Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Motorsport page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25: 30 days

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 July 2012.

Auto racing team categories

In May 2023, all the "<country> auto racing teams" categories were moved without discussion to "Auto racing teams in <country>", e.g. Category:Australian auto racing teams was moved to Category:Auto racing teams in Australia. At the time, there was a discussion at WT:F1 where the consensus was that the moves should be reverted (because, for example, Red Bull Racing is definitely an "Austrian auto racing team" but it's questionable whether it's an "auto racing team in Austria", because its base is in England), but nothing ever came of it. I'm still of the opinion that the moves should be reverted, so I thought I'd check if there is consensus in this wider forum before lodging a request. DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shoud reverted per the consensus reached on the previous discussion. Besides Red Bull F1 team, there are a lot more teams that its location differs from their license like Toyota (WEC and WRC), Hyundai (WRC), McLaren at Indy and new Prema team at Indy. It makes more sense saying that Toyota is Japanese and grouping with other japanese teams or saying McLaren British instead of saying Toyota is based in Koln (or that Finnish town with funny name) and putting in same category as Abt or Porsche Motorsport, or that McLaren indy team is located in the US. Rpo.castro (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is the sources. You can easily find sources for addresses I imagine, but not so much licenses. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a similar situation with drivers. The question that nationality/license in teams is less relevant/notable than in drivers. When the license is different from the country where the team is based, being an odd situation, I believe it will be highly sourced (depending on the notability of the team of course). If there isn't that discrepancy, that will be less likely to be mentioned. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support moving back SSSB (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with moving back because the teams are identified by FIA license nationality, not physical location, so use of "in" is factually incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the categories be renamed. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Auto racing teams. DH85868993 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get too pedantic here but can I suggest motorsport in place of auto racing ? That really grates. Lesser so, but still dare I also raise that some might not be teams, some are also manufacturers or engineering companies. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rally Wonk: Re "auto racing" vs "motorsport": the categories are part of the Category:Auto racing category tree and don't include any non-auto racing motorsport teams (e.g. they don't include motorcycle racing teams, which are under the separate Category:Motorcycle racing category tree). The consensus for the nomination was based on a simple revert of the speedy renames (which would retain the "auto racing" names). Merging the "auto racing team" and "non auto racing team" categories to form "motorsport team" categories could perhaps be the subject of a separate discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK no worries, it's not worth discussing further. There is a language barrier the size of the Atlantic Ocean here, it's been a discussion had too many times and on reflection is not worth having again for this. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the discussion has been relisted due to a lack of input. DH85868993 (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categories have been reverted to their original names. Thanks to everyone who participated in the various discussions. DH85868993 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rallying"

FYI, the name and primary topic of Rallying is under discussion at a move request. See talk:Rallying -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Venables-Llewelyn

Hi everyone,

I have recently created the article, Sir John Dillwyn-Venables-Llewelyn, 4th Baronet. The article is in need of “content assessment” and a “motorsport importance” rating.

For context, Llewelyn is a Welsh vintage racing driver famed for winning the “Williams Trophy” at the Monaco Historic GP several times at the wheel of a a Bugatti T-51 which at the time belonged to Lord Raglan. He is a trustee of the Bugatti Trust, and was director of the Bugatti Owners’ Club GB from 1998-2001. You can find more information about him in the article.

I would be very grateful if anyone could review or rate it, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on Sir John!

My Best,

Mac Edmunds (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S; There is an interesting video referenced in the article documenting the entirety of the 1984 all-Bugatti race at Monaco, including qualifying, the race itself, and interviews with the drivers… including Llewelyn after he won. Well worth a watch, especially as it was in the torrential rain!

Mac Edmunds (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excluded in Formula 3

I made this edit at the 2024 Formula 3 page. here and got reverted. It's is concerning drivers who received penalties that effectively suspended them for a race meeting. Currently the table shows them as excluded where I believe you have to be participate in a race meeting to be excluded from it. They did not participate and their cars were driven by others. Those spaces should be blank, not "EX".

