter and less detailed with it's analysis). If I'm wrong, and additional info doesn't exist, they should probably redirect to the season articles, as the only non-repeated info would be the session classifications and Wikipedia is not a database. SSSB (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Additional info will definitely exist for some (particularly more recently, or races where someone with a less common nationality did something notable). But if we have only Formula Scout / Chequered Flag / Feeder Series articles then sure, I can write a full report on the race using them, but is it enough for GNG? - Mitchea99 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If you can write a full report from secondary sources (which Formula Scout and Chequered Flag are) then you will have passed GNG, by definition. Those Formula Scout and Chequred Flag sources are all that's needed to pass GNG. SSSB (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The round-by-round analyses at the season articles should be trimmed to main results, DSQs, and championship implications, with the rest moved to the individual weekend articles, similar to how it is done at WP:F1. There is enough SIGCOV to discuss the events of each race and qualifying session. The current approach to F2/F3 means these articles merely serve as a database, when they do not strictly have to. MB2437 15:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Then we are gonna have a lot of work to do lol. It's not just F2/3 after all, but GP2, GP3, F3000, the Monaco support races I have at AfD... Decades of articles that would need to be brought up to scratch. - Mitchea99 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia will never be finished. MB2437 18:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Should articles follow or ignore MOS:GIVENNAME?

The Wikipedia Manual of Style, under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Culture-specific usages, notes several instances where the given name, rather than surname, should be used to refer to a person upon subsequent mention. This is standard practice followed by major English-language publications. However, many motorsport sources do not follow this practice, leading to a discrepancy with general news sources. For example, Tasanapol Inthraphuvasak is referred to upon subsequent mention as Tasanapol in general English-language news sources[5][6][7] but as Inthraphuvasak by motorsport sources.[8][9][10]

Which convention should Wikipedia follow for articles on racing drivers with names from such cultures that would otherwise refer to them by given name? Should we:

• (A) Use the surname, as the vast majority of coverage these people will have received will be from motorsports sources, and readers approaching from a motorsports background will be more familiar with the surname convention, or
• (B) Use the given name, for compliance with the MOS and consistency with other Wikipedia articles, which would better serve readers familiar with the cultural background of those drivers?

Currently most articles I've seen about Thai drivers follow (A). I don't feel strongly either way, but given the deviation from the MOS, there should be at least some level of local consensus in support of the practice, hence why I'm asking. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I would favour following MOS, as the sources seem mostly split on the issue; however, I'm willing to change my mind if a strong argument can be presented. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment WP:IAR could be applicable here given most sources follow Western naming conventions. Is there a Thai family name hatnote? MB2437 14:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an option within {{Family name hatnote}} for Thai names (the lang parameter would be Hmong), but the bigger issue here would be with the articles for seasons and races etc. not the biographies. SSSB (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point. In that case, I'd say it should be judged on a case-by-case basis i.e. if sources are fairly unanimous in how they address the driver, we should address them that way. The MOS says Thai people are almost always known and addressed by their first name (i.e. given name). Hence, [...], which is no longer applicable if they simply are not. Ultimately, we are building an encyclopaedia for English-speaking people; if we refer to Tasanapol Inthraphuvasak, for example, exclusively by his first name, it may become confusing. We typically refer to Chinese and Japanese people in Western order for the same reason, even though it is technically incorrect. Happy to concede that point if consensus was reached for that part of the MOS to be universal, however. MB2437 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The relevant passages of the MOS include a generous sprinkling of "generally" and "usually", so it should already allow for a degree of flexibility. That sources are split (as BMB YT 500000 mentioned) might actually only be true in a few cases. Tasanapol was one of the few examples I could find that have been covered in both motorsports and general news sources; several others aren't mentioned in the general English-language news at all.

Regarding name-clarification templates, several editors now prefer the use of {{Family name footnote}} over the hatnote template (which is, strictly speaking, a misuse of hatnotes). They should not be needed for Thai names, though, as they follow the Western order, and Template:Thai name has previously been repeatedly deleted accordingly. I don't understand why SSSB suggested that the Hmong parameter should be substituted for Thai names. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think articles for seasons and races are going to be an issue, as their sources will generally be consistent among each other. The potential issue likely lies with people who are also notable for other things as well as racing, but there aren't any at the moment (apart from Prince Bira, whose names pose a different set of challenges as already raised on that article's talk page). --Paul_012 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)