This page is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 July 2012.
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Motorsportfan100-20241124194400","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Update_needed_for_notability_criteria-20241124194400","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400-Update_needed_for_notability_criteria"],"text":"Update needed for notability criteria","linkableTitle":"Update needed for notability criteria"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Motorsportfan100-20241124194400","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Update_needed_for_notability_criteria-20241124194400","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400-Update_needed_for_notability_criteria"],"text":"Update needed for notability criteria","linkableTitle":"Update needed for notability criteria"}-->
This might be a controversial opinion, but I feel as that WP:NMOTORSPORT has to be updated for junior formulae feeder series. It does not reflect the expansion of the pathway in recent years, and does not have criteria for W Series/F1A drivers. This has caused lots of confusion for AfCs and AfDs, with there regularly being arguments or disagreements on the policy. Overall, it is unclear, and could use improvement.
F2 (still called GP2 on the page) and F3 need to be added; currently, all drivers are given articles if they are in either of these series. This is an unwritten precedent.
This is my own opinion, but I think the following could work:
- Completion of one full season or a race winner in Formula Regional
As I stated in the introduction, changes are needed as the current system is not working. I'm not sure exactly how this guideline can be changed, but I want to bring attention to this issue. We could possibly start a formal discussion to change the current policy, as I would assume consensus would be needed. (apologizes if this is phrased badly, I'm not good at formal talk page posts).
UPDATE 26NOV2024 22:15 UTC: II have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Changes to WP:NMOTORSPORTS in a more in depth and formal way. WikiProject page does not recieve heavy traffic, and WP:N talk will help my idea get implemented.
UPDATE 2: See [1] for RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalacticVelocity08 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241205023400","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400-Update_needed_for_notability_criteria","replies":["c-Motorsportfan100-20241124194400-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","c-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","c-MSportWiki-20241124220300-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","c-GalacticVelocity08-20241126021300-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400"]}}-->
This I agree with. The things listed above some drivers have articles and news pieces written about them. However due to the notability criteria some pages are nominated for deletion even though the said drivers have plenty of articles written about them the articles aren't considered notable because they aren't listed Motorsportfan100 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124194400","author":"Motorsportfan100","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Motorsportfan100-20241124194400-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","replies":[]}}-->
I disagree with these types of raced-in-a-series based rules. Somebody with no knowledge of motorsport should be able to establish notability of a participant from the sources that are available to create that participant's article. That's the only criteria necessary. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124203400","author":"Rally Wonk","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124204000-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400","c-Motorsportfan100-20241124211700-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400"]}}-->
I somewhat agree with you; NMOTORSPORT is supposed to be a rough guideline on who deserves an article. However, at AfC and AfD, it is treated as a strict criteria that must be met for an article to exist. Therefore, in response to that always happening, it might be smarter to update the policy as a whole.
This happens a lot at F1A/WSeries/F4/FRECA articles; since those series aren't explicitly listed as ones that can have articles, they end up getting declined, even if there is SIGCOV and notability. Take a look at our project's AfDs, and look at how often NMOTORSPORT is mentioned.
tldr: i agree, thats whats supposed to happen, but thats not what ends up happening GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124204000","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124204000-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400","replies":[]}}-->
In addition to this there's been several pages of W series and F1 Academy members that were nominated for deletion today and the argument that was given was that was that the series weren't on the list of notability Motorsportfan100 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124211700","author":"Motorsportfan100","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Motorsportfan100-20241124211700-Rally_Wonk-20241124203400","replies":[]}}-->
The notability guidelines exist because articles on feeder series drivers, including fifth-tier F1 Academy and fourth-tier W Series, violate WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. In many cases, these created articles rely heavily on DriverDB which is a Wikipedia-style site that anyone can create an account for and edit, and that tabulated content becomes the backbone of these articles which in turn violates WP:NOTDATABASE. In addition, a significant number of feeder series drivers violate WP:MINORS - especially below FIA F3.
I propose setting the lower limit at drivers over 18 in FIA Formula 3; anything lower violates the above, and supporter forums like Fandom can cover the rest. MSportWiki (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124220300","author":"MSportWiki","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MSportWiki-20241124220300-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900-MSportWiki-20241124220300"]}}-->
I agree with you in regard to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Regardless of our motorsports policy, articles are subject to those two policies and GNG. Articles that rely on DriverDB apply to this, too. However, individuals (not just you) use WP:NMOTORSPORT as a way prevent articles on lower level drivers from existing, since their series is not explicitly mentioned. This applies even when there is ample sourcing and meets GNG/SIGCOV. My proposal just provides criteria that can establish notability, similar to the intentions of the policy in its current state.
As for minors, I do not see a reason why we should discontinue making articles for drivers <18. As for the policy you linked, that just says to be careful of what you edit when the subject is a minor, unless I am misinterpreting it.
