Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

'Notability standards' section

I just noticed the existiance of this, and frankly as I looked through it I became rather disturbed at how out of sync it is with both common editing practice and the standards established elsewhere for articles. For instance, it states that a driver can have 'an article considered to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR' (and what does that mean? an article within the project's scope, or an article at all?) if they have 'ten starts in any premier NASCAR series' (without clarification, although I assume the three 'National Touring Series', and perhaps Grand American, are meant?), when WP:NMOTORSPORT, the relevant section of WP:NSPORT, states that one race competed in in a 'fully professional series' (which all of the 'big three' series would count as) is sufficient for an article, and the normal process of editing reflects that (Dexter Bean, anyone?). And the 'crew chiefs' section is also wildly restrictive compared to WP:NMOTORSPORT, which states that simply being a Cup-level crew chief is sufficient. This is frankly a rather horrifying disconnect from actual notability and the standards of WP:NMOTORSPORT and something needs to be done to clean this up, I think... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is desperate for a cleanup. If you noticed, it was voted upon here in 2006. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Aha. That does look a bit more reasonable (if still incompatible with WP:NMOTORSPORT)... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I never liked the standard that required a certain number of starts to be notable, but we compromised. I think that it should be removed. Royalbroil 04:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Race article vandalism

There is an IP user adding deliberate factual errors to multiple race articles. Two of the IP addresses have been blocked, but the user continues to add wrong race times and average speeds, as well as changing the race distance if the race had a green-white checkered. If someone would help revert the errors, it will be appreciated! (Examples: this and this) – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Racing seasons

First, some of the regional series that have season articles are using {{American Championship Car Racing}}, while the national series are using {{Motorsport season}}. {{American Championship Car Racing}} shows more information than {{Motorsport season}}, including champion, champion team, manufacturer champion, ROTY, etc. Which one should we use for all season articles, instead of having a different one for each? Second, some regional series seasons are ending with season (such as 2013 NASCAR Canadian Tire Series season), but none of the national series do. Should we have season removed from the articles or add it? – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 03:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The standard for sports seems to be to include "Season", i.e. 2013 Major League Baseball season. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Far as I can tell, season is used when a catch all phrase is required, like Formula One season articles include all Formula One races, regardless of whether it is a World Championship race or not. If an series does not have events outside of its championship, it does not need "season". NASCAR seasons mostly do because of the All-Star race and pre-Daytona races. --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Nascar1996 was questioning which template the season articles should use (i.e. {{American Championship Car Racing}} or {{Motorsport season}}), not the article titles. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
And whether or not we should add "season" to our season articles. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 03:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim Fitzgerald

A while back, I was looking up sources to add to Morgan Shepherd before today's race because he became the oldest Cup driver, and broke Jim Fitzgerald (racing driver)'s record. I noticed that he didn't have a page, and was about to create it when I wondered: [1][2] This is the same Jim Fitzgerald right? The death date and the publication date are about 1 day apart, and the ages are the same. I'm just needing someone to confirm this. ZappaOMati 03:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the news article says he was 65 (birthday in December; news article published November 9), then I would assume so because the 1987-1921=66, but they both have different hometown/birthplace. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 03:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, other sources I found also seem to contradict RR's say on his hometown/birthplace. For now, I think I'll just place his birthplace as Pittsburgh then. ZappaOMati 04:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I remember Fitzgerald a little bit. I didn't know the circumstances of his death or his birthplace. He's probably from a suburb of Pittsburgh. I've seen people being attributed to the wrong town before when they come from a smaller town. It would be like saying that Matt Kenseth is from Madison, WI or Milwaukee even though he grew up a 1/2 hour away in Cambridge. Nice job on the article, ZappO! Royalbroil 04:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Eldora CWTS

I'm very excited to see that NASCAR is racing on dirt and finally using the format that all of the short tracks use for their feature lineup. There is a unusual qualifying format (at least for NASCAR) - the same one that I've seen at over 50 tracks in the upper Midwest (heats, qualifying race, feature). There are currently around 39 entries and 30 will made the feature. How should we deal with those 9 or so that don't qualify for the feature but race that evening? It's not such a big deal if they already have NASCAR starts, but what if long time dirt late model guys like Scott Bloomquist blow a tire and don't qualify? I propose that we include them in WikiProject NASCAR no matter what happens (as long as they attempt in a qualifying race or heat race). I'm curious to see how racing reference is going deal with the driver's number of starts with the non-qualifiers. Local tracks always report a driver's finish in the feature, then the non-qualifiers are credited with their finishing position in the last chance qualifier race - which everyone knows isn't considered to be a top 5 / top 10 finish for the week. Royalbroil 02:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should tag the WikiProject banner as long as they attempt it regardless of qualification. I'm pretty used to the unusual qualifying format from playing a lot of NASCAR: Dirt to Daytona, with the A main and B main and all. Sucks though that the Red Screen of Death comes up whenever I play it (same applies to NASCAR 06: Total Team Control). ZappaOMati 02:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of video games, the only video game that I've ever played where I don't win almost every race is World of Outlaws: Sprint Cars 2002. It's great to finally be challenged for a 10th place finish! Royalbroil 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't be as bad as Total Team Control, where Jeff Gordon always sends himself flying into the wall whenever I switch to Jimmie Johnson 30 spots behind. ZappaOMati 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though this has nothing to do with your question (Either way is fine with me), I usually play Formula One games because the NASCAR games are horrible, but I buy them anyway. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm god-awful in F1 games: I can't even enter a turn without flying into a wall, which is probably why I haven't touched my lone F1 game (Formula One 2001) in years. ZappaOMati 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The newer games aren't that bad. They're extremely better than NASCAR the Game or the last of EA's NASCAR games. If Codemasters would make a NASCAR game, it would probably be the best. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd still prefer NASCAR Thunder 2004, and though I haven't played it, NASCAR Racing 2003 Season seems appealing, especially after watching 50 ways to die in it and the Idiots of NASCAR. ZappaOMati 02:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the race just ended (congrats Austin Dillon), so now I wonder: do the people that fail to qualify for the feature (aka did poorly in the heats), do we list their last race in the infobox as the Mudsummer Classic or the previous race? ZappaOMati 04:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone fails to make the Daytona 500, but raced in the Gatorade Budweiser Duel, do we say their last race is the Duel or the previous race? I would say it would their previous race, and if they don't have a previous race maybe just leave it blank in the infobox and say that they entered the Mudsummer Classic, but failed to qualify. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 04:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Short track racing is different. I think that everyone who raced in any of the races that night should have it listed in their infobox. That's the way that it's done at local tracks. Driver's who miss the feature get shown as finishing in whatever position in the semi-feature. Royalbroil 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

I believe this page should be redirected to the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series page until the schedule is announced.--Daytona 500 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I redirected it. It shouldn't have been created until NASCAR releases the 2014 schedule. (as we have done for the 2012 and 2013 seasons) – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor warning

Please note that a sharper eye needs to be kept on things now that VisualEditor has been pushed (deliberate wording) on the community, especially for IP editors. This is an example of what VE does when somebody edits a table - anything in a table, apparently - to said tables. I've seen it muck with infobox formatting too, albiet in ways that didn't visually change the box. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on...

Regan Smith, as IPs have started adding that he's going to be filling in for Tony Stewart despite nothing being announced yet. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for Jeff Gordon

For the past while, I've been working on Jeff Gordon to hopefully get the page to Good Article status, and right now I can't seem to find anything to improve. As a result, I've started up a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeff Gordon/archive1. Responses and comments would be appreciated. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Danny Sullivan

FYI, it has been proposed that Danny Sullivan be moved to Danny Sullivan (racing driver). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Danny Sullivan#Proposed move. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Pay driver in NASCAR

Hello everybody, My name is Sismarinho, a frenchie, and i create Pilote-payant (Paid driver in French). And I would like that someone give me an example of a famous Pay driver in NASCAR Series please.--Sismarinho (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! The status of "pay drivers" isn't as clear-cut in NASCAR as it is in F1; however there are some drivers who are regarded as "buy-a-ride" drivers due to bringing, sometimes family, sponsorship with them, and examples of these would include Paul Menard in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, and John Wes Townley in the Nationwide Series and Camping World Truck Series. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you The Bushranger--Sismarinho (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Menard's case isn't nearly as ridiculous as some 1980s F1 drivers, he has had some decent finishes. But yes, it's the most notable current case in Nascar Cup. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Should we make note on the page that this is the final year of the current television contract and that this is the final year that TNT and ESPN will be covering the Cup Series?--Daytona 500 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnhardt–Gordon rivalry

Earnhardt–Gordon rivalry is up for deletion. Feel free to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnhardt–Gordon rivalry. ZappaOMati 15:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrick discussion

A discussion is being held at Talk:Danica Patrick regarding the article's lead paragraph. Input from members of the project is appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ever-changing race names

It seems strange to me that we have articles like STP Gas Booster 500, for which the title of the article changes every time the sponsor changes (this particular race has had seven different names since 2001, and is likely to continue changing names at that rate). Certainly, Wikipedia does not exist to advertise whoever happens to be sponsoring a particular race in a particular year. Is there any reason why these articles can not be given neutral, stable titles like Virginia 500 (which redirects here), or NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Martinsville Speedway spring race? bd2412 T 17:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons is also to distinguish races that occur at the same track. Another could be to make the names more reasonable with the race length, in the case of the Aaron's 499, since the "499" advertises Aaron's rental promotion of "for $99", or even the Aaron's 312 ("3 ways to buy, 12 reasons to shop"), and "Talladega 499" sounds pretty weird, especially for one who is new to NASCAR and doesn't know why most Cup races are 400 or 500 miles, and this is 499 miles. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 19:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Aaron's 499 is not a problem, as that article does not appear to have ever had a name change; whereas the article currently titled STP Gas Booster 500 was originally titled [[Advance Auto Parts 500], then moved to DirecTV 500 on April 1, 2006, then moved to Goody's 500 on October 24, 2006, and then to Goody's Cool Orange 500, then to Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500, then to Goody's Fast Relief 500, then to Virginia 500, and most recently to STP Gas Booster 500. I don't think this helps to distinguish races on the same track, since (for example) at different times there have been three different races on two tracks called the "Goody's Headache Powder 500". Sponsors are inconsistent about which race they are using which name for, meaning that an article that states that a driver raced in the "Goody's Headache Powder 500" will still need to explain whether it was the spring race held at Martinsville Speedway, the fall race held at Martinsville Speedway, or the summer race held at Bristol Motor Speedway. By the way, as for the Aaron's 499, if the sponsorship of that race changes next year to Goody's or Sharpie or Busch, won't the name change back to "[Sponsor] 500"? bd2412 T 19:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
However, the sponsor name might still be better, since it also helps one find sources more efficiently if they know what the race name at the time was. "STP Gas Booster 500" provides much more clearer search results than "Virginia 500", and a user who's new to NASCAR and wants to help out might get puzzled when watching a race or so about why the race name in news sources and mentioned by the announcers is different from the page about the race, which might lead to carnage for a bold new user trying to move the page. ZappaOMati 22:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It is no help for common race names like the above Goody's 500 and DirecTV 500, which have been used for different races at different times, and may be again in the future. It is even less help for anyone looking up a particular race that happened in any year when the current sponsor was inactive. Also, what happens if a race ceases to be run? Is it stuck forever at the title reflecting the last sponsor? The entire scheme is unsustainable, and gets too close to using Wikipedia as free advertising for comfort. bd2412 T 23:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
That's why we list names like (Martinsville) and (Bristol) in them, and why most of them also use sub-sponsors in their names, like Headache Relief Shot. Also, if two races have the same name in the same season when one looks at a particular race report, it would lead to a disambiguation page, most likely, with the aforementioned track names in parantheses. For the one about the names of the last sponsor, sort of, since if you look at the two Riverside races (Budweiser 400 and Winston Western 500), it stays as the last name, though not every race is like that: the Southern 500 (1950-2004) remains with the Southern 500 name, even though Mountain Dew was the last sponsor. Besides, it doesn't sound too encyclopedic to list a discontinued race like the Pepsi Max 400 as the Now-defunct Chase race at California Speedway. Also, to address your remark about free advertising, that's like saying ESPN and NASCAR.com are advertising, when they're simply listing the official race name, so Wikipedia can't list sponsor names for races? Besides, not every race uses the "sponsor hullabaloo": the Brickyard 400 is still the race name, and be glad we're not using "Crown Royal Presents Your Name Here 400 Powered by BigMachineRecords". ZappaOMati 23:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Racing-Reference templates