I then made the change a second time, providing a source to the table on the FIA Formula 3 points standings indicating that the drivers did not take part. I was reverted again with a somewhat angry and insulting response from User:MSport1005. So am I wrong to think that if you are suspended and someone else is driving your car, then you are not excluded from the race results and should not have "EX" in the table? -- Falcadore (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some official definitions from the International Sporting Code:

Disqualification: Disqualification means that a person or persons may not continue to participate in a Competition. The Disqualification may be for part of a Competition (e.g. heat, final, free practice, qualifying practice sessions, race, etc.) the whole Competition or several Competitions within the same Event, at the discretion of the stewards, and may be pronounced during or after the Competition, or part of the Competition, as determined by the stewards. The disqualified person's relevant results or times are voided.
Exclusion: A person or body shall be said to be excluded when they have been definitively forbidden to take part in any Competition whatsoever. It shall render null and void any previous Entry made by the person excluded and shall entail the forfeiture of Entry fees.
Suspension: the Suspension deprives, for a specified period of time, the person subject to it of the right to take part, directly or indirectly and in any capacity whatsoever, in (i) any Competition organised or regulated by the FIA or the ASNs (or placed under their authority), and (ii) any preparatory testing and training organised or regulated by the FIA or the ASNs (or placed under their authority) or organised by their members or licence-holders.

Firstly, the tables are lacking sources. Edit summaries are not the place to put them. No reason these tables should go without sources whether they are "regurgitated" or not. Quickly googling, I found a reliable secondary source that has blanks on the table.

Secondly, the article is missing any content on these penalties and suspensions/exclusions/disqualifications, so I can't help you answer which of the above is correct. But claims must have sources if the table is 'not regurgitated', so far I only hear about an issue through your conversation. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the specifics (DQ vs EX), but the fact there is writing in those spaces at all. -- Falcadore (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's whether the table should follow the key of the uncited source or is it Wikipedia's own. Going back to your first question above I would say you are wrong in a technicality, you are excluded (not officially) if you are suspended but not vice-versa.

I looked at Tsolov at Spa, which currently says EX. Sources exist, official and secondary, to say he was Suspended, not disqualified or excluded. I think these specifics matter.

There is currently no S or SUS in the key for suspensions, so EX would be arguably correct. A blank in the key says a driver did not enter, which is also arguably correct on technicalities but not officially. My proposal would be to add SUS to the table key - that is the most useful for the reader. Rally Wonk (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. All in all I just think there needs to be a distinction. Tsolov and Stenshorne were banned from entering these races. It is radically different to Zagazeta missing Monaco due to appendicitis; or the rest of Wharton and Taponen's season. EX doesn't require a driver to enter a race, so I feel its use is appropriate. Some precedents support this.

As for the points table on the F3 website being used as an argument: no distinction is made there beyond a number & a dash. It doesn't care whether a driver finished outside the points or DNF'd. Both have a 0. Wikipedia does not and shall not follow such a vague approach. MSport1005 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above regulations again carefully. It requires one to have entered an event to be able to be excluded.T v x1 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, only the definition of disqualification entails that. Either way, as Rally Wonk pointed out the correct term is suspended. All inaccurate uses of EX can be superseded if necessary. MSport1005 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Excluded litterally mentions voiding existing entries and forfeiture of entry fees. Thus entries must patently exist. And as explained things like suspended are beyond the scope of these tables. The EX‘s should just be removed. T v x1 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we should not be adding anything to the legend. The championship tables are only meant to list the results of entries. When drivers didn't enter an event they should have nothing in that cell. Reasons for absence are beyond the scope of these tables, whatever the reason (injured, suspended, sacked, etc). T v x1 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't mind. But it's not unreasonable to expect the story of the championship to be told when there are so many options on the legend. Tsolov's suspension was a result of a breach of contract with the championship. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is "unreasonable to expect the story of the championship to be told [through the championship standings table]." Because the type of context required to tell the story of the championship can only be achived through prose. SSSB (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there was no prose on Belgium and I'm in no position to improve the article. I never suggested not including prose, and tables can also inform of where the stories are.

It's always going to be my opinion that SUS should be added to the tables, not just on these articles, but across motorsport. If there is no support for that, it's fine, however I'm not wrong. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Prose|MOS:TABLES]]. Tables should not replace prose. T v x1 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't ever suggest it should. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can still enter an event while injured (ask Boschung) or under a contract dispute (ask Pantano). A suspension legally prevents you from doing so.

Injuries or sackings are private matters unrelated to the championship that involve no paperwork (with the governing body) and therefore aren't formalised. A suspension is a penalty imposed by the governing body, and sits up there with a DQ or a mid-event EX (e.g. Merhi in 2015 Formula Renault 3.5 Series).