Also, regarding W-Series and F1A, these series are held to a higher regard than normal F4 series. As for why exactly, I couldn't tell you, but they are. F1A receives a lot more media coverage than say an Italian F4 driver. Heck, Doriane Pin was on a late night show - that wouldn't happen with random F4 drivers. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124222900","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900-MSportWiki-20241124220300","replies":["c-SSSB-20241124223700-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900","c-MSportWiki-20241125004100-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900"]}}-->
I'm sorry, but the practice you've described in your opening paragragh is unacceptable. If the subject for an article meets WP:GNG, there should be an article. How notable their competition is is not relevant. WP:NMOTOR even says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a motorsport figure if they are:" (i.e. it basically says we would expect someone who meets that criteria to meet WP:GNG, it is not a guarantee that they do). Likewise, many, many people will meet WP:GNG without meeting that criteria. The criteria is not meant to be extensive or definitive. SSSB (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124223700","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-SSSB-20241124223700-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124232000-SSSB-20241124223700","c-MSportWiki-20241125005700-SSSB-20241124223700"]}}-->
I agree, that's how the guideline is intended; as a rough benchmark to show what individuals may have significant coverage. However, in practice, WP:NMOTORSPORT is used frequently on AfCs and AfDs to show why an article should be deleted/declined. This isn't a one off issue; many editors on this project experience it when editing feeder articles. Therefore, a more expanded criteria like the one I've proposed above could be useful for preventing these behaviors. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241124232000","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241124232000-SSSB-20241124223700","replies":[]}}-->
There needs to be a threshold, otherwise we end up with a flood of low-quality articles and promotional pieces (see the constant AfD nominations and edit wars regarding Vivien Keszthelyi as an example). Most feeder series drivers follow the same generic pattern:
"In October 2024, Forename Surname signed to compete in the Benelux F4 Championship with Foo Racing. Surname finished 5th in the standings in 2025, with best finishes of 3rd at Assen and Zolder."
This type of content, typically supported by primary sources from championships or team profiles, fails SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC - and is at best a C-grade under WP:QUALITY. There are plenty of existing articles that struggle with quality control already, we should be focusing on those and leaving entry-level competitors to fan wikis and DriverDB (WP:NOTDATABASE). MSportWiki (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125005700","author":"MSportWiki","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MSportWiki-20241125005700-SSSB-20241124223700","replies":["c-The_Bushranger-20241125013000-MSportWiki-20241125005700"]}}-->
If it's "at best a C-grade" - so what? Not every article can be Featured. Indeed, not all should be, I'd go so far as saying. But even that aside, if a driver meets GNG, they meet GNG, full stop, NMOTORSPORT completely notwithstanding. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125013000","author":"The Bushranger","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-The_Bushranger-20241125013000-MSportWiki-20241125005700","replies":["c-WhatamIdoing-20241126222300-The_Bushranger-20241125013000"]}}-->
The median article is Start-class, with 13 sentences and 4 refs. If we required C-class, we'd probably have to delete two-thirds of Wikipedia's articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241126222300","author":"WhatamIdoing","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-WhatamIdoing-20241126222300-The_Bushranger-20241125013000","replies":[]}}-->
I think SIGCOV is misinterpreted by this community; SIGCOV requires reliable sourcing from high-quality publications and sites (BBC, Reuters, national-level newspapers, etc.). It is not routine secondary sourcing like Formula Scout and FeederSeries.net, nor primary sources like Formula One Management for F1 Academy, nor hobbyist blogs as outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Gilkes. The majority of FR and F4 drivers, with exceptions, fail these sourcing requirements and therefore GNG.
Doriane Pin is an awful example as she has raced in WEC and IMSA, two high-profile championships - no other F1A driver can claim that level of notability, with the very weak exceptions of series champions. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to create articles for entry-level drivers - as I said above, leave these articles to fan wikis. MSportWiki (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125004100","author":"MSportWiki","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-MSportWiki-20241125004100-GalacticVelocity08-20241124222900","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241125021100-MSportWiki-20241125004100"]}}-->
Fair enough, Doriane was a bad example. However, if you wanted to just use national level news for drivers, I don't think we would have even F2 level articles. There has never been an issue with using feederseries and Formula Scout articles as sources, so I'm not sure why you are saying that.
And once again, WP:NMOTORSPORT is supposed to be a guide on who can be notable, not who is or who isn't as a fact. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the DriverDB example considering how many decent C-Class articles there are on drivers, with reliable sourcing from websites like feederseries and Formula Scout. There also is nothing wrong with having articles that meet WP:GNG, but aren't extensive - stubs exist for a reason. There are plenty of feeder series editors that edit daily, and there is only so much sourced content you can add to articles. That does not mean that articles need to be deleted or not published in the first place, assuming WP:GNG is met.