Though it might be a better idea to bring this up at WikiProject Motorsport, I feel like this project would be a better fit since it uses Racing-Reference more often. We currently have templates for {{Racing-Reference driver}}, {{Racing-Reference crewchief}} and {{Racing-Reference owner}}, though looking at the inventory over at RR's homepage, tracks and races also exist. Should {{Racing-Reference track}} or even {{Racing-Reference race}} exist as well? ZappaOMati 04:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sportsman cars?

Hi, folks! I've been reading articles on dirt ovals, and I've found the term "sportsman cars". What does it mean? Non-late model stock cars? Six-cylinder stock cars? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It likely depends on the track and sanctioning body. Any of these types of cars can be considered "sportsman"; or perhaps your looking for a ruleset such as this. My experiences (Northeast US) lead me to think in the lines of the Scott Bloomquist style of dirt car. — ChedZILLA 17:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 Road America images up

I finally uploaded all of the race images for the 2013 Nationwide race at Road America here. Here are a few images for drivers without articles. Kyle Kelly and Kevin O'Connell are especially notable for doing a lot of sports car racing. Royalbroil 14:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Nice pics RB - thank you. — ChedZILLA 17:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kayli Barker

Kayli Barker is a newly-published start-class article. Posting here if anyone in this project is interested in improving the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly she doesn't meet the standard for notability, and I regret to say approving the article from AfC was a mistake for that reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Chase change

http://www.watchfox29.com/sports/nascar/story/Report-NASCAR-considering-major-changes-to-Chase/py9z2p4vm0S0ONL17n1CcQ.cspx

and

http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/big-changes-coming-to-the-chase-it-sure-sounds-like-it-011814

Not sure I'd call that "official" - but there doesn't seem to be much hesitation either. I don't have time to vet the situation and incorporate it where it belongs at the moment. If it's already documented somewhere - my apologies and feel free to delete this post. — ChedZILLA 17:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"considering", "planning", "reportedly", "proposed"...sounds best to hold off on this. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with respect to article editing - but being prepared is never a bad thing, and it looks as this is a real possibility in the very near future. — ChedZILLA 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it could go in once other rules are officially announced, so we won't have a section just about speculation on probably the dumbest changes in NASCAR since the creation of the dumbest playoff system I've ever seen. ZappaOMati 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the system is official. Dang. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm Supreme facepalm of destiny - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Driver results in team pages

Just a curious thought, but would it be a good idea to create complete driver results for NASCAR team pages like the ones at IndyCar and F1 articles? Would it be a good idea, especially for "consistency" with other racing disciplines, or would it be a mess waiting to happen? A blank example of one is shown below for Leavine Family Racing in 2013:

Complete NASCAR results

Sprint Cup Series

Of course, it'd be easier for teams with about two or so full-time drivers, since it wouldn't lead to all this chaos. ZappaOMati 04:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not so sure in practice. For smaller teams like Leavine, it's simple, but for a team like Hendrick Motorsports it would quickly make the page file size balloon... - The Bushranger One ping only 10:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point, though I think those results tables and win-lists in the Hendrick pages would have to go then, and those are pretty long itself. Considering how huge the table would be, maybe we could split the table by car? (i.e. Instead of having huge table labeling every car the team fields, maybe we can create 4 smaller, separate tables for the #24, #5, #48 and #88, perhaps?) ZappaOMati 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Nascar drivers results, how about splitting the rows into two, to reduce width? I propose changing this:

Year Team No. Make 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NSCC Points
2001 Hendrick Motorsports 48 Chevy DAY CAR LVS ATL DAR BRI TEX MAR TAL CAL RCH CLT DOV MCH POC SON DAY CHI NHA POC IND GLN MCH BRI DAR RCH DOV KAN CLT
39 		MAR TAL PHO CAR HOM
25 		ATL
29 		NHA 37th 210
2002 DAY
15 		CAR
28 		LVS
6 		ATL
3 		DAR
6 		BRI
7 		TEX
6 		MAR
35 		TAL
7 		CAL
1 		RCH
31 		CLT
7 		DOV
1 		POC
3 		MCH
14 		SON
35 		DAY
8 		CHI
4 		NHA
15 		POC
15 		IND
9 		GLN
16 		MCH
7 		BRI
34 		DAR
9 		RCH
13 		NHA
9 		DOV
1 		KAN
10 		TAL
37 		CLT
6 		MAR
6 		ATL
22 		CAR
37 		PHO
15 		HOM
8 		5th 4600
2003 DAY
3 		CAR
8 		LVS
11 		ATL
32 		DAR
27 		BRI
8 		TEX
8 		TAL
15 		MAR
9 		CAL
16 		RCH
19 		CLT
1 		DOV
38 		POC
12 		MCH
16 		SON
17 		DAY
18 		CHI
3 		NHA
1 		POC
15 		IND
18 		GLN
4 		MCH
27 		BRI
5 		DAR
3 		RCH
11 		NHA
1 		DOV
8 		TAL
34 		KAN
7 		CLT
3 		MAR
2 		ATL
3 		PHO
2 		CAR
2 		HOM
3 		2nd 4932

into this:


Year Team No. Make Race results NSCC Points
2001 Hendrick Motorsports 48 Chevy DAY CAR LVS ATL DAR BRI TEX MAR TAL CAL RCH CLT DOV MCH POC SON DAY CHI 37th 210
NHA POC IND GLN MCH BRI DAR RCH DOV KAN CLT
39 		MAR TAL PHO CAR HOM
25 		ATL
29 		NHA
2002 DAY
15 		CAR
28 		LVS
6 		ATL
3 		DAR
6 		BRI
7 		TEX
6 		MAR
35 		TAL
7 		CAL
1 		RCH
31 		CLT
7 		DOV
1 		POC
3 		MCH
14 		SON
35 		DAY
8 		CHI
4 		5th 4600
NHA
15 		POC
15 		IND
9 		GLN
16 		MCH
7 		BRI
34 		DAR
9 		RCH
13 		NHA
9 		DOV
1 		KAN
10 		TAL
37 		CLT
6 		MAR
6 		ATL
22 		CAR
37 		PHO
15 		HOM
8
2003 DAY
3 		CAR
8 		LVS
11 		ATL
32 		DAR
27 		BRI
8 		TEX
8 		TAL
15 		MAR
9 		CAL
16 		RCH
19 		CLT
1 		DOV
38 		POC
12 		MCH
16 		SON
17 		DAY
18 		CHI
3 		2nd 4932
NHA
1 		POC
15 		IND
18 		GLN
4 		MCH
27 		BRI
5 		DAR
3 		RCH
11 		NHA
1 		DOV
8 		TAL
34 		KAN
7 		CLT
3 		MAR
2 		ATL
3 		PHO
2 		CAR
2 		HOM
3

It's very easy do do. It needs just add some breaks and spans, and very little reshuffling. I think that the new text size and table size would help readers. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, no; that looks horrible, and no longer follows the key at the top with the numbers. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it confusing. Royalbroil 12:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Do we have detail each and every race for each driver? Guys like King Richard had what 30+ year NASCAR careers? That is an enormous block of colour. Might I suggest instead a table like the one that appears here? The table will still be large but manageably so when each season is its own line and it can then link to season, series, vehicle and team. If someone wants a race-by-race breakdown it has links to the relevant season articles which will have it.
That's the beauty of the Wikilink system. If you want more detail, you click on a link and it is there. If you don't then you aren't faced with a table that fills the screen twice over. --Falcadore (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is Marcos Ambrose' version:

Motorsports career results

Season Series Position Car Team
1996 Australian Formula Ford Championship 4th Swift SC95K Ford Swift Racing Cars
1997 Australian Formula Ford Championship 2nd Van Diemen RF97 Ford Marcos Ambrose
1998 British Formula Ford Championship 5th Van Diemen RF98 Ford Van Diemen
1999 British Formula Ford Championship 3rd Van Diemen RF99 Ford Van Diemen
Formula Ford Euro Cup 1st Van Diemen RF99 Ford
2000 French Formula Three Championship 12th Martini Mk.79 Sodemo-Renault Mygale
British Formula Three Championship 16th Dallara F300 Mugen-Honda Alan Docking Racing
2001 Shell Championship Series 8th Ford AU Falcon Stone Brothers Racing
2002 V8 Supercar Championship Series 3rd Ford AU Falcon Stone Brothers Racing
2003 V8 Supercar Championship Series 1st Ford BA Falcon Stone Brothers Racing
2004 V8 Supercar Championship Series 1st Ford BA Falcon Stone Brothers Racing
2005 V8 Supercar Championship Series 3rd Ford BA Falcon Stone Brothers Racing
2006 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series 21st Ford F-150 Wood Brothers/JTG Racing
2007 NASCAR Busch Series 8th Ford Fusion Wood Brothers/JTG Racing
2008 NASCAR Nationwide Series 10th Ford Fusion JTG Daugherty Racing
2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 18th Toyota Camry JTG Daugherty Racing
2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 26th Toyota Camry JTG Daugherty Racing
2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 19th Ford Fusion Richard Petty Motorsports
2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 18th Ford Fusion Richard Petty Motorsports
2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series 22nd Ford Fusion Richard Petty Motorsports
It might be an "enormous block of color", but it's still encyclopedic data on that particular driver, on that driver's page, which is more useful to the Wikipedia reader than providing a link. As for being distracting, that's why the tables are set to default collapsed: people only see them if they want to. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Barnstar

How does everybody feel about making this:



The WikiProject NASCAR Barnstar?