I think all 3 are necessary in results tables – "not entering" should not be a delimiting factor – in fact it is a direct consequence of the suspension. MSport1005 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don‘t know how I can make it any more clear to you. Everything that is in the championships‘ tables are the outcomes of entries. When there was no entry the cell is empty. No entry=blank cell. Suspensions aren‘t results of entries and don‘t belong there at all. Also, depending on the championship a sacking or injury can very much require paperwork. Formula one and its junior series, unlike rallying, operate on season entries. The drives are entered for the entire championship. An injury or a sacking requires first the paperwork to suspend or even terminate the relevant driver’s entry and subsequently the paperwork to formally enter their replacement. T v x1 15:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything that is in the championships‘ tables are the outcomes of entries. When there was no entry the cell is empty. No entry=blank cell"
"The drive(r)s are entered for the entire championship"

I hope you can see that it's still not the clearest POV to understand. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His POV is perfectly clear. The only reason it appears unclear is due to a combination of you and MSport1005 not understanding how Formula One entry lists work and you not fully understanding the context of the quotes you just provided.

In order to compete in Formula One (and Formula Three) you need to make an application. Teams make this appocation every year, and as part of this they have to nominate a driver. The "season entry list" is really nothing more than a summary of succssful applications. It confirms that the pre-requistestes for entry into races is met (entry fee paid, correct license, etc.). You then need to entered into individual events. Now, when Tsolov got that one race ban, his team decided to replace him. Which means they had to send the FIA a form which basically said: "we want to alter our applocation to compete in this championship, Taponen will drive instead of Tsolov. So, the FIA took Tapanon off the entry list and put Tsolov there instead. Tsolov was no longer entered into the championship.[1] This is we use the entry list of individual events and this is why Tvx1's comment is not contradictory and makes perfect sense. SSSB (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, when Tsolov got that one race ban, his team decided to replace him. Well they had to. You have to field all 3 cars, otherwise Bruno sends a lovely fine your way... MSport1005 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The point is that he was replaced on the season entry list. T v x1 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, I respect your vote, subject knowledge and opinion. But the table is a championship standings table on the championship article. I retain my opinion that the table should include the story of the championship, which includes all the drivers entered into it, especially where there are separate articles for each round. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I respect your opinion, but I don't see how "Tsolov finished 4th in the Bahrain sprint, and 11th in feature, ..., Tsolov was suspended for Belgian" can constitute a story. A story needs context. A row of of numbers and abbreviations with (let's be honest) vague definitions cannot ever provide enough context to constitute a story. Unless of course we find abbreviations for "driving in another series without permission from the FIA" (is that the reason 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship is very vague. In which case we probably need one for "did not enter as driver was imprisoned for aggravated assault as a result of toad rage" (Betrand Gachot; 1991 Formula One World Championship) then we would have a story. So this idea that we should specify why he didn't compete to "tell a story" is completely unworkable. SSSB (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that’s also why there should be nothing when a driver didn’t enter for an event. T v x1 23:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple though. While drivers are primarily entered for a championship. They are not automatically entered for each and every race of it. That happens through a seperate procedure. Season entry list are seperate concepts from event entry lists. T v x1 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the nicest way possible – I'm in the industry, I don't need you to educate me on it. No entry=blank cell – a blank cell doesn't preclude text. Suspensions aren‘t results of entries – correct, but certain non-entries are the result of suspensions. And that, to me, is key information. "SUS" on a blank cell (as User:Rally Wonk suggested) can do the job. Just like WD, DNA, DNP and EX. MSport1005 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WD, DNA, DNP an EX all follow entries for grands prix/events though, while SUS does not. That's where the bar is drawn and I cannot see any justification to deviatie from that. The FIA leaves their cells blank, so should we. It's not up to us to invent when a championship table should contain a result. T v x1 19:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FIA also leaves its cells empty for withdrawals, cancellations and non-points races. Wikipedia is not the FIA. It is most definitely up to us to discuss what a championship table should contain. MSport1005 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have made it very clear where our line is. But where is yours? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds like you want the results table to outline the reason for non-entries (despite those not being results; withdrawal, cancellation and still results). So, this means we need a code for non-entry due to suspension, and non-entry due to illness, due to injury, due to arrest, due to prior commitment, due to contract termination etc. Then it's a slippery slope till we have to specify cause of withdrawal. This is untenable and unmanageable and non of these things constitute a result, yet you want to put them into a results table? SSSB (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There just is no reason why we should make an exception for suspension. They are not championship results in any way of form. T v x1 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read my comments? I've made this distinctly clear.