I understand there are some COI edits and overall sucky F4/Karting articles, I've seen them firsthand. However, providing random examples does not help the situation at hand. I am trying to expand/improve the guideline in order to make things more clear, not to give every driver an article. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125021100","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241125021100-MSportWiki-20241125004100","replies":["c-GhostOfDanGurney-20241125052300-GalacticVelocity08-20241125021100"]}}-->
If a topic meets GNG, they get an article regardless of any SNG, and if they don't meet GNG they don't get an article no matter what the SNG says. GNG is king. You are right that if GNG is met, an article should not be deleted, but MSport is right in that SIGCOV is often loosely interpreted in this topic area. NMOTORSPORT is fine as it is. It is a guide on what drivers should meet GNG. It's not perfect, but no SNG is, and that is why we have policy which dictates explicitly that GNG is king. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)05:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125052300","author":"GhostOfDanGurney","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-GhostOfDanGurney-20241125052300-GalacticVelocity08-20241125021100","replies":["c-GalacticVelocity08-20241125161000-GhostOfDanGurney-20241125052300"],"displayName":"\"Ghost of Dan Gurney\""}}-->
Could you please link a policy/guideline that says it has to be a major news source? I don't see that under GNG. While this is my opinion, I don't see an issue as long as it is independent and reliable.
I understand your point about SNG, but I think that it could be updated to reflect the newer layout of the feeder series system. As I stated in my original post, the policy is often miscited and people who are not involved with motorsports sometimes have a hard time interpreting the policy. I could try to find specific examples if you would like. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125161000","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241125161000-GhostOfDanGurney-20241125052300","replies":["c-WhatamIdoing-20241126223000-GalacticVelocity08-20241125161000"]}}-->
There's no such rule. Sources for GNG purposes are not restricted to national news, high-quality sites, etc.
SIGCOV is about how much information the source provides. It is a shortened way of writing "a significant amount of media coverage". The GNG says that a single sentence is not a significant amount of coverage and that a whole book definitely is, but it unhelpfully gives no guidance about where, between these two extremes, the dividing line actually falls. Some editors like the Wikipedia:One hundred words standard. My own view is that when all the Wikipedia:Independent sources are considered as a whole, it needs to be enough to write more than a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241126223000","author":"WhatamIdoing","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-WhatamIdoing-20241126223000-GalacticVelocity08-20241125161000","replies":[]}}-->
Just to show an example if anyone cares, there is an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vittorio Zoboli. NMOTORSPORTS has been mentioned 5 times at the time of writing, and is being used as a notability guideline opposed to a suggestion for who might have significant coverage. This really proves my point that we should continue to update the policy as time goes on, considering how it is mentioned at many AfDs and AfCs. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241126021300","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241126021300-GalacticVelocity08-20241205023400","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mb2437-20241204001700","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Use_of_medal_templates_for_A1GP_drivers-20241204001700","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241204001700-Use_of_medal_templates_for_A1GP_drivers"],"text":"Use of medal templates for A1GP drivers","linkableTitle":"Use of medal templates for A1GP drivers"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mb2437-20241204001700","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Use_of_medal_templates_for_A1GP_drivers-20241204001700","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241204001700-Use_of_medal_templates_for_A1GP_drivers"],"text":"Use of medal templates for A1GP drivers","linkableTitle":"Use of medal templates for A1GP drivers"}-->
Hi all, bringing this here as the A1 Grand Prix taskforce seems a little dusty! I recently moved Nico Hülkenberg's title and medals in A1GP to the collapsible infobox racing driver medal parameter, used generally across athlete articles for achievements whilst representing a country. Just wondering if this is worth extending to other A1GP drivers in place of a regular series infobox, scrapping altogether, or solely using the Winner and Runner-up templates for championship finishing positions. MB243700:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241204001700","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mb2437-20241204001700-Use_of_medal_templates_for_A1GP_drivers","replies":[],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Bearian-20241214113500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Norwegian_Touring_Car_Championship-20241214113500","replies":["c-Bearian-20241214113500-Norwegian_Touring_Car_Championship"],"text":"Norwegian Touring Car Championship","linkableTitle":"Norwegian Touring Car Championship"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Bearian-20241214113500","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Norwegian_Touring_Car_Championship-20241214113500","replies":["c-Bearian-20241214113500-Norwegian_Touring_Car_Championship"],"text":"Norwegian Touring Car Championship","linkableTitle":"Norwegian Touring Car Championship"}-->
Please source this or delete this. Bearian (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241214113500","author":"Bearian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bearian-20241214113500-Norwegian_Touring_Car_Championship","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-DH85868993-20241227085300","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Merging_empty_cells_in_results_tables-20241227085300","replies":["c-DH85868993-20241227085300-Merging_empty_cells_in_results_tables"],"text":"Merging empty cells in results tables","linkableTitle":"Merging empty cells in results tables"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-DH85868993-20241227085300","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Merging_empty_cells_in_results_tables-20241227085300","replies":["c-DH85868993-20241227085300-Merging_empty_cells_in_results_tables"],"text":"Merging empty cells in results tables","linkableTitle":"Merging empty cells in results tables"}-->
Samster80 has recently been merging empty cells in driver results tables, like this. Are we in favour of this? DH85868993 (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241227085300","author":"DH85868993","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DH85868993-20241227085300-Merging_empty_cells_in_results_tables","replies":["c-SSSB-20241227091100-DH85868993-20241227085300","c-Samster80-20241229230800-DH85868993-20241227085300"]}}-->
