Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR

Main pageDiscussionOpen tasksAssessmentStandardsNewsletterParticipantsPopular ArticlesRecent Changes

NASCAR race articles

Now I know we can be a little too early, but I was wondering how early is too early? I want to finish up the rest of the rest of the seasons articles. and I know we have either the race program or the race track, but since the roval got a redesign and all. 45BearsFan (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Conversion to km/h

35.139.154.158 reverted my addition of conversions to km/h in the qualifying lap table on 2012 Pocono 400 and deleted my request for conversions on 2012 FedEx 400. I believe these conversions are required by MOS:CONVERSIONS, but 35.139.154.158 has asserted they are not. Speeds and distances are converted to metric elsewhere in these articles, so it seems inconsistent not to convert them everywhere. These conversions are useful to allow readers to compare these events to events that take place outside the United States, and also to allow non-US readers to get a sense of how fast people were driving. What do other editors think? -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree here and disagree with 35.139....'s rationale written in the edit summaries. Those reverts should not have been made. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Okey, I've added conversions to the tables in both these articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

35.139.154.15 (who appears to be Deacon Vorbis editing while logged out) has reverted these changes. I have asked them to come to this thread to discuss. In particular they said "inappropriate to add conversions when they're completely uncustomary". I'm not sure if they mean uncustomary in the US, on Wikipedia, or NASCAR articles, or what. Clarification might be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CONVERSIONS between commonly-used units like kilometres and miles should always be in place. Removing them is just chauvinistic vandalism. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and that other editors have a reason for doing so which seems logical to them. Sometimes this sort of change is made on the grounds that conversions clutter up pages, for example. I don't agree with that in this case, but I also wouldn't label trying to tidy up as "vandalism". -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

FTR, conversions have been added to both articles in question. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think someone can be entirely acting in good faith and still vandalise an article. Maybe someone sincerely believes that an article would be better if there wasn't any punctuation, that wouldn't make it not vandalism for them to go through an article and remove every comma, full stop, and apostrophe. The outcome of their edit is what I'm judging, and the belief that metric or imperial units should for some reason be favoured over the other is inherently chauvinistic. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism has a more limited definition in mind which requires bad intentions; it says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Calling someone a vandal when they don't meet that definition usually just angers them and makes it more difficult to resolve the content disagreement.

The point of WP:AGF is to not infer bad intentions from the fact that we disagree with a given edit. When we disagree over what is best, it's often difficult to see why anyone would think anything different is better (which is usually what is happening) but easy to incorrectly assume malicious intent. I'm not even sure Deacon Vorbis is American, so it would be unwise to jump to conclusions that they are blindly promoting in-group conventions. It's also entirely possible they would make the same edit if the question was metric-to-US in an article about France. The conversation generally goes a lot better if we ask and try to resolve the conflict based on actual facts, rather than assume and start the conversation by insulting the other person or being angry at them for something they don't actually believe, either of which will make them less likely to cooperate to resolve a simple disagreement. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps vandalism is the wrong word and I should have called it disruptive instead. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

New Charlotte Roval file?

When should we consider making a file for the new charlotte roval? If we do I wouldnt really recommend taking it from the charlotte website but something like daytona? 45BearsFan (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Stamford Park course

G'day, I've just come across a small situation regarding one of the venues for the 1952 season, namely Stamford Park, which apparently was the location of the first NASCAR race in Canada. The Wikilink is a redirect to a section of an article about a suburb of Manchester in the UK, which obviously has no relevance. Most of the articles using the redirect are about the drivers in the race. I changed a couple of Wikilinks (diff, diff) (diff) to Stamford Park Racecourse (the venue was normally used for horseracing and seemed to be used as a motor racing circuit only for a couple of years - see [1]). You guys might not like the choice of name, so I'm not going to change any more; at the moment there are about 30 articles that have the unhelpful Wikilink. Cheers 124.169.24.67 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)