Vjmlhds (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The current barnstar is found at Template:WikiProject NASCAR Award:
The WikiProject NASCAR Award
I, {{{yourname}}}, hereby award [[User:{{{theirname}}}|{{{theirname}}}]] the WikiProject NASCAR Award for {{{Gender}}} valued contributions to WikiProject NASCAR articles. {{{extra}}}
Awarded {{{awarded}}}

Royalbroil 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this


Vjmlhds (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the barnstar as is except if WikiProject members want to change it. What's wrong with the current award? Royalbroil 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Table cell/row merging - STOP! (BUMP for 2014)

I am bringing this up here because it is an increasing problem in IndyCar race articles, but it also probably more prevalent in the NASCAR project. There seem to be some editors (most seem unregistered) who are turning race result tables (and other tables) totally upside-down by merging rows and cells. It makes the tables look terrible, hard to read, merges irrelevant data, and makes them very difficult to edit for future reasons. I have no idea what people are thinking do this. For instance, they are merging cells for a driver who wins a race back-to-back years, merging laps/miles, car makes that happened to win in . See this for an example. Some are much worse than this one.

I think it should be stopped immediately, and in fact reverted to un-merge all the cells. The reasoning is that each line represents a totally different event. What happened in one year is totally unrelated to the next. Each line should be complete and independent of its own information. The fact that a car make won two years in a row is merely coincidental to the makeup of the table. It also makes it difficult for the reader to see that they are separate events each year, and one might not be able to tell easily that 2-3-4 or more races are represented. While the skill of complex table syntax might be impressive, it has no place here. The only place where some cells could be mereged would be "twin" races, like Texas had

I've also posted this at the open wheel project, but it's probably worse in NASCAR right now. Doctorindy (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with your statement, Doctorindy. Merging these cells are unnecessary and should not be done as it makes the tables more confusing and harder to read. As you said, "Each line should be complete and independent of its own information." -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And I agreed at a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_Open_Wheel_Racing#Table_cell.2Frow_merging_-_STOP.21. So did Drdisque and DH85868993. Royalbroil 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried here to grab a capture of each version. He seems to do it about once a month or so. I keep it on my watchlist. Doctorindy↔Talk 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

GOOD
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickyard_400&oldid=599648315#Television_and_radio
BAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickyard_400&oldid=603286021#Television_and_radio

Waltrip brothers

I just noticed this article Waltrip brothers, I was wondering if a future article on the Waltrip brothers would be the primary topic for "Waltrip brothers", or would this current comic book artist article remain primary? And we seem to not have an article on the Waltrip family. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, NASCAR family articles haven't survived Notability of people - at least several years ago they didn't. I don't recall seeing a new family article recently. I don't have a good feel now notable the comic artists are so I find it difficult to guess which one the entire Wikipedia community consensus would go. Royalbroil 13:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That seems rather odd, considering the amount of press some of them get, they (some) should easily pass GNG. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Separate press coverage - Definitely. That's why Michael, Darrell, and Buffy have articles. But how much press has there been about the Waltrip brothers or Waltrip family? If you can find several articles about the family from reliable sources, then go for it! Royalbroil 03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And honestly the last of those named Waltrips probably should not (due to WP:GNG)... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear, I meant that some NASCAR families should pass GNG easily, not that the Waltrips by themselves mean "some" as opposed to "one" family. Though there does seem to be a number of RS on the Waltrips as a group. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If you can find multiple high quality reliable sources (especially U.S. national sports networks, racing magazines, major newspapers, etc) about the family then there shouldn't be a problem with GNG. Are you planning to write articles on NASCAR families? If so, perhaps you should do it in a sandbox-type scenario. The easiest way is to register an account and make a personal sandbox. Otherwise you could start an article though Wikipedia:Articles for creation and point the location out here for review / comment. Here's an article about the Earnhardts that I recently used for Kelley's article. It looks marginal for this purpose. Royalbroil 13:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I was planning to start with the Pettys and Andrettis and use the WP:Drafts space, since there's no time limit there, and I can take as long as necessary to build one. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just have to bear in mind that for a family article the bulk of it, and certainly its notability references have to be about the family not individual members of the family. Details specific to only one member of the family belong on the page of the family member, otherwise the family articles become a sideways excuse to duplicate content unneccessarily. --Falcadore (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review for 2013 Mudsummer Classic

A few hours ago, I nominated 2013 Mudsummer Classic for peer review. Input at Wikipedia:Peer review/2013 Mudsummer Classic/archive1 is appreciated. ZappaOMati 23:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Justin Wiggins

Is this article about a real person? I found nothing at racing-reference. I don't remember seeing him at any USAC midget shows, hearing about him on TV at a LOORS off-road event. Google searching isn't helping. Royalbroil 01:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. (Another clue was the claimed birthplace being Nashville but the persondata saying Sacramento). Nuked as a hoax, salted because the paintball part has been repeatedly recreated, creator given a one-time warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yikes! I didn't notice that the article was repeatedly recreated. Thanks for applying the salt! Royalbroil 04:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Race results for feeder series

Just out of curiosity, but are the standards for race results in driver pages limited to just the top 3 national series? I noticed that most open-wheel drivers usually also have feeder series (Indy Lights for IndyCar, Formula 3000 for F1, for example) results, and I'm wondering why we don't do the same with series like Canadian Tire/Toyota Series/K&N/Modifieds. I feel like the four lower series I mentioned would probably be the lowest then, since the Weekly Series is probably too obscure. ZappaOMati 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Indy Lights is equiviliant to the Nationwide Series. Beyond that, in general, open-wheel series are considered higher on the notability scale than stock-car series: a F3000 or Toyota Atlantics driver is generally 'presumed notable', while a K&N Series driver isn't; this may be partially because while there's well-defined 'continental' ladders for open-wheel racing in both North America and Europe, below the top three stock car series you drop to "regional". There's no standard, per se, it's just how things have evolved. I'd say that possibly Winston West/K&N West and Busch North/K&N East might be includable, as well as the Canadian and Mexican 'national' series, but nothing below that. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Woops, I didn't mean Indy Lights. I meant the Pro Mazda Championship. Anyway, speaking of the Canadian series, I do recall you removing the results from Ashley Taws since the series is a bit low level. But if we were to do the lower series, I think it could go like this: NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

K&N Pro Series West

Nascar Mexico is a national championship, actually the country's top circuit racing series. It has much more media coverage than Nascar regional series in the United States. It's certainly notable. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Zappa - looks good to me. NaBUru38 - We're not asking if it's notable, that's quite clear. Just if it's notable enough for a race-by-race results chart (especially since not all seasons' race-by-race data are available). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Then do you plan on adding any of this to User:The Bushranger/NASCAR? It's also pretty ironic how the subpage's name is NASCAR, but the NATCC has its results in it. ZappaOKCMati 03:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do; my brain is pretty full these days. (And , it was originally just NASCAR, but when I needed to stick those somewhere...) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I would ask is it neccessary to provide race-by-race results for every driver in every series they compete in? By detailing each result in ladder series we are in effect saying that the performance of the driver in each and every race in the series is somewhat notable. So is each race notable or just their end of season result in that series, which could be sumarised, for example like the first (just the first) table here: Geoff Brabham#Racing career. --Falcadore (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Newsletters

With us a third of the way through the season, I'm surprised we never got to working on the newsletter. When will we be working on it? ZappaOKCMati 03:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: An issue regarding the Season Summary at 2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

An apparently ongoing dispute that has turned rather laughable at this point involves myself and User:Johnsmith2116, who continues in his assertions that adding the heading for the next race (along with an italic date next to it) are standard procedure. While myself and others have told him that a blank heading waiting for the next race has never been standard, he simply won't listen. He even carried me to ANI (see here), which ultimately backfired. There, he left extensive clues of his violation of WP:OWN, and everyone who commented sided against him. Now, back to the issue at hand, I see no reason why there should be a blank heading there with no text, hence the reason I first removed it. Do others feel that we should start adding the empty heading the week before each race, or should we simply go back to waiting until someone writes up the summary? (Note: In the page's form as of 0030 UTC May 23, 2014, the heading is left without the date as a compromise until the end of the discussion here.) United States Man (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


I just received a private message that this was here, so I'll respond. Never even minding the faoct that half the things mentioned above are not true and only meant to serve that editor's apparently vindictive nature and not the greater good of the nascar article, and that they conveniently didn't bother to mention here that earlier this month the ANI gently scolded them for disrupting good-faith edits of mine, I'll mention something here relevant to the situation; on the 2014 Nascar Sprint Cup page, when I initially went there a few months ago, I scrolled down and found that the next race (and the date of the that next race) were listed in the article, in the race summaries. This suggests that it was something presumably standard to be there, which seemed to make sense. The idea of listing the next race and date with it. And being that that was the way I found it when I first went there, one had to assume that it was done that way on a weekly basis, so, I myself started following suit and adding the next race and date as well. After two months of doing that, two months in which no one had ever had any problem with it, suddenly the above editor came out of nowhere and started taking it away. If it had been such a problem, it would not have been acceptable for the previous two months, someone would have complained much sooner. The fact that all that time had gone by without anyone taking it away has to suggest that it is acceptable. And as I said, I got the idea of doing it from a previous editor having been doing it before I ever even had first gone there. Do you think that the date should stay? Or do you think that it should not be there? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This suggests that it was something presumably standard to be there - No, it does not. If somebody had put "poop" in the article and you found it, that doesn't mean it's presumably standard to be there, does it? Just because something is there does not make it appropriate or desired. If it had been such a problem, it would not have been acceptable for the previous two months, someone would have complained much sooner. The fact that all that time had gone by without anyone taking it away has to suggest that it is acceptable. - That's not how it works. ANY content can be challenged at ANY time by an editor - the fact "it has been there for X amount of time" is irrelvant. It simply took that much time for somebody to notice the problem and fix it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me for mentioning, but a season summary summarises the season yes? The section the is falsely named as it does nothing of the sort. This is a collection of short race reports and should be renamed.
The season summary should reflect the points standings, not each race one at a time, which is a somewhat lazy way of performing a substitute. There should not be ANY race headings; past, present or future. --Falcadore (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
And why is that. What is there IS a summary. There is no good reason to remove the headings. United States Man (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a "summary of the season", compiled one race at a time. Simple enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Really? If someone asks you what happenned in NASCAR in 2011, do you list who won each race or do you say Jimmie Johnson won the title?
At some point you have to acknowledge the audience you are writing for. When we have individual articles on each race a one-race-at-a-time summary becomes duplication and not serving Wikipedia's best interests. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
In what way is it duplication? A short summary in the season article is exactly what the season article is for. If the summaries are too long that calls for trimming, not baby-with-bathwater treatment. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying then in the 2014 season article it is more important to highlight the Duck Commander 500 was delayed until a Monday and Carl Edwards took a unique pole position in the All-Star race rather than to indicate how Jeff Gordon came to lead the title by 15 points over Matt Kenseth with Busch, Earnhardt and Edwards close behind?
Which is more important? Why do we have to go all the way down to the points table before there is any indication as to who the top five drivers are? You don't consider that to be a priority? --Falcadore (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. While I understand Bushranger's point about blank sections, and I understand that a summary of a race can't be written before the race, the wikipedia article about the upcoming race exists. I think it is useful to the audience to link to that race in a heading. Balaenoptera has a good point that it would be *nice* to have some body text rather than a bare heading, but even the bare linked heading means a reader can get to the page for this weekend's race in one click rather than several. Falcadore's call to consider the audience is apt; his discussion of how to restructure the page veers away from the scope of this RFC, and I haven't considered exactly where I agree or disagree. But on the narrow question this RFC asked, I do think that the next week's race link serves this page's audience well.