I see it as one of those things which is a waste of time to do, and also a waste of time to go around reverting. Which is a long complicated way of saying: I don't care if they are merged or not. I think it looks better aesthetically, but I think making edits based on aesthetics is a waste of my time, partly because someone is bound to find not merging the cells more aesthetic and making the changes based solely on what I think is selfish. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241227091100","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SSSB-20241227091100-DH85868993-20241227085300","replies":["c-Bcschneider53-20241227160200-SSSB-20241227091100"]}}-->
Like SSSB, I would lean towards merging them but don't care too strongly one way or another. From my experience, NASCAR tables have always been merged, although those tables are frequently much more complex as one-off appearances and mid-season ride swaps are much more common, especially back before the charter era. I will say that I would prefer it to be consistent one way or another, but I also tend to agree that an editor's time would probably be better used on more important matters. If for some reason someone does want to spend their time on such a task, though...you won't hear any complaints from me. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241227160200","author":"Bcschneider53","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bcschneider53-20241227160200-SSSB-20241227091100","replies":[]}}-->
As part of my general ongoing project of providing as much driver results tables as possible I realised that merging the empty cells made the tables easier to read and edit. Eventually I'll do that for all drivers but as and when I create their results tables rather than simply just merging cells as its own task. Samster80 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241229230800","author":"Samster80","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Samster80-20241229230800-DH85868993-20241227085300","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mb2437-20241230052600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Reliable_sources_for_motorsport_articles-20241230052600","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241230052600-Reliable_sources_for_motorsport_articles"],"text":"Reliable sources for motorsport articles","linkableTitle":"Reliable sources for motorsport articles"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mb2437-20241230052600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Reliable_sources_for_motorsport_articles-20241230052600","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241230052600-Reliable_sources_for_motorsport_articles"],"text":"Reliable sources for motorsport articles","linkableTitle":"Reliable sources for motorsport articles"}-->
Hi all, I'm currently looking at collating a list of (un)reliable motorsport sources to help users across this WP find high-quality references to support related articles. Having dealt with over 200 motorsport BLPs, I have seen unreliable/low-quality sources used in abundance to support claims or verify notability; our referencing seems generally poor across the board.
Ideally, the result will be a list similar to this, with discussions supporting the categorisation of each source where necessary. There are plenty of sources on the original list who cover motorsport that may be copied onto the new list to keep it all in one place. See the draft list here. Feel free to add any missing sources to the list with a suggested rating and your signature! MB243705:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230052600","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mb2437-20241230052600-Reliable_sources_for_motorsport_articles","replies":["c-GhostOfDanGurney-20241230090700-Mb2437-20241230052600","c-GalacticVelocity08-20241230141500-Mb2437-20241230052600"],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
See also WP:PW/RS for a good wikiproject-specific example of what I believe is being asked here.
To answer, I see The Indianapolis Star is missing off the top of my head. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230090700","author":"GhostOfDanGurney","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GhostOfDanGurney-20241230090700-Mb2437-20241230052600","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241230161700-GhostOfDanGurney-20241230090700"],"displayName":"\"Ghost of Dan Gurney\""}}-->
That's exactly what I'm looking for, thank you. The search tools are brilliant. MB243716:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230161700","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mb2437-20241230161700-GhostOfDanGurney-20241230090700","replies":[],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
I was actually thinking about this yesterday because of GPFans and PlanetF1! In my opinion, Clickbaity sites like those two should be marked as limited (or whatever other term to indicate caution). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230141500","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20241230141500-Mb2437-20241230052600","replies":["c-Mb2437-20241230161500-GalacticVelocity08-20241230141500"]}}-->
Agree, both certainly come across as tabloids, and have an abundance of articles which fail general notability criteria. MB243716:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230161500","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mb2437-20241230161500-GalacticVelocity08-20241230141500","replies":[],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-DH85868993-20250101111400","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Precision_of_lap_record_times-20250101111400","replies":["c-DH85868993-20250101111400-Precision_of_lap_record_times","c-DH85868993-20250101111600-Precision_of_lap_record_times"],"text":"Precision of lap record times","linkableTitle":"Precision of lap record times"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-DH85868993-20250101111400","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Precision_of_lap_record_times-20250101111400","replies":["c-DH85868993-20250101111400-Precision_of_lap_record_times","c-DH85868993-20250101111600-Precision_of_lap_record_times"],"text":"Precision of lap record times","linkableTitle":"Precision of lap record times"}-->
I notice that lap record times in racing circuit articles seem to be universally expressed to the nearest 1/1000th of a second, regardless of the precision of the original measurement. For example, the "GP" record for the "Original Grand Prix Circuit" (14.98km) variation of Spa-Francorchamps (the last row of Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Lap records) is written as "6:51.200", whereas the source (Motor Sport's report of the 1925 Belgian Grand Prix) specifies the time as "6:51.2". I think Wikipedia should express the lap record using the same precision with which it was originally measured, i.e. in this case, to the nearest 1/10th of a second. Earlier discussions [2], [3] seem to agree that we shouldn't be introducing additional (false) precision. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101111400","author":"DH85868993","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DH85868993-20250101111400-Precision_of_lap_record_times","replies":["c-Mb2437-20250101161200-DH85868993-20250101111400","c-Rally_Wonk-20250102171200-DH85868993-20250101111400"]}}-->