Non-entries caused by suspensions should (in my view) be outlined.
Non-entries caused by injury, illness, contractual issues or whatever else should not.

All is reasoned above. MSport1005 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read all your comments: you did not make this distinction clear. This is the first time you have stated that only non-entries due to suspension should be mentioned. The closest you have come previously was to state that suspension is "radically different" to withdrawing from "appendicitis". Which is true, but not convincing reasoning. Because contract termination is also radically different, so is having been arrested, or particpating in another event.

And let me bring us back to what it is we are actually discussing: the results table. A table that only serves one purpose: to avoid us listing every single result. Firstly, a non-entry isn't a result. Secondly, if a reason for a result is note-worthy it should be discussed in prose. The result table doesn't discuss the reason for any result, and I see no reason for an exception to be made for a non-entry "result". SSSB (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to the point I will say you are incorrect. The purpose of the tables we are discussing is to display the drivers championship standings and collectively the results within summarise the inputs to that end. There is no justification to strictly define it as a 'results of entries' table. These, as independently notable, belong on their respective articles, or in a results table that could have 1st-30th on one axis with the names in the grid. Through consensus and form, this has been summarised and exists under the results table as found underSeason summary on 2024 F3.

I know you don't need me to explain to you that the drivers championship is a title, not the series of events, so there's no convincing reason to restrict this table to 'results of entries' of the events so strictly that when a driver doesn't enter, (one who the average person with 'no great knowledge of the subject' might expect to be taking part through looking at the rest of the table), there should be no information at all. It's the difference between somebody understanding 'that's why they didn't score points or couldn't enter' and not trusting the information or leaving uninformed. This is particularly true if Tsolov, for example, was to return to race at Monza; and the other two gentlemen that season.

I've used the word 'story' before now which I think has been taken to mean a long explanation of events. To be clear, I mean that these tables are often the only place that needs to be looked at for a summary of the entire article (nobody reads articles in full), or season in this case. If I saw a SUS it tells me something and if I feel the need to read the reasons why I would read the text. A blank cell can look like an omission, error or incompleteness - and this is not helpful. I agree there's no need to put something where somebody ran out of funds mid-season or either side of only doing one event etc, but SUS is a result of direct official measures affecting the ability to get a result.

Nobody looks at the tables to see who finished 18th in each of the races for example, or who won a particular race as there are the articles for that. People care about how the season progressed, which has no need to be restricted to 'results of entries'. I think this a rule you have imposed on yourself. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we descending into this again? I already explained you that tables should NOT replace prose. Tables cannot be the only thing that contains all the information. Tables do NOT need to be to only things people look at. That’s just not how Wikipedia works. T v x1 23:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we have had this debate before. Or was that at WP:WikiProject Formula One. In any case, the only compariable case I could think of was Grosjean at the 2012 Italian Grand Prix, and the table at 2012 Formula One World Championship shows a blank space. SSSB (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Michael Schumacher during the 1994 Formula One World Championship, or BAR during the 2005 Formula One World Championship. T v x1 19:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because BAR are blank. But Michael Schumacher shows as "EX" (in 1997 Formula One World Championship. SSSB (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Formula 2 Championship — Raghunathan shows as "EX".

2022 Formula 2 Championship — Cordeel, Caldwell and Nissany all show as "EX". MSport1005 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should be removed as well. T v x1 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to 1994 championship for Schumacher, when he was banned from entering for two events, not 1997, when he was excluded after the season. T v x1 13:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 1994, I typed 1997 by accident. SSSB (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should not have been there. They were recently incorrectly added by an anonymous editor against consensus. I removed them again. T v x1 17:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a blank space would be better. I think Excluded would be used if we that did happen during the race weekend as result of something that happened during that weekend. And we have the precedent stated by SSSB.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types of motorsport (Wikidata)

There is certain problem with Wikidata. In Polish, "car race" (pl:wyścig samochodowy) and "car rally" (pl:rajd samochodowy) are types of "car sport" (pl:sport samochodowy). I think it's possible to distinguish a few terms, like car race (or "auto race"?) - single event which is "part" of "auto racing". If there is "auto racing", then term "car sport" or "auto sport" exist? "Car sport"/"Auto sport" is wider than "auto racing" because it also includes "ralling". Eurohunter (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a problem and it is not good. I have had this conversation since I joined here. Unfortunately, there is opposition to improving this from a large section of English speakers from North America. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've got motorsport, which is the broad article, and we have auto racing which is narrower and focusses on the motorsports which involve racing. What I think you are suggesting is an article on auto sport which would fit in the middle in terms of broadness. However, this would essentially be a split of motorsport. We are not a dictionary, we do not need a separate article for everything, and given the size of motorsport, I do not see how a split can be justified.