Bushranger cites wp:crystal, and I would completely agree with him if the links were inserted more than about a week ahead of time. As it is, though, we have a full, sourced article about the upcoming race, about the track, the practices, about any news leading up to it... Even if a race were to be postponed, even if a plague of locusts were to cause a race to be canceled, every upcoming race at one point was sufficiently imminent to earn more than substantial coverage in reliable sources. So I don't think wp:crystal applies.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Outside of the scope as written, but not beyond the implications. We are asked if... Do others feel that we should start adding the empty heading the week before each race, or should we simply go back to waiting until someone writes up the summary... We are asked an either/or question, which is different to a yes/no, thus it allows a neither is preferred option. --Falcadore (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong No. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - the new headings may be written after the event has happened (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for more information). DJAMP4444 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject NASCAR At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Qualifying table times for Sonoma and Watkins Glen

Next Sunday, NASCAR goes road course racing at Sonoma Raceway. In the qualifying table, are we going to list the time in total seconds or minute/seconds?--Daytona 500 14:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that NASCAR goes by seconds without minutes. I think we should do the same. United States Man (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

I've noticed in past race articles, the Nielsen Ratings box had the viewing figures in (parentheses) but none of the ones for this season do. Should we add parentheses to the ones that don't or just leave them as they are?--Daytona 500 18:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should, for the sake of consistency. NFLisAwesome 18:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Standings

Is there any particular site that should be used for standings? I've been using NASCAR.com's, but had to use Racing-Reference for the Nationwide standings since NASCAR's is broken when I try to scroll past Alex Tagliani, and RR's not the best choice for standings regarding Buschwhackers, since they seem to throw the standings for them all over the place. NFLisAwesome 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jayski.com is a good place to get NASCAR info (multiple levels, including Truck). It is a respected site, having been around a long time. I believe it was purchased by ESPN, but "Jayski" still controls everything onsite. It is also a good place to use as reference for any info you want to edit into a specific wikipedia article. TechTechnologist (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Race report articles

While randomly perusing some individual 'race report' articles, I came across a series of examples that, well, appeared rather corny and un-encyclopedic at best. Here's an example (1976 Firecracker 400) of one I haven't done any further editing too, as I wanted to leave an example. While the work is certainly appreciated, the topics highlighted range from the mundane to the outright bizarre. It lends me to think the editor is/was not really familiar with NASCAR. Looking Here, why is it interesting that the $3 cost of the program is worth $9.75 in today's dollars? Or that Juan Pablo Montoya wasn't in the race back in 1980. Again, I don't mean to level harsh criticism, but I think there has to be some direction as to what information should be presented in a "standard" race report article. Doctorindy↔Talk 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have some experience in creating race reports, so this is what I usually add, and in this format: NFLisAwesome 19:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Lead
  • Race name, date, track location
  • Which race of the season
  • Pole sitter, winner
  • Any notable facts (no, driver birthplaces and prices are not notable)
Background
  • Track description
  • Major news related to the race (safety measures taken by NASCAR after a driver's death, big-name drivers making one-off entries, etc.)
  • Points standings entering the race
Qualifying
  • Practice dates and times, fastest in each
  • Qualifying date, pole-sitter, top 10 qualifiers, DNQs
Race
  • Lead changes
  • Crashes/cautions
Miscellaneous
  • Race results
  • Standings after race
Unfortunatly there's one editor who keeps "padding" his race articles with trivia like that (and worse), I remove it when I see it... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Road America events June 21, 2014

I have tickets for the NASCAR Nationwide Series race at Road America next Saturday June 21. Included are Pirelli Word Challenge and SCCA Pro Trans-Am Series races. It sounds like a fun full day! I'll photograph all cars and any drivers that I see for all 3 events. Is there any other detailed photos that anyone wants? Hopefully the weather will cooperate but rain makes interesting racing too! I hear rumors around the area that RA will be on the Sprint Cup Series schedule next year so my fingers are crossed! Royalbroil 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some drivers who still don't have pictures. Until we get an official entry list of any road ringers, these full-timers/confirmed ringers should get photos: Chase Elliott, Dakoda Armstrong, Dylan Kwasniewski, Ryan Reed, Joey Gase, Tommy Joe Martins, and Justin Marks. Zappa24Mati 02:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If the drivers ride on the back of trucks that I should get nice photos of the whole field like I did last year. I stand near the edge of the track with my telephoto lens and attempt to get about 10 photos of each driver close up. I had about 550 photos of the drivers last year in 11 minutes! I pick the best shot for each driver. And I'll get nice photos of all the cars since I get lots of chances at them between qualifying and the race. Should be well over 1000 photographs just in the NASCAR race. Does anyone have any detail shot ideas like when I photographed a splitter or a template? Royalbroil 04:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, Road America's Facebook reported 15 drivers are having an autograph session there on Friday. I'm not sure if they allow photos, but if they do, I think that could be a good way to get driver photos as well. Zappa24Mati 03:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going on Friday - I'll be working and I don't have tickets for that day. I went to watch the 26 hauler caravan on late Thursday afternoon and it was interesting [3]. Does the caravan just happen here [4] or does it happen at other races around the country? Royalbroil 04:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Most tracks usually have them, I'm not sure if all of them do. Zappa24Mati 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Man, that was a great race; definitely shows Road America deserves a Cup race! I'm looking forward to the photos you took. Zappa24Mati 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Bobby Reuse
AAAAAHHHH, I got my rain tire race and Alex Tagliani proved to be the rainmeister! I can't believe that a bunch of the teams put on rain tires in the final pit stop instead of slicks - it hadn't rained for about a half hour and the track was looking dry. NASCAR teams need to study what the road racing teams do in different scenarios like a drying track. I knew slicks were the way to go if the driver stopped. It was a great race! I'm downloading the photos from my camera to computer right now and I'll prioritize uploading the driver photos above. I took some short videos too but converting them to OOG is tricky. Royalbroil 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Got all of the driver images uploaded to this Commons category. Only Jason Keller didn't ride on the trucks and he was a start & park. The only driver without an article is Bobby Reuse in his first NASCAR race - File:Bobby Reuse 2014 Gardner Denver 200 at Road America.jpg. Royalbroil 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Great job! However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by Jason Keller, since he hasn't raced since 2010 according to RR, and I don't recall him during the race. Zappa24Mati 21:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You're right - it was Kevin Lepage. I had the wrong long time Nationwide driver. Royalbroil 22:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
One note on Bobby Reuse - if he's the same driver who's run Late Models in the SE for awhile (and I suspect he is) he's listed in most results as Robert Reuse, I believe. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on the cars right now. I uploaded one image so far to added to make sure that at least one racing image would be listed next month for a Commons photo challenge. I was experimenting with panning shots with a blurry background / tires. Should I try to get the whole field like this next year or do the clearer quick shutter speed shot? Royalbroil 02:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I got my answer at Commons. Someone apparently liked my image and nominated it for a Quality image. It quickly passed while I was gone for the last few days. I guess I got my answer that this is the way to go! I might actually get some votes for the photo contest this time (I got little to no love the last time that I entered what I considered to be a knock-your-socks-off image. I was at a nearby $10,000 to win IMCA Modified show, featuring Kenny Wallace (image uploaded) on Wednesday and Thursday nights. Most of the recent national points and IMCA Supernationals winners were at the show and several traveled across the country but didn't make the main event. WHAT A GREAT WEEK OF RACING! Royalbroil 02:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Kevin O'Connell is a disambiguation page with no entry for the NASCAR driver. He finished third in the race. I think he's mainly a sports car racer if someone wants to start an article. I started a category at Commons for him. I wonder if he's related to Johnny O'Connell. Royalbroil 14:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Kevin is from SoCal and Johnny is from New York, it's unlikely. And nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How we're going to do the Chase for the Sprint Cup standings

I know we've got nine more races till this becomes relevant but I had an idea for how we should do the chase standings in the race pages this year. Let's start with the current standings as of Kentucky.

Pos Driver Points
1 Jeff Gordon 618
2 Jimmie Johnson 594 (-24)
3 Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 594 (-24)
1 4 Brad Keselowski 560 (-58)
1 5 Matt Kenseth 555 (-63)
6 Carl Edwards 536 (-82)
7 Joey Logano 519 (-99)
8 Ryan Newman 514 (-104)
9 Kevin Harvick 509 (-109)
1 10 Kyle Busch 508 (-110)
1 11 Paul Menard 488 (-130)
2 12 Kyle Larson (R) 474 (-144)
2 13 Greg Biffle 474 (-144)
14 Clint Bowyer 473 (-145)
1 15 Kasey Kahne 465 (-153)
1 16 Tony Stewart 460 (-158)

After the conclusion of the Challenger Round of races, the table could look like this.

Pos Driver Points
1 Jeff Gordon 618
2 Jimmie Johnson 594 (-24)
3 Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 594 (-24)
1 4 Brad Keselowski 560 (-58)
1 5 Matt Kenseth 555 (-63)
6 Carl Edwards 536 (-82)
7 Joey Logano 519 (-99)
8 Ryan Newman 514 (-104)
9 Kevin Harvick 509 (-109)
1 10 Kyle Busch 508 (-110)
1 11 Paul Menard 488 (-130)
2 12 Kyle Larson (R) 474 (-144)
2 13 Greg Biffle 474 (-144)
14 Clint Bowyer 473 (-145)
1 15 Kasey Kahne 465 (-153)
1 16 Tony Stewart 460 (-158)

After the Contender Round of races, the table could look like this.