Agree, significant figures should always be given to the lowest precision listed. We can’t say 6:51.200 when it could be ±0.05, which is a fairly hefty margin of error to introduce for no reason. MB243716:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101161200","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mb2437-20250101161200-DH85868993-20250101111400","replies":[],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
I think the precision was in 5ths of seconds back then. I won't look for a source for that claim now, because it's moot. I agree, the decimal place should be to the source. I'll try to have a look if it's interesting for anyone. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102171200","author":"Rally Wonk","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rally_Wonk-20250102171200-DH85868993-20250101111400","replies":[]}}-->
Pinging Apeiro94, who does lots of work on lap record tables. DH85868993 (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101111600","author":"DH85868993","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DH85868993-20250101111600-Precision_of_lap_record_times","replies":["c-SSSB-20250101113100-DH85868993-20250101111600","c-GalacticVelocity08-20250101152400-DH85868993-20250101111600","c-Apeiro94-20250101172500-DH85868993-20250101111600","c-MSport1005-20250102004400-DH85868993-20250101111600"]}}-->
Agree. Our listed lap records should be listed to the same precision that they were measured. Otherwise its just misleading. SSSB (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101113100","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SSSB-20250101113100-DH85868993-20250101111600","replies":[]}}-->
Agree per SSSB. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101152400","author":"GalacticVelocity08","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GalacticVelocity08-20250101152400-DH85868993-20250101111600","replies":[]}}-->
I thought that the older lap times seemed as worse with putting only the tenths of second, so I assume that with comparing the other lap times as x:xx.000, but if everybody agrees on this based on the earlier discussions, it should not be problem also for me. Apeiro94 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250101172500","author":"Apeiro94","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Apeiro94-20250101172500-DH85868993-20250101111600","replies":[]}}-->
Agree with all the above. Lap times should be listed to the precision they were recorded. And it goes both ways – nearest tenth for old competitions, nearest ten-thousandth for series which go that far like IndyCar or Supercars. MSport1005 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102004400","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102004400-DH85868993-20250101111600","replies":["c-DH85868993-20250102065100-MSport1005-20250102004400"]}}-->
OK, it seems like there's consensus to use the original precision. Does anyone have a list of all the circuit articles so I/we can start progressing through them? (I'm happy to create my own list, but I thought I'd avoid re-inventing the wheel if someone already has a list). DH85868993 (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102065100","author":"DH85868993","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-DH85868993-20250102065100-MSport1005-20250102004400","replies":["c-Mb2437-20250102171500-DH85868993-20250102065100"]}}-->
I notice that 2025 is being added to results tables months before racing starts, for example User:Izzlex94 verstappenchamp seems to be keen on doing this. A reminder that this should not occur until racing actually starts. Ahead of time like this is WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --Falcadore (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102012100","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102012100-2025_results_tabling","replies":[]}}-->
Can I ask not for the first time about the explosion of series listed as Major Events in circuit articles? There is a level of context being ignored by editors. The European Truck Racing Championship is not a major event in the history of the Nürburgring but the ETRC visiting a circuit of less repute could be a major event. Also, what is a major event for the ETRC may not be the same for the circuit it is visiting. And any and every category that is a support category for another series cannot be a major event in it's own right. Categories like F1 support categories Formula 2, Formula 3, Porsche Supercup, GP2, GP3, Formula 3000 and so on should never appear as a major event. --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102012700","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102012700-Major_events","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102013500-Falcadore-20250102012700","c-Falcadore-20250102022900-Falcadore-20250102012700","c-SSSB-20250102102400-Falcadore-20250102012700"]}}-->
What you deem to be "major" other editors may not – and vice versa. I could count on one hand the number of ETRC races I've watched – yet I can recognise it as a continental FIA championship, and highest echelon of its discipline (truck racing). I agree with the sentiment regarding support series; but a bit more open-mindedness could be of use. MSport1005 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102013500","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102013500-Falcadore-20250102012700","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102014600-MSport1005-20250102013500","c-Falcadore-20250102015700-MSport1005-20250102013500"]}}-->
You are making my point, not refuting it. You refer to the the ETRC as having a continental FIA championship which is important to the history of the ETRC, but surely insignificant to the 100 plus year history of the Nurburgring which has had dozens of greater events. Including ETRC is WP:Recentism, giving more recent events a greater place in the history of a larger subject than they deserve. The status you refer to belongs to the series, not the circuit. --Falcadore (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102014600","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102014600-MSport1005-20250102013500","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102020900-Falcadore-20250102014600"]}}-->
You refer to the the ETRC as having a continental FIA championship which is important to the history of the ETRC – I'm confused as to what you mean by this? ETRC is a continental FIA championship and the pinnacle of truck racing. The word "major" is inherently subjective. That's the point.