There are also far bigger problems, why does motorsport have huge sections on auto-eacing, but says nothing about motorbike, plane, or boat racing? And how do we justify not classing rallying as auto-racing. The definition of racing is: "compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective." which rallying is. Whether you compete at the same time, or compete with a staggered start is not relevant to the definition. These are some of the actual problems these articles have, and once we fix the first one, we might actually have enough content to justify splitting into auto sport. SSSB (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rallying is NOT competing with others to see who is fastest.

It's true the WRC includes that but this is only one rallying series. Nor are trials, gymkhana, drifting, monster truck driving, and many other forms, racing. Apologies for the bold and caps, it's not intended as aggression, but I want to indicate the frustration I have had here again and again, and again.

We will also differ on opinion on the Motorsport article too, but at least this is through common use probably. I would say that Motorsport does not cover planes or boats, and is the common name for automobile sport - not auto racing - and may include motorcycle sport. This is why the motorsport article is in a terrible state, it doesn't know what it is because English speakers do not agree.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the point in Eurohunter's question is more how Wikidata works. The English language not using an automobile sport term is a disservice to all other languages. Rally Wonk (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rally Wonk: Yes, I want to fix things on Wikidata, but we also need redirects to correct and categorised terms here at ENWP. It's quite hard to describe it exactly but in Polish we also call "car races" or "rallying", just as a "motorsport" ("sport motorowy") but more as a group of sports, and we can clearly distinguish "sport samochodowy" (it's also called "automobilizm" in Polish - rather rarely) - so how is this called correctly in English? Redirect for "auto sport" exist but is this correct name in English and is this common name or there are more variants of name and all of them are common? Btw. I think Polish "automobilizm" is taken from English "automobilism" but I'm not sure if it has exactly the same meaning in English. We could make here some kind of list or hierarchy of terms with all variants of names just for this talk to clarify. Eurohunter (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "wyścig ciężarówek" which would be "truck race" in English not "Truck racing", but there is no "truck sport" in Polish. Eurohunter (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common use for "auto sport" or "automobile sport" in English, only official use. The common names are "Auto racing" in North America, even if it's not racing!; and "Motorsport" in the rest of the world. There is reluctance from North Americans to change this despite it clearly being wrong to others, and neutral opinions favour the ignorant policy of whatever came first is fact.

Some discussions on this I have had recently:

Unfortunately I can't see this ever being improved. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to my comment not only proves my point, but makes it clear to me that the issues I am describing are even worse than I originally thought. Firstly, you are putting words in my mouth. At no point did I talk about "trials, gymkhana, drifting, monster truck driving, and many other forms,". I was specifically talking about rallying. I was also mistaken about rallying - I didn't realise how broad rallying is. However, the point remains that some rallies are racing (like WRC) or include a racing element. This should therefore be discussed at auto racing.

Secondly, "I would say that Motorsport does not cover planes or boats, and is the common name for automobile sport - not auto racing - and may include motorcycle sport." I'm sorry but this is nonsense. How can "auto racing" include motorcycles? "Auto" literally means car. Likewise "motorsport" is the competive use of vehicles that use a motor. Boats, planes and motorbikes use motors. The only reason that motorsport appears to be the common name for automobile sport is because car racing is by far the most common and most popular form of motorsport. Something being the most common context does not make it the commonname, especially when the terms are defined by the dictionary.

Thirdly, the fact that we are discussing what these terms actually refer to means that we are in no position to make any wikidata connections. Before we do anything else we need to agree on definitions and chnage the relevant articles to match those definitions.