Pos Driver Points
1 Jeff Gordon 618
2 Jimmie Johnson 594 (-24)
3 Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 594 (-24)
1 4 Brad Keselowski 560 (-58)
1 5 Matt Kenseth 555 (-63)
6 Carl Edwards 536 (-82)
7 Joey Logano 519 (-99)
8 Ryan Newman 514 (-104)
9 Kevin Harvick 509 (-109)
1 10 Kyle Busch 508 (-110)
1 11 Paul Menard 488 (-130)
2 12 Kyle Larson (R) 474 (-144)
2 13 Greg Biffle 474 (-144)
14 Clint Bowyer 473 (-145)
1 15 Kasey Kahne 465 (-153)
1 16 Tony Stewart 460 (-158)

After the Eliminator Round of races, the table could look like this.

Pos Driver Points
1 Jeff Gordon 618
2 Jimmie Johnson 594 (-24)
3 Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 594 (-24)
1 4 Brad Keselowski 560 (-58)
1 5 Matt Kenseth 555 (-63)
6 Carl Edwards 536 (-82)
7 Joey Logano 519 (-99)
8 Ryan Newman 514 (-104)
9 Kevin Harvick 509 (-109)
1 10 Kyle Busch 508 (-110)
1 11 Paul Menard 488 (-130)
2 12 Kyle Larson (R) 474 (-144)
2 13 Greg Biffle 474 (-144)
14 Clint Bowyer 473 (-145)
1 15 Kasey Kahne 465 (-153)
1 16 Tony Stewart 460 (-158)

And then after the Ford Ecoboost 400, the table could look like this.

Pos Driver Points
1 Jeff Gordon 618
2 Jimmie Johnson 594 (-24)
3 Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 594 (-24)
1 4 Brad Keselowski 560 (-58)
1 5 Matt Kenseth 555 (-63)
6 Carl Edwards 536 (-82)
7 Joey Logano 519 (-99)
8 Ryan Newman 514 (-104)
9 Kevin Harvick 509 (-109)
1 10 Kyle Busch 508 (-110)
1 11 Paul Menard 488 (-130)
2 12 Kyle Larson (R) 474 (-144)
2 13 Greg Biffle 474 (-144)
14 Clint Bowyer 473 (-145)
1 15 Kasey Kahne 465 (-153)
1 16 Tony Stewart 460 (-158)

What do you guys think?--Daytona 500 18:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've noticed an IP user rearranging the tables on the 2014 NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race article and I wanted to know what you guys think. The tables for the Showdown and All-Star Race results are merged with each other so that they're side-by-side. I'm a little on the fence with this one. I'm impressed with how much work he/she did but it's a little hard to read. I don't want to just undo all this persons work per Wikipedia:Don't be anal so I want to ask what you all think of it.--Daytona 500 19:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Season navbox

So after looking at {{F1GP 2000–09}}, I've been wondering if we should create a navbox that groups together all the races of a season, since there are so many races, and grouping them would help users with say, if they're a Dale Jr. fan, going from the 2014 Daytona 500 page to 2014 Pocono 400. I do recall sidebars like {{2006 Nextel Cup}} being created, so how about creating a navbox like it, so it doesn't get in the way of the article. For example, I suppose this year's would like like this: Zappa24Mati 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there could be variations, such as:

Points/exhibition races split
With Chase
This might be a good idea. I'd go with the 'Points/exhibition races split' one myself... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@The Bushranger: Good to hear. I wouldn't mind using that one, but knowing the significance of the Chase, I feel like also splitting the Chase races from the standard ones as well would work, like this: Zappa24Mati 23:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Points/exhibition/Chase split
Alright, so I've created the navbox at {{2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup}}. NFLisAwesome 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Idea for change to race info box

This is a thought I want to throw out here. I was wondering what you guys would think about changing the info box we use for race reports to include not just the television station covering the race, but also the radio network covering it (MRN, PRN and IMS Radio Network).--Daytona 500 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Irwin Tools Night Race

I'm going to be at Bristol Motor Speedway for the Cup race next weekend. The Race to the Chase is heating up and it's going to be a night of insanity at Thunder Valley. This means someone else will have to fill out the race report.

I'll take some pictures of the race while I'm there. I want to know if there's any drivers who need a new profile picture that's more current, such as Tony Stewart (his is still from his days at Joe Gibbs Racing).--Daytona 500 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There are quite a number of drivers that need updated infobox pics like Stewart, Martin Truex, Jr., Jamie McMurray, Kevin Harvick, Denny Hamlin, Joey Logano, Paul Menard, David Ragan, Reed Sorenson, David Gilliland (who, surprisingly, is the only Cup driver without a pic), and Aric Almirola. IIRC, all but Gilliland, Ragan, Logano, and Harvick are all from 2007. Zappa24Mati 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, if you can grab one of Gilliland, that would be top priority. Have fun! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there anything in particular of Bristol that needs a picture taken?--Daytona 500 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! How about photos of race action? There are plenty of pictures of cars running at the track, but they usually look static. Try some pans with longer exposure times to add some blur. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
How about some shots of the entire field snaking around the track - two wide at a restart? That would be nice for the track and race articles. I personally always photograph every car and every driver at the Road America Nationwide race and upload the best one for each. Bristol has always been my favorite track, and one race that I would consider driving so far to experience. ENJOY! Royalbroil 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Which driver to list

Trevor Bayne and Martin Truex, Jr. had substitutes qualify their cars for tomorrow's 2014 Pure Michigan 400. I listed Bayne and Truex in place of Ryan Blaney, who qualified for Bayne, and Matt Crafton, who qualified for Truex. Should it be the other way around or just leave it as it is?--Daytona 500 19:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The driver who qualified the car should be listed on the qualifying list/starting grid. On the results, a footnote as on Ernie Irvan at 1998 Pepsi 400#Race results can be used to note that there was a driver change. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New draft: Draft:Jennifer Jo Cobb Racing

Hi, I noticed the above draft at WP:AfC and wondered if any of you people had any opinions about it. Rankersbo (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Parameters for other series in {{Infobox NASCAR driver}}

I know we currently have parameters for the top three series, the two other North American series and the Grand National East series, but should we add parameters for the Whelen Euro Series, AUSCAR, or even the regional series (K&N/Modified)? That way, we don't have to place two infoboxes (usually {{Infobox NASCAR driver}} and {{Infobox racing driver}}) on an article, and instead have them in one? Of course, an alternative method could be using the former as a child template. Zappa24Mati 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not.--Daytona 500 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the Canadian Tire Series and Toyota Series are included because they're the top national series in Canada and Mexico (and honestly I wouldn't have included them even with that, as they're at the same level as the K&N Pro Series, but somebody else had already put in the Toyota Series, so...). GN East is there because it (and the Convertible Series) were at the equivilant level of Busch/Nationwide. IMHO the other series simply aren't at a high enough level (and was AUSCAR even a NASCAR-sanctioned series?) to call for that level of detail in the infobox. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Then should we consider using the NASCAR infobox as a child template under the racing driver one for those who race full-time in any other NASCAR-sanctioned series and use the latter as the primary infobox, like at Brett Moffitt? Zappa24Mati 23:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I would do. I agree with Bushranger that they're not at the right level. Royalbroil 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's how I generally do it, yeah. (And that makes me muse that Moffit probably should have his infoboxes shuffled since he's not running K&N anymore...) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Canadian Tire Series and Toyota Series are included because they're the top national series in Canada and Mexico (and honestly I wouldn't have included them even with that, as they're at the same level as the K&N Pro Series)"

NASCAR Mexico is shown live on Fox Sports 3 (ex Speed Channel), the same channel as Cup, IMSA, WTCC and WRC. They are professional, just like V8 Supercars, STCC and Argentine TC2000. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably my 30th suggestion now, but after working on NFL and F1 pages, I've noticed that they often utilize templates (i.e., {{NFL Year}} and {{F1}}, respectively) to link to season pages as a shortcut, so people don't have to type out 1985 NFL season or 2004 Formula One season. As a result, should we design a template of similar use, like {{NASCAR year}} and do some tinkering to add parameters for the lower series, like for example: to link to 2014 NASCAR Nationwide Series, we could do {{NASCAR year|2014|Nationwide}}. The only problem I see with this is when series get renamed, like the NNS next season. Zappa24Mati 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

NASCAR driver categorization on Commons

User:Eurohunter is making subcategories of the NASCAR drivers on Commons. Bass isn't adding any of these categories to the drivers here or on any of the Wikipedias even after I asked him to [5]. Does anyone want to add these categories on the English Wikipedia. I would but I don't have any spare time. Royalbroil 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

QL vs. INQ in regard to Tony Stewart

There's a back and forth going on with the points standings table on the 2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series in regard to whether to list Tony Stewart as QL or INQ for Watkins Glen. My understanding and how it's listed in the key button is that QL is used when a driver qualified the car for another driver whilst INQ is used when the driver who qualified the car gets injured and doesn't start the race. There is one editor that says Tony wasn't injured when the events at Canandaigua Motorsports Park occurred and we should list him as QL for the Glen. I maintain that it should be INQ because Tony suffered mental anguish as a result of what happened. The American Psychological Association defines trauma as "an emotional response to a terrible event like an accident, rape or natural disaster." It's obvious Tony has suffered emotional injuries because of those events and should be listed as INQ on the table. What do you guys think?--Daytona 500 18:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

I want to ask how we should be listing the Nielsen Ratings in the race info boxes. I've listed them as Final on top, Overnight in middle and viewing figures on the bottom for the Fox broadcasts. The cable ones I've been doing just the final on top and the viewing figures on the bottom. And the viewing figures is also another question I've had. Should I list it in (Number Million) or (Number Million viewers)?--Daytona 500 01:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Chasers and race wins

So if a driver who made the Chase, was eliminated, and wins later in the year, would he be considered a "Non-Chase driver to win a Chase race"? Zappa24Mati 21:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are K&N, ARCA, etc. results notable?

I came across the recently created Beto Monteiro article and saw his K&N results are featured there. This led me to wonder: Are career results in these series notable enough to be included in drivers' articles? I'm currently working on Richard Johns' results and as he raced in K&N and ARCA, I wanted to ask members of the project who have more NASCAR-related experience on Wikipedia before I bothered to create the results table. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would include a season summary, including selected race results, for either in the text. I also would include it in his career summary table but I wouldn't give individual race results in a table. Royalbroil 04:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300

Hi, just a note to fellow members of the project, the above article is at FAC and comments from any of you are welcome. My apologies for not letting this be known to you all earlier. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Who're you callin' yellow?