Besides, if the threshold is "an event the Nürburgring is known for" – then surely MotoGP, WEC, ELMS, World RX, WTCC, etc aren't that either. Arguably only F1, DTM and the 24 Hours are. What do you suggest? MSport1005 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102020900","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102020900-Falcadore-20250102014600","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102021700-MSport1005-20250102020900"]}}-->
You know I mostly agree there but this does also expose your lack of knowledge on the subject as WEC is almost always included as part of the history of the World Sportscar Championship. For many years it was considered one of the world's most important sportscar races and the principal build-up race to Le Mans, an event German car makers invested in heavily. I was using ETRC only as an example not as a solitary biased point. Highlighting only F1, DTM the N24 is also a very recentist viewpoint. Why do you only consider current series as being major?
Also the list as written now is already subjective. Stating that as a point against my proposal is meaningless. As to your confusion I repeat; The status you refer to belongs to the series, not the circuit. How is that not clear? Explain to my your point of confusion. --Falcadore (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102021700","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102021700-MSport1005-20250102020900","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102022900-Falcadore-20250102021700"]}}-->
Would you mind not disparaging other users to make a point? Thank you.
I follow endurance racing more than any other racing discipline. I work in it. WEC was born in 2012 – it's the spiritual successor to the WSC, not a revival thereof. If you're really bothered by that minor remark, then make it F1, DTM, N24 and WSC. I was merely exemplifying how ambiguous the term "major" can be. MSport1005 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102022900","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102022900-Falcadore-20250102021700","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102023400-MSport1005-20250102022900"]}}-->
I do not know you personally so I cannot gauge how to make a remark personal. I am not bothered in the slightest. And this is also diverging from the point. What I would like is to not get bogged down in a case-by-case comparison. The term major is in use in the template and it is clearly being abused. --Falcadore (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102023400","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102023400-MSport1005-20250102022900","replies":[]}}-->
To lessen the focus on ETRC, take the FIA Sportscar Championship, a series that ran for seven years, was rebranded twice and is now all but forgotten 21 years later. It's final season had three events with less than ten entrants. It had lofty goals but failed. The series always visited major circuits so it should not be considered as a major event anywhere. --Falcadore (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102015700","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102015700-MSport1005-20250102013500","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102021400-Falcadore-20250102015700"]}}-->
The FIA Sportscar Championship isn't on the list (unless I've gone very blind). Only the similarly-named but much more relevant World Sportscar Championship is. MSport1005 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102021400","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102021400-Falcadore-20250102015700","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102021900-MSport1005-20250102021400"]}}-->
Again, making example of what is and is not, not what is on the article now. A series which by the way, had a similar standing to the ETRC with the FIA although the nomenclature was different. --Falcadore (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102021900","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102021900-MSport1005-20250102021400","replies":[]}}-->
This is exactly the problem MSport1005 I had when I last tried this two years ago. It took so long arguing out the minutiae that by the time we started to move forward, life had changed and any chance to progress this was lost and the lists remained bloated. --Falcadore (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102022900","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102022900-Falcadore-20250102012700","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102023800-Falcadore-20250102022900"]}}-->
Let's be proactive then. I think we should establish a concrete definition of what a "major event" is. What qualifies and what doesn't. As is, that parameter is bound to cause disconformity because it's inherently subjective. MSport1005 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102023800","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102023800-Falcadore-20250102022900","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102025500-MSport1005-20250102023800"]}}-->
You've said all along that Major Event is subjective and I do not disagree. What is a Major Event at the Nurburgring is irrelevant to what a Major Event is at Lakeside Raceway. These template describe the circuit, not an international standard of racing categories. I would so much like to move you away from the idea that the importance of motor racing series is not the deciding criteria of the history of the circuit. It is subjective because the importance of circuits to each other is subjective. It has to be defined by the history of the circuit, not the history of all the other circuits in the world. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102025500","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102025500-MSport1005-20250102023800","replies":["c-MSport1005-20250102030300-Falcadore-20250102025500"]}}-->
We're going in circles at this point. If "major events" are determined case by case – how about we determine them once and for all? MSport1005 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102030300","author":"MSport1005","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MSport1005-20250102030300-Falcadore-20250102025500","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102074500-MSport1005-20250102030300"]}}-->
At this point I'm prefering to wait until others weigh in. --Falcadore (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102074500","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102074500-MSport1005-20250102030300","replies":[]}}-->
Absolutely agree these sections are way too long (in fact many of our circuit "articles" aren't articles at all, they are directories of events hosted and lap records, often with egregious WP:OR "sourcing".) I think the best way to tackle this is to be very strict and say the major events should list a maximum of 5 events, at least 1 of which must be a current event (I've picked those numbers out of thin air, but they seem reasonable). In most cases we should probably be able to agree what those events are (I think we can all agree that MotoGP is more major than ELMS). Where its not, we need a case by case discussion. Because what defines a major event: not only how important the event is, but also how many times it was hosted at a circuit. Major is a relative term. 100% agree that a support race cannot be considered major. Nobody buys tickets to see Formula 2 (it's not even possible), they buy tickets to watch Formula One, and there just happens to be a F2 race happening as well. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102102400","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SSSB-20250102102400-Falcadore-20250102012700","replies":["c-Rally_Wonk-20250102181400-SSSB-20250102102400","c-Falcadore-20250103025600-SSSB-20250102102400"]}}-->
Agree. Far, far too much information in "Infobox motorsport venue" to be useful. The lap records are also in too much depth at this point for the average reader, or to be blunt - useless, at this point.
