Talk:Auto Club Speedway
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Auto Club Speedway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Auto Club Speedway has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
 | On 3 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Auto Club Speedway to California Speedway. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
| On 29 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to California Speedway. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Page Cleanup
editI have hidden some statistics and list of winners. I feel this might be too detailed for the page. The page should focus on the facility itself without getting into more detail. Race pages and series pages provide the statistics most of the time. A list of winners at the track might be good to have as a sub-page. Lvi56 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fall Races Removal
editUpon completion of the October Pepsi Max 400 and Copart 300 those races should be moved from "Current Races" to "Former Races" because they will no longer be held. The infobox should also be updated with the removal of these races. Lvi56 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Auto Club Speedway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have finished my review of this article. There are some issues with the prose and some coverage problems. I am not sure if this can be fixed quickly, but I will hold this article for up to a week to give the editors time to work on it. Aaron north (T/C) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
everything looks good now. Aaron north (T/C) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
editThe following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (T/C) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Early History and Construction seems to jump from past tense to present tense and back to past tense without reason for it.
- I think I have fixed this Lvi56 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- This sentence: (Construction on the site began on November 22, 1995 with the Demolition of the Kaiser Steel Mill completed in April 1996 leaving only a single water tower which now serves as the centerpiece of the speedway, construction of the track was completed later that year.) is just one big jumbled mess.
- I have reworded the mess Lvi56 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- This sentence: (On January 10, 1997 Marlboro Team Penske’s driver Paul Tracy became the first driver to test one the new speedway.) is confusing. I assume there must be a typo in there somewhere, or it should be reworded.