Can somebody clarify? I've never seen this happen, but I've often wondered: what happens if the yellow comes out & the leaders pit, but one of the back markers (say, around 15h) doesn't for a lap or two? Does he keep the lead after stopping under yellow? Or lose the lead? Thx for the help. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

He would advance to the lead should he stay out and not come at all, but he would lose the lead if he did. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I understood anybody leading when the yellow came out keeps it until the green flies again. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. A number of variables could cause the lead to change. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thx for the help. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Race infobox parameter change

I don't know how complicated it is to do this, but if anyone knows how to add a new parameter to the info box we use for the race articles, could we add one that also includes the radio network (MRN and PRN) and the people who call the race for them (like Joe Moore (MRN) and Doug Rice (PRN) for the booth and Dave Moody (MRN) and Rob Albreight (PRN) for the turns? I think this is worth adding since MRN, and to a lesser extent PRN, has played a vital role in covering NASCAR all these years.--Daytona 500 17:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

HScott Motorsports with Chip Ganassi

Should the details of the team be at HScott Motorsports#HScott Motorsports with Chip Ganassi or at Chip Ganassi Racing#Car #40 / #42 History? I'm thinking the former, since the team name is featured on a more wider scale, but what do you guys think? NFLisAwesome 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Glen races

A little birdy on Reddit asked me about this, but if Cheez-It 355 at The Glen has a capital "The", shouldn't the Zippo 200 at the Glen have a capital "The" as well since it's part of the proper noun "The Glen"? Google is bringing up articles that use both "the" and "The", so it's not helping. What do you guys think? ZappaSJSMati 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Another capitalization question: Is "Xfinity" supposed to be all-caps? An IP over at Xfinity Series changed everything so it becomes XFINITY Series. NFLisAwesome 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary colours

Key
Color Result
Purple Did Not Finish (DNF)
LtGray Did Not Finish, 2nd–5th
LtBrown Did Not Finish, 6th–10th

I noticed that the Template:NASCAR driver results legend has individual colours for drivers that finished in the top five and top ten but did not finish the race. Personaly I think this is way to comprehensive. We should make this as simple as possible. Too keep results as clear as possible I think we only should use the purple colour if a driver did not finish the race. What do you guys think? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the DNF color should be kept, but the other two are unneeded, and I don't think I've ever seen them used, even for such situations. ZappaSJSMati 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ericthenau recently edited the page of Geoff Bodine and used one of the two colours in a results table. Should those 2 colours be deleted from the template to prevent people from using them? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary. The generic DNF color is the only one we need in my opinion. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's officially Jeff Gordonary with only 24 more days till the Daytona 500. I've got tickets to the big race and boy did I pick a hell of a year for my first Daytona 500 as it'll be Jeff Gordon's last. I just got a high quality Nikon camera that takes great pictures. I know we need new pictures for Kevin Harvick, Joey Logano and Tony Stewart. Are there any other drivers who need a more up to date profile picture that I can get while I'm at Daytona International Speedway? Also, is there anything NASCAR related in the Daytona Beach, Florida area that I should get a picture of?--Daytona 500 03:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

David Gilliland. I cannot emphasize that one enough. There is currently no picture of him in his article and with that, my current FAC, 2006 UAW-Ford 500, is forced to use a picture of his car instead of a picture of himself. That is the only one that comes to mind for me at the moment; I'll let you know if I think of anyone else. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
A lot of drivers need new photos: Jamie McMurray, Sam Hornish, Jr., Denny Hamlin, Ryan Blaney, Greg Biffle, Paul Menard, Bobby Labonte, Aric Almirola, A. J. Allmendinger, Michael Waltrip, Martin Truex, Jr., Josh Wise, and Ron Hornaday, Jr. are some of the drivers that need them. I'll probably add more as the entry list fills up. ZappaSJSMati 04:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talladega Superspeedway

Yesterday, GEICO announced they were moving their race sponsorship of Talladega Superspeedway up from October to the race in May which had been sponsored by Aaron's. Nothing has been announced on who will sponsor the race in the fall and I doubt GEICO will be sponsoring both Talladega races this year. I know both these races are full of years of redirects, but should I go ahead and move the GEICO 500 fall race to Talladega 500 as a temporary place-holder?--Daytona 500 14:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

NASCAR.com has listed the fall race as being the Alabama 500.--Daytona 500 19:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidates

A note to fellow members of the WikiProject, User:Z105space and I have nominated 2012 Budweiser Shootout and 2006 UAW-Ford 500 respectively for Featured Article status. Neither article has been throughly reviewed yet and both have been in the queue for a long time. If any of you are free and looking for something to do, I'm sure we would greatly appreciate one or two of you chiming in and offering your feedback. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Obaika Racing

There is a new NASCAR racing team. It's an African racing team owned by Nigerian entrepreneur, Victor Obaika. I want to write an article for them, how to I go about it?

--Crystalzeb (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Budweiser Duels

In my quest to maintain consistency with the 2015 Budweiser Duels and the 2015 Daytona 500 since they both cover some of the same content, I inadvertently made both articles too identical. Maybe it's not a problem right now, but it wouldn't help it down the road if someone wanted to put these two pages up for Good Article status. Would someone read both and tell me if this might be a problem?--Daytona 500 15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I've been meaning to talk to you about your race reports. Yes, I think the two articles are too identical, but I'm also concerned they may include too much information. The only race report at Featured Article status, 2010 Sylvania 300, passed without a section based on the previous week's race, and without tables for the entry list and top three finishers in the practice sessions. I also thing the race summaries themselves need to be in a paragraph-to-paragraph format (see 2014 Ford EcoBoost 400 for what I mean (the section is tagged with needing to be in prose)), rather than one-liners such as…
On lap 1, X.
On lap 2, Y.
Z happened on lap 3.
…and so on.
Now, I know you have put a lot of work into these reports, and I commend you for that; however, I'm think you may be doing more than you actually need to. I'm not saying what you have done in some of the 2014 and 2015 season's articles needs to be removed, I'm just saying it may be going into unnecessary detail and the Manual of Style may need to be checked. I don't mean to brag about my own work (User:Nascar1996 had a lot to do with it, anyway), but I truly believe 2010 Sylvania 300 is the best NASCAR race report on the English Wikipedia at this point. With that, I would try to follow the structure of that article when filling out the race reports.
Finally, to answer you're original question simply, yes. I would trim the amount of info on the Duels that is seen in the Daytona 500 article. I don't know that we need a Duels race summary in the Daytona 500 article as the content is essentially identical.
Thanks again for all your work. Feel free to politely disagree with any of my suggestions, and we'll see if any other WikiProject members chime in here. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think for encyclopedic purposes, a small summary of the previous weeks event is a good idea since a lot of this sport is week-by-week. I started adding these tables after looking over how the 2014 Indianapolis 500 article was done. I really liked how they did the tables and I think how I'm doing the tables now flows better chronologically. I agree with you on the paragraph-to-paragrah format, but I'm filling in the race report as the race happens so I do the one sentence at a time. I'm also not good at writing paragraphs and I let others who are write them (BTW, I'll be at the race tomorrow. So someone else will need to fill in the race report.). Perhaps we could trim the Duel race section on the Daytona 500 article so the main article has a reason to stand alone, but I don't think it should be removed all together since the Budweiser Duel races set the field for the 500.
I see your point on the previous week's race, but perhaps an entire paragraph is a bit much. If you don't want to get rid of it, perhaps we could put it in the background section (e.g. Driver X was the race's defending champion, while driver Y won the previous week's race, or vice versa). Regarding the paragraphs, I understand. If writing is not your strong suit, that's fine, nobody can be the best at everything. Lastly, yes, the Duel races are indeed relevant, so there's no need to remove it altogether. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, putting a summary of the previous weeks race in it's own section before the background doesn't make sense article-wise. I think maybe putting it in the background section would help it flow better.--Daytona 500 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for new driver photos

I was able to get some good pictures of all of the 43 drivers who started the 2015 Daytona 500. I've already uploaded pictures for Gilliland, Harvick, Mears, Logano and Stewart. Is there any other drivers who need a new profile pic that I should upload?--Nascar king 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I'd at least request my personal favorite, A. J. Allmendinger, as he does not have a photo since his Red Bull days which seem like an eternity ago… --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for personnel

Since we already have {{Infobox NASCAR driver}}, I look at those of other sports, and I usually notice that coaches/owners often have their own infobox. Crew chiefs/owners often use either {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox sportsperson}}, so I'm wondering if we should have a {{Infobox NASCAR owner}}, {{Infobox NASCAR crew chief}}, or even have them as parameters in the driver infobox. An example would be like this old edit at Rick Hendrick for the owner one. A crew chief one could be similar. NFLisAwesome 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@NFLisAwesome: I say make one specifically for owners and crew chiefs.--Nascar king 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of the Godfather and the Bagman

I'm thinking of creating articles for Dave Moody (sports commentator) and Mike Bagley since they're the lead turn announcers for MRN and two guys we've all most likely argued with on Sirius XM NASCAR Radio (especially the former). If anyone has got any pictures of the Godfather and the Bagman, would you upload them to Commons? It would really do wonders for the articles. Also, should I title Moody's article a different name?--Nascar king 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I say we go the Gus Johnson (sportscaster) route and use Dave Moody (sportscaster). NFLisAwesome 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell does the No. 33 car race for?

Can we all discuss on who the hell the No. 33 car belongs to for Wikipedia sakes? I've always operated under the belief that it belongs to Hillman-Circle Sport LLC. I know Brian Scott and Ty Dillon are contracted under Richard Childress Racing, but shouldn't we put the No. 33 as Hillman-Circle Sport LLC when they drive it?--Nascar king 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I'd go with the owner, and since Jayski and Racing-Reference all say Joe Falk, I'd go with Circle Sport (unless it's Mike Hillman's team, in which then it'd be Hillman Smith, of course). Zappa24Mati 02:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@ZappaOMati: Should we also be doing that for the No. 40 car?--Nascar king 02:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: I'd still rather go with Hillman Smith Motorsports for the 40, since that's the official team name for them. Zappa24Mati 03:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

With some of my photos of drivers I took at driver intro's for the 2015 Daytona 500, Bentvfan54321 has cropped some of them to put more emphasis on the driver. Most of them, I think, look better than the original photo; although I could accept them cropped or un-cropped. Others have been reverted to their original by Denniss (an admin on Commons). Do y'all think we should crop the driver photos or just leave them as they are? Here's a link to my photos if you want to look through them and judge for yourselves. [6] --Nascar king 15:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I think if you crop them, it's okay, since they are your images (I cropped my own image of Tiny Gallon a few days ago and it hasn't been changed back yet). I think they look better cropped as they focus in on the driver and remove the timestamp at the bottom of the photo, so I'd prefer to see them cropped. Of course, now I know that I can't do that myself, but some (Aric Almirola in particular) could certainly use a crop. Thanks again for the photos! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: I think someone else should do them, because I may have just screwed up the Aric Almirola photo.--Nascar king 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: It looks fine to me. Try opening and closing your browser, or look at it on another computer; sometimes it takes a few seconds for it to show up (it did for me when I cropped them). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You can clear up these image problems in your browser by following your browser's directions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. I like the cropped images much better. It is nice to have the images with their families so I would upload some of the images both ways. The time stamp is supposed to be removed from the image so it's best to disable it from displaying on the image by changing the preferences in your camera before shooting. Also, the images on Commons should just be in the 2015 Daytona 500 category, not the Daytona 500. We want to keep the parent category clear by subcategorizing the images by year. You had a great vantage point! nice job. Royalbroil 02:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I object with how you went through and replaced so many of the previous images with your images. Many of the other images have much better focus and composition. When I upload drivers images, I take a step back and think about which image is better regardless of who took it. I ask myself: "What is the best image for the Wikipedia reader?". It's not about which is the most recent image and I think what you did is unfair. Royalbroil 03:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Morgan Shepherd