Falcadore has a great point, there are two instances of World Rallycross events within 'Former' of the Nürburgring listed in there. Not significant events to the Ring.
However, I feel MSport1005 has a good point. When seeing what is also a list of championships alongside events, FIA ETRC is a major championship, as is FIA World RX. And the article presents itself as a venue, not a circuit fwiw. For me though, it's not the right place. Surely "DTM", "GT World Challenge", "FIA GT"... have to have an event name to be included here, the 'major' significance of the championships being another question?
I suggest either:
remove the heading "Major events". (It's TMI, who is reading it?)
keep "Major events" with a name, not championships, but remove Current and Former and the timeframes - this is TMI to be whittled down; and also create Current championships as a separate heading for those visiting in the current year.
Rally Wonk (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102181400","author":"Rally Wonk","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rally_Wonk-20250102181400-SSSB-20250102102400","replies":["c-SSSB-20250102182800-Rally_Wonk-20250102181400"]}}-->
There is nothing wrong with the infobox of Nurburgring (as an example) only the three or four most major events, and other noteworthy events listed further down - so long as they are noteworthy. What we can't have is listing lots of minor, non-notable series and events, or a current events section (which lists when the events happen) both of which would be WP:DIRECTORY violations. (permalink so that you can see what I mean) SSSB (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102182800","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-SSSB-20250102182800-Rally_Wonk-20250102181400","replies":["c-Rally_Wonk-20250102190900-SSSB-20250102182800"]}}-->
Ah OK, I Ctrl-F'd the current article for "Major events" and "European truck racing championship", from which I could only assume the infobox was Falcadore's concern.
Section Nürburgring#Competitions does not list by Major events, so perhaps yours is another point. WP:Directory aside, I think either have a completist's list here or none at all. Nobody needs a list of major events in a section of its own after their notability has already been explained. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102190900","author":"Rally Wonk","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Rally_Wonk-20250102190900-SSSB-20250102182800","replies":["c-SSSB-20250102193300-Rally_Wonk-20250102190900"]}}-->
"...after their notability has already been explained." unless we intend on listing all noteworthy events at a circuit in the infobox (you just said it needs to be whittled down) then their notability won't have been explained. Nowhere in the article would it be appropriate to mention that the circuit hosts ETRC other than in a Nürburgring#Competitions section. But this section cannot list every event that has ever been held at a venue. It would fail WP:DIRECTORY, and it would be completely useless to readers. SSSB (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102193300","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-SSSB-20250102193300-Rally_Wonk-20250102190900","replies":["c-Rally_Wonk-20250102213000-SSSB-20250102193300"]}}-->
This is getting muddy. Notability can either be:
without context to the ring. This definition needs to be written by the list for the benefit of readers and editors. However, there is no consensus on this definition.
with context to the ring. In which case it should be written in existing prose if it's considered to be 'major'. How major can it be if there is nothing to read about it?!
You could easily whittle down the infobox with this contextual reasoning. For example, search the article for the top "major event", GT World Challenge. What is particularly major about it? Nobody knows! DTM? 'It is a highlight of the Ring since F1 stopped in 1984'. That's its only mention in prose! ETRC? I searched "truck" and read about recovery trucks!
I'm not sure I agree that a completist's list of competitions or series as currently found violates WP:Directory. The current events calendar list may violate point 6. However, other reasons this should not be there is the hierarchy is incorrect, events do not belong under competitions but vice versa, it doesn't explain what the 'current' year is, and it's both ugly and pretty useless to most readers. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102213000","author":"Rally Wonk","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Rally_Wonk-20250102213000-SSSB-20250102193300","replies":["c-SSSB-20250103000200-Rally_Wonk-20250102213000"]}}-->
I think an article about any venue (lets avoid the trap of talking specifically about only the Nurburgring) could realistically list the events which are notable without additional context to the venue. I think we can all agree that it should be mentioned that Monza hosts WEC, because WEC is one of the biggest racing series, despite it having no impact on Monza itself. If we are going to have a list of the events which are notable to the venue "without context" to the venue, that should extend to series already mentioned within the prose as being notable "with context" to the venue - for the sake of completeness. And I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that this is not a WP:DIRECTORY violation. WP:DIRECTORY states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." yet that list has "everything in the universe that exists or has existed." at that venue. More specifically, it falls foul of point 1 ("Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."; the merit of Formula One, WEC etc. is clear if you read the Wikipedia articles on those series. There would be no need to spell it out), as well as the calendar section which violates 1 and 6. SSSB (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103000200","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-SSSB-20250103000200-Rally_Wonk-20250102213000","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250103024800-SSSB-20250103000200"]}}-->
On the contrary the 6 Hours of Monza/Monza 1000 has it's own article as a rich history through the WEC, SWC, WSC and other identies. The race is older than the Formula 1 World Championship and had built up it's own reputation prior to the creation of the World Sportscar Championship. Yet more examples of recentism loading or articles. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103024800","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250103024800-SSSB-20250103000200","replies":["c-SSSB-20250103093800-Falcadore-20250103024800"]}}-->
Firstly, it was an example to illustrate a point (that some series aren't noteworthy to a venue's history, but are noteworthy with respect to the events a venue hosts). Clearly I did not choose a perfect example. Secondly, the example I choose was the WEC, not 6 hours of Monza or SWC or WSC or Monza 1000 all of which do have a longer history. However, the WEC has only existed since 2012 and only ran at Monza 3 times. But it is a major Championship and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to include that, despite the fact that the 6 Hours of Monza becoming a part of the WEC in 2021 is a minor insignificant part of Monza's history. SSSB (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103093800","author":"SSSB","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-SSSB-20250103093800-Falcadore-20250103024800","replies":[]}}-->
Your suggested criteria for example would exclude The Race of Two Worlds held only twice at Monza but saw American USAC teams competing against Formula One teams on the combined Oval/Road Coarse version of Monza. It easily qualifies as a major event, an offical intersection of the two greatest open wheel series of all time. This is why hard criteria is a tool to assist but not exclude. Such a list is subjective and obviously so and should not be used as a reason to not have one. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103025600","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250103025600-SSSB-20250102102400","replies":["c-Rpo.castro-20250103175500-Falcadore-20250103025600"]}}-->
For the original purpose of this section: List of major events of a venue, to be included in the infobox, The Race of Two Worlds is by no mean a major event. It is worth to be mentioned on the article (prose) but it was an exhibition event, held only twice. It isn't worthy to be mentioned in the infobox. Rpo.castro (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103175500","author":"Rpo.castro","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Rpo.castro-20250103175500-Falcadore-20250103025600","replies":[]}}-->
I note the tables within this article feature many pointscores that are invented and/or unofficial. I'm linking User:Tfisher93 and User:Ahecht but they unofficial numbers should be removed per WP:Original research. --Falcadore (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102021200","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102021200-2024_N\u00fcrburgring_Langstrecken-Serie_drivers_classification","replies":["c-Mb2437-20250102023800-Falcadore-20250102021200","c-Falcadore-20250103023300-Falcadore-20250102021200"]}}-->
Why is this a separate article to 2024 Nürburgring Langstrecken-Serie? MB243702:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102023800","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mb2437-20250102023800-Falcadore-20250102021200","replies":["c-Ahecht-20250102041500-Mb2437-20250102023800"],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
@Falcadore, Mb2437: I didn't add or change any numbers, I just split this off from 2024 Nürburgring Langstrecken-Serie because that article was far too long with the drivers classification included (it was the second longest article on all of Wikipedia). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)04:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102041500","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ahecht-20250102041500-Mb2437-20250102023800","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250102073700-Ahecht-20250102041500","c-Mb2437-20250102205600-Ahecht-20250102041500"]}}-->
Then let's trim out the Original Research and it won't be as long. --Falcadore (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102073700","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250102073700-Ahecht-20250102041500","replies":["c-Ahecht-20250102164900-Falcadore-20250102073700"]}}-->
@Falcadore Feel free. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to determine which ones are unofficial. You might want to take a look at the 2023 Nürburgring Langstrecken-Serie article as well, which is also quite long. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102164900","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ahecht-20250102164900-Falcadore-20250102073700","replies":["c-Falcadore-20250103000000-Ahecht-20250102164900"]}}-->
User:Tfisher93 thoughtfully provided a link to the class tables on the official website within his editing. --Falcadore (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103000000","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250103000000-Ahecht-20250102164900","replies":[]}}-->
And it satisfies notability to have 1600 non-classified entries listed every year? It seems like overkill to have so many classifications listed. MB243720:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102205600","author":"Mb2437","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mb2437-20250102205600-Ahecht-20250102041500","replies":["c-Ahecht-20250102221100-Mb2437-20250102205600"],"displayName":"MB"}}-->
@Mb2437 As I said above, feel free to trim out the cruft or, if you feel the entire page isn't notable, nominate for deletion. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)22:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250102221100","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ahecht-20250102221100-Mb2437-20250102205600","replies":[]}}-->
Article has now been reduced in size by 80%. Much of that was because there was two sets of tables. --Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250103023300","author":"Falcadore","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Falcadore-20250103023300-Falcadore-20250102021200","replies":[]}}-->
Strategi Solo vs Squad di Free Fire: Cara Menang Mudah!