Finally, the entire basis for this discussion is nonsense. We do not decide what articles to write based on what we find on wikidata. We do it based on Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines - none of which advocate writing articles just because they exist in other languages. This is for multiple reasons, some of which I will briefly outline. As any translater and most competent multilinguals will tell you, it is not possible to literally translate things word for word. Language doesn't work like that, it is much more nuanced and complicated than that. You cannot take a Polish article, but it's title into Google translate, and say "we need an article with this name". Directly translating an English term into Polish may well result in a term which has a broader or narrower scope in Polish compared to English. It will not always be possible to find a perfect match for wikidata to connect to. We need to be pragmatic and find the best possible connection. This may involve creating a redirect and going through that. Or it may not be possible to do this. However, in instances where a link is not possible, that is just unfortunate, but unavoidable. We simply have to make do. But making a whole article purely for the benefit of wikidata is both inappropriate and impractical. For example, the Polish "truck race" may just have to connect to thr English "truck racing"

In short, we can make no progress at all until we agree on definitions. (At this point we can probably connect the Autosport redirect to wikidata And then we need to decide if a splitting motorsport to create an auto sport article is appropriate (in my opinion it won't be at least until we flesh out the non autosport motorsports, until then there is literally no point in splitting). SSSB (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on most things, and have no need to drift to a conversation on who-said-what. But just to be clear:

Trials, gymkhana etc were words from my mouth to highlight how silly auto racing is. I did not mean to suggest you had said these.
Also, in my opinion motorcycle sport is a form of motorsport, alongside what could be called automobile sport. Planes and boats belong elsewhere for good reason I shall explain if asked. However, I also believe the term, motorsport, is the common use for what may be called, or translated into English as 'automobile sport'.
I do not push for a creation of "automobile sport" article, however, I believe that "auto racing" is very wrong, to the point of being harmful, and to the point where I believe Wikipedia and its policies are a negative force.

My proposal now would be to have the wikidata item "automobile sport" contain the language links found on auto racing, and simply not have an English article attached. I doubt this would gather support if I made the changes alone.

I'm open to proposals but I don't think defining anything is what's really needed. We're restricted by policies and technical abilities. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: @Rally Wonk: There are langueage differences but I think we could sort out of some things atleast. As I understand "auto racing" is correct name for "racing with cars" and "automobile sport" for wider "car sport". Also "automobile sport" is used instead of "auto sport"? Isn't "auto sport" shorter form for "automobile sport", so in the same way we would have "auto racing" and "automobile racing"? Also how do you call "single car race"? I think table below explains it well. Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your hierarchy makes perfect sense, but it doesn't justify Wikipedia articles as SSSB has said.

The only occasions I see Automobile sport being used is officially by the FIA. I have never seen Auto sport being used anywhere. Autosport is a magazine.

At least in Britain, motor racing would be more common, then car racing would be used secondary. Nobody uses the term auto racing unless they have been influenced by Wikipedia. I shall add two lines to your table. Of course it can only be an opinion. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the hierarchy which I'm trying to sort out
Polish:	Sport →	Sport motorowy →	Sport samochodowy →	Wyścigi samochodowe (multiple races) →	Wyścig samochodowy (single race)
English:	Sport →	Motorsport →	Automobile sport →	Auto racing →	Auto race
Common US English:	Sport →	Motorsport →	None, so Auto racing →	Auto racing →	Auto race
Common British English:	Sport →	Motorsport →	None, so Motorsport →	Motor racing →	Motor race

Then I would suggest it is fairly clear cut. pl:sport links to sport. pl:Sport motorowy links to motorsport. pl:Wyścigi samochodowe links to auto racing. pl:Sport samochodowy doesn't have an English equivalent, but can connect to Automobile sport, Car sport, or Autosport and redirect to Motorsport#Disciplines of automobile sport. SSSB (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to language link to a redirect it should have been done long ago.

There are 90+ language links on Wikidata/Auto racing, most of them do not belong there. Some may belong to Automobilism, however in some languages that includes sport whereas in English it means car culture. Many would need moving to Automobile sport. It might be worth waiting for more comments before undertaking this.

Then there is the category structure to think of. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of speedway riders

Numerous articles regarding motorcycle speedway riders have been nominated for deletion both recently and in the past, but whilst these deletion discussions appear under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport, I get the impression that most motorsport editors have little-or-no knowledge of speedway racing and thus aren't able to really constructively contribute to these discussions. It would perhaps be desirable to establish which sources, if any, carry coverage of these speedway riders and how reliable these sources are. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]