I'm currently rewriting Morgan Shepherd his page at User:Jahn1234567890/Morgan Shepherd. As I'm from Holland I was wondering if there is anybody that wants to help me out once in a while to make sure to keep the page free from spelling mistakes. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Interested contributors

Who is interested to help on a group featured list on a major NASCAR topic during the off-season? I think that a bunch of us would enjoy a gold star on our user page. Once we get started, be sure to do JUST your task so that everyone has something to do. I can easily think of some lists that would be excellent topics. The difficult part is the division of labor and the requirement to use only the most solid reliable sources. I suspect that there will be plenty of interest so the text can be peer reviewed by lots of eyes. Please sign up below and we can come up with a task list for everyone. Royalbroil 14:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested. Any suggestions? Zappa24Mati 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's we see the interest level for several days. The topic should be the first point of discussion. I have plenty of ideas. Royalbroil 01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm in.--Daytona 500 01:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested, even though I may not be able to help as much as some of the others. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 03:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic discussion

Suggestions

  1. List of NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champions
  2. List of NASCAR Xfinity Series champions
  3. List of NASCAR Camping World Truck Series champions
  4. List of Daytona 500 pole position winners
  5. List of Daytona 500 winners (currently a redirect that was done way back in 2005)
  6. List of members of the NASCAR Hall of Fame
  7. List of all-time NASCAR Cup Series winners

I think we should go for a list on a major topic. How about let's brainstorm and then vote on the topic. The category of NASCAR lists is found here. I propose taking suggestions until Monday night Nov 24 and once that's done then we can vote. I started the suggestions off with 7 entries. Royalbroil 14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Article vote

Which suggested article do you think should the topic?

NASCAR Hall of Fame

I noticed that the main NASCAR Hall of Fame article has the full list of inductees to the HOF. Should we even have a list of the inductees on the main article? I would argue that it shouldn't, because it completely renders it pointless to have a standalone list for the inductees. Personally, I would remove the list of inductees from the main article so the List of members of the NASCAR Hall of Fame has a reason to exist. What do y'all think?--Nascar king 01:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Requests for photos at Bristol

I'm going to be at Bristol Motor Speedway for the Sprint Cup race and Xfinity Series race in about three weeks. I also plan on being there for the qualifying and practice sessions. I didn't get a good picture of A. J. Allmendinger while I was at Daytona. So I plan to take a (hopefully) better one of the Dinger at Thunder Valley. I got most of the Sprint Cup drivers that needed new profile pictures at the 500. Are there any Sprint Cup and/or Xfinity Series drivers who need new profile pictures that I can get while I'm there?--Nascar king 23:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the full-time drivers, these drivers need photos (for Xfinity): John Wes Townley, Harrison Rhodes, Ross Chastain, Daniel Suárez, Cale Conley, and Erik Jones. Zappa24Mati 01:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a new page for Morgan Shepherd. Would be nice if you could get a picture of him or his car. Not a must but it would be a nice extra to Shepherd's page. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Penalties for Ryan Newman

If you haven't heard by now, NASCAR has come down HARD, HARD, HARD on Ryan Newman and the No. 31 Richard Childress Racing Chevy. Part of the penalty included a loss of 75 points. I bring this up because the penalty stems from the 2015 Auto Club 400 at Auto Club Speedway, but the penalties affected him after the 2015 STP 500 at Martinsville Speedway. I also was having difficulty with keeping track of the arithmetic putting it on the Auto Club page. Should the penalties go on the Auto Club article or just leave it on the STP 500 article?--Nascar king 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Is 2015 Daytona 500 GA material

I've been doing a lot of work on the 2015 Daytona 500 article the last few days because I'm wanting to put it up for Good Article nomination. Would anyone experienced with GA standards care to read over it and tell me if I'm getting ahead of myself or if it's GA material?--Nascar king 23:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I'd only link the drivers' names, manufactures, race teams, etc. once. In other words, link them in the entry list and the first time they are mentioned in the body. After that, don't link them and make sure that, in the body, only their surnames are used (see WP:SURNAME). Of course, if two drivers share a last name, give both, but I don' think that's an issue since neither Busch brother was in the race. Lastly, you may want to look at 2010 Sylvania 300, our Featured Article, for a good outline of what makes a good race report. Good luck with the nomination! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500

The above article is at FAC here and desperately needs a review (the first nomination did not receive much response). Please feel free to comment and review. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Policy on race names

This week, NASCAR rolls into Thunder Valley for the 2015 Food City 500 (It's BRISTOL BABY!!!). Last week, Bristol Motor Speedway announced that the race would be renamed the Food City 500 In Support of Steve Byrnes and Stand Up To Cancer. Should we move that race report to the long title or leave it as such? Personally, I would leave as 2015 Food City 500.--Nascar king 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: I say we use the shorter names (that's pretty much going to be used, anyway by sources) for titles, while using the full name in the lead, like what we do for 2013 Mudsummer Classic and the recent Brickyard races. Zappa24Mati 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sponsors in lead

Back in February, an IP added the sponsors to the leads of drivers' pages, so it says "He currently drives the No. # (sponsor) car". With some drivers like Austin Dillon, Paul Menard, Alex Bowman and Brad Keselowski having a ridiculous number of sponsors, I think it completely bloats the lead to unnecessary proportions. Should we remove them? Zappa24Mati 03:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that's not something that should be included in the lead if it is notable at all on a driver's page. So yes I think it should be removed Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Bristol pictures

I've got some pictures of Xfinity Series cars during their two practice sessions today. Are there any that need uploaded immediately? I'm not as familiar with the drivers in the Xfinity Series, so please include the number of the cars they drive along with the drivers name.--Nascar king 01:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Last minute driver picture request anyone?

As I've said for a number of weeks now, I'm going to be at Bristol for the Cup race tomorrow. So someone else will need to write the race report. I'll be up close to the driver intro's like I was at Daytona. Are there any last minute requests for driver photos that I need to get?--Nascar king 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking: Allmendinger would be nice. Also, if you got Morgan Shepherd, Jahn1234567890 is rewriting his page, so it would be nice if you could get a new picture for him. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: Jamie McMurray really needs a new one now, while Jeb Burton needs one. Wise, Bowman, Bliss, Kennedy, Whitt, and Allgaier could use some new photos as well, though Moffitt and Wise would be top priority, since we don't really see their faces in their photos. Zappa24Mati 02:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout

This article is currently at FAC (the first nomination did not received much response from anyone). Please feel free to comment and review, whether it is positive or not. Z105space (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

If you haven't figured out already, the 2015 Daytona 500 is currently being reviewed for Good Article status here. Feel free to join the discussion.--Nascar king 18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of Xfinity Series cars from my trip to Bristol

So I was at Bristol a few weeks ago for both the Xfinity and Cup Series race. I wasn't able to get pictures of drivers during intros since I was seated in one of the suites. I did get pictures of the Xfinity Series cars during their practice and qualifying sessions. Does anyone have any specific drivers car you'd like me to upload? When making your request, please include the car number along with the driver's name.--Nascar king 16:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have one it would be great if you could upload a picture of the 89 car of Morgan Shepherd. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: If you got A. J. Allmendinger it would be great if we could at least use a picture of his 2015 car rather than this (not your fault, just the darn camera focusing on the darn… camera). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: Here's the file to a picture of the Dinger I took at Bristol.--Nascar king 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Zippo 200 at the Glen listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Zippo 200 at the Glen to be moved to Zippo 200 at The Glen. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for project comment on GA reassessment

2015 Daytona 500 has been nominated for GA reassessment and the nominator asks that this project head to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2015 Daytona 500/1 and comment on the matter.--Nascar king 13:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on race logos

A user by the name of Marchjuly has gone through many race articles from the 2014 and 2015 Sprint Cup seasons removing the race logos. He seems relatively new to Wikipedia and works on reducing the amount of non-free logos on Wikipedia. I didn't revert all of them because I wish not to violate the three reverts policy, but I believe that they shouldn't have been removed because I gave a non-free rationale for every one of those images in the 2015 season. I swayed him on the 2015 Daytona 500 logo, but I haven't on the others. Would you guys care to help me out with putting the proper NFR parameters for these race logos?--Nascar king 21:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The images are all non-free which means that there are specific requirements that they need to satisfy for each specific use. Non-free content must also not be used in any of ways listed in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. One of these is No. 14 of WP:NFC#UUI which says "A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." In simple terms, the non-free logo of a major sporting event (or the event's sponsor) can be used in an article about that sporting event, but it cannot be used in an article about an individual instance of that event. The reason File:2015 Daytona 500 Logo.png can be used in 2015 Daytona 500 is because it is a logo specific to that particular year's race. That is why File:2014 Daytona 500 logo.jpg is acceptable for 2014 Daytona 500 and this image will most likely be acceptable for "2016 Daytona 500". I admitted to Nascarking that I removed the 2015 Daytona 500 logo in error, but there is no indication that any of the other logos are year-specific to a particular race. For example, File:STP 500 Martinsville.jpg is used in STP 500 which is fine. Unlike the 2015 Daytona 500 logo, however, the image is not specific to a particular year so it should not be used in 2014 STP 500, 2015 STP 500, etc. Non-free images are supposed to be used minimally. If there was no stand-alone article for "STP 500", then using the image in the article for the first race the logo was used would make sense. "STP 500" does, however, exist and can be wikilinked so the logo should not really be used anywhere other than "STP 500".
Maybe it's easier to follow my reasoning if I use examples from other sporting event articles. Non-free logos are being used in the various World Series, Super Bowl, Kentucky Derby, NCAA Baskeball Tournament, etc. articles, because they are year-specific. A non-free logo like File:Wimbledon.svg is fine for The Championships, Wimbledon, but it's not OK to use in 2014 Wimbledon Championships or 2013 Wimbledon Championships, etc. because the logo is not specifically for either year. On the other hand, File:2011 Wimbledon Championships poster.jpg can be used in 2011 Wimbledon Championships because it is for that particular year, but it cannot be used in the 2014 article for the same tournament. Clarification about the non-free use of then images can be requested at WP:NFCR if you like. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: I believe I found some year-specific logos for 2014 Duck Commander 500 and 2015 Duck Commander 500. This logo from this webpage is probably OK to use because, unlike File:Duck Commander 500 logo.jpg, it includes the actual (scheduled) date of the race. The same goes for this logo for the 2015 version of the race taken from this webpage I think this one is also OK to use (minus the Sprint Cup series logo because that's a separate non-free image in and of itself which requires a separate non-free rationale). These dates might seem like a minor details, but they do show, in my opinion, that the logos are specific for a particular year and, therefore, avoid any problems with No. 14 of NFC#UUI. FWIW, I'll keep looking for year-specific versions of the other various logos. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Directly linking to race articles in infoboxes

How should we link the "first race", "first win" and "last win" parameters in {{Infobox NASCAR driver}}? Should we link them like we do for the lower series (and until recently, Cup) by having [[20XX NASCAR Series|20XX]] [[race name]] ([[track name|track]]) (example: 2015 Coke Zero 400 (Daytona)) or directly link them as [[20XX race]] ([[track name|track]]) (example: 2015 Coke Zero 400 (Daytona)? While it might be more convenient to just directly link it, I feel like it doesn't provide consistency with the lower series ones, since they often do not have articles themselves. Zappa24Mati 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd link directly to the event, redlink or not, if only to encourage creation of the link. (Also because it's the more intuitive linking; I've frequently followed Olympic & F1 links that go to the country or city & not the venue, or to the sport & not the event, which the page link suggests... :( )Where there is no page, is it possible to add a link for the series? Or would there always be a link to the series elsewhere on the page? That is, I'd not want to wipe out a link to the series proper in favor of consistency. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:11 & 19:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I can come up with if we were to use the 2015 Coke Zero 400 format in the infobox for lower series races (let's use the 2012 Xfinity Formerly Nationwide race at Indy, for example) is to have 2014 DRIVE4COPD 300 link to the race page (DRIVE4COPD 300), since linking it to Xfinity Series wouldn't make much sense. But speaking of linking to the series, the infobox already provides the series name as "NASCAR Xfinity Series career" so we don't need to worry about that. While we're on the topic of lower-series races and encouraging creation, however, most lower-series race reports aren't notable enough for article creation, unlike Cup races, so that's when the problem arrives: We're going to have far too many redlinks for pages that are never going to be created because they simply aren't notable enough, when we could just use the (year) (race) (track) format that's currently used at {{Latest NASCAR Cup}} and its lower-series templates. Zappa24Mati 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I offered a compromise of sorts at User talk:Ptb1997. Zappa24Mati 19:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

2013 Mudsummer Classic up for peer review

The 2013 Mudsummer Classic article is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/2013 Mudsummer Classic/archive2, with the goal of reaching Featured Article status. Any feedback would be appreciated. Zappa24Mati 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Using the full race video on YouTube vs. lap-by-lap on NASCAR.com

What would you guys say about using the full length race videos NASCAR posts to YouTube in place of the lap-by-lap feature on NASCAR.com? I bring this up because citing the lap-by-lap feature on raceday to fill in the gaps on the race reports is pointless if the Wayback Machine doesn't (lack of a better word) screen grab it before it resets for the next race. Since these videos are posted on NASCAR's official YouTube channel, I'm thinking citing that for, let's say the 2015 Daytona 500, would be more practical and you wouldn't have to remember to use Wayback to take a screen shot of the lap-by-lap feature on NASCAR.com before it resets. It's not just limited to the article I mentioned, I could use it to fill the gaps for all the 2015 race reports. What do you guys think?--Nascar king 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nascarking and ZappaOMati: I'm not too familiar with WP:YOUTUBE so I'm not sure if we could get away with that at GAN or FAC. I will say that one way to get around this at the Game Show Project is to use the {{cite episode}} template. If there's a way we could cite the race broadcast with that template, that might be another solution if YouTube doesn't work out. Personally I think lap-by-lap, at least for articles from around 2010 or 2011, is the best option, but for the newer races, lap-by-lap may not be a viable option. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions for race articles.

I was reading Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_48#.22It.27s_a_great_day_for_a_ballgame_here_at_Ephemeral_Stupid_Name_Stadium....22, and it got me thinking; we really need to give these race articles (and I mean the article about the race as a whole, not individual editions) more consistent titles so that we don't have to constantly move them around every year to reflect whatever random company purchased the naming rights this year.

I'd like to propose a two-pronged approach, inspired by how ESPN and NBC seem to enjoy stripping sponsored names from events if they did not pay the network for sponsorship too.

In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and ensuring clarity, race articles should be titled and referred to in their main articles using either (in order of preference):

  • An official non-sponsored title that is currently in use (e.g. Daytona 500)
  • A historic, non-sponsored title that is commonly used by current reliable sources to refer to the race, even if the race has naming rights. (e.g. Brickyard 400 instead of "Crown Royal presents the Your Name Here 400 at the Brickyard", Southern 500)
  • A sponsored title that has been consistently used for a long-term period (e.g. Coca-Cola 600 or Sylvania 300)
  • If the race's titling does not match any of the above, it should take the form of (Series) at (city or venue), with the month as disambiguation if needed (i.e. "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series at Kansas (May)" instead of SpongeBob SquarePants 400). In the article text, different forms of this convention can be used ("NASCAR Sprint Cup event held at Kansas Speedway", "Kansas spring race", etc.)

This does not apply to articles covering a specific edition of a race, which should use the official name given.

ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

While I'm on the fence with the Brickyard 400, I think it's always been project policy that races should follow WP:OFFICIAL. I could be wrong, but my vote would be to stick with official titles outside of the Brickyard 400 (I can't give a good or bad reason for that exception) since this sport is so sponsor driven.--Nascar king 23:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an essay, and its main point is that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." The constantly changing names on some events make them ambiguous. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE. This seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. What one person sits around and "thinks about" does not make for fact. That race has not been referred to as the "Brickyard 400" for 10 out of the last 11 years. To considered it common name is becoming more and more a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, there are two issues at hand. The name of the Article, and the name that is listed in the first sentence of the article. It has been precedent in the past few years with the BY400 article to have the article name as Brickyard 400, but the bolded first sentence introduction be the "official name" (i.e., Crown Royal presents...).

  • Counterpoint 1: Daytona 500 is a poor example because it has no title sponsor.
  • Counterpoint 2: All races at one point had a "Historic" name. However, they are no longer used in any official capacity, no longer used in common form, and will only serve to confuse readers and scuttle search attempts. Furthermore these fake generic names (e.g. "Sprint Cup at Kanas") are MADE UP. Names like "Volunteer 500" "Dixie 500", "Yankee 400", "Rebel 500", "Summer 500", etc. are all historical names, yet few people will even recognize them. 'Constantly changing is relative just the same. Race sponsor names would occur at most once per year. Race title sponsorships typically last more than one year. It's an exaggeration to say they are "constantly changing."
  • Counterpoint 3: "Picking and choosing" which official title sponsors to use and which to ignore is unprofessional and is based on opinion only. What makes one more important than another will boil down to one editor's opinion, and that is not the spirit of WP policy.
  • Counterpoint 4: The ESPN policy of naming races on TV with their own made up generic names is a TV thing and not historically accurate, nor official. ESPN decided that they would only name the title sponsor if the sponsor paid them to do it. Just because ESPN calls it "Sprint Cup at Kansas" does not mean for one second the race itself is still not officially named the "Spongebob Squarepants 500". We should be concerned with writing fact as it pertains to the event itself, not how some media outlet decides to report it. When done right, the Wikipedia Redirect function works just fine to take care of the annual to semi-annual race name changes. Doctorindy↔Talk 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We are not here to pursue the interests of sponsors. We are here to write an encyclopedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is about writing FACTS. The FACTS are undeniable and indisputable. The race is named the "Crown Royal presents the Jeff Kyle 400 at the Brickyard". It is reported that way by the official site, the race entry list, the race tickets, and is reported as such by reliable sources in the media. You have produced nothing to support that claim the common name and official name is still "Brickyard 400." This issue has come up numerous times over the years. Your actions are arbitrary. Doctorindy↔Talk 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Folks, watch out for some instances of WP:OVERCAT slipping into NASCAR articles. An editor is creating and/or adding categories for individual drivers and teams and adding race and championship articles to the winning driver and team categories. This could quickly overwhelm articles with trivial intersections of data and runs up against WP:OVERCAT and perhaps more specifically WP:PERFCAT. --Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Overcat violations are getting ridiculous. Tide has been added as a Darrel Waltrip category! Please be more discriminating with categorisation. --Falcadore (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts about a project list of sources

While I was a member of Wikiproject:Pro Wrestling, I noticed they had a section on the project's page with a list of go-to sources for their respective wrestling pages. I'm saying this because I wanted to know what everyone would think about having a section on our project page with a list of go-to sources for race reports and stuff. Here's what I mean:

Reliable sources for race reports

Entry list

Jayski.com and/or MRN.com

Practice

nascartalk.nbcsports.com and/or Motorsport.com for summaries of practice sessions.
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for practice result tables.

Qualifying

MRN.com for summary of the qualifying session.
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for qualifying results.

Race

nascartalk.nbcsports.com
usatoday.com (Jeff Gluck and Brant James)
charlotteobserver.com (That's Racin)
Motorsport.com
MRN.com
ESPN.com
racing.ap.org
Autosport.com
Jayski.com and/or MRN.com for race results

I think it's a good idea for newcomers who don't know where to look for sources for race reports. I listed these because I mostly use these sources when I write the race reports. So what do y'all think of my suggestion?--Nascar king 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks about fine to me, though Racing-Reference.info is also a good source to use. I would say Catchfence.com as well, but I'm still a little iffy on it. Zappa24Mati 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks good. There are always others out there (such as Fox Sports, CBS Sports, etc.) that will occasionally provide a good quote or post-race story, but this seems like a good general template. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: I'm not familiar with how CBS reports on NASCAR since they haven't covered the sport since 2000, but I agree on Fox Sports.--Nascar king 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nascarking: http://www.cbssports.com/nascar/story/25245197/kyle-busch-races-to-3rd-win-of-year-moves-closer-to-chase

And I guess while we're at it, let's also list sources some of us would consider unreliable. While I have some that I'd consider unreliable, I'd rather we have a consensus from some of the active project members (like myself, Zappa, Ptb1997 and Bentv) before listing unreliable sources.--Nascar king 17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Ptb1997 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321, Ptb1997, and ZappaOMati: Should we make a separate section for this or stick it in the standards section?--Nascar king 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess that will okay? Ptb1997 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards#List of reliable sources. I just added sources used for race reports to get it started. Feel free to add any sources for different article types like drivers, race tracks, etc.--Nascar king 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks for putting together the list. Royalbroil 11:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Sam Hornish, Jr.

Lately, a number of IPs have been adding a ridiculous amount of info (much of which is unsourced), along with other edits that go against what is normally done with NASCAR driver pages, such as at the results tables. Help to maintain the article would be greatly appreciated. Zappa24Mati 21:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ZappaOMati: Have you considered putting in a request for pending changes protection?--Nascar king 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@ZappaOMati and Nascarking: I'd suggest semi-protection of the article. I can't say I'm on Wikibreak anymore, but I will be largely unavailable for a bit. When I have the time, I'll try to work on cleaning up the article. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_NASCAR/Archive_8&oldid=1140106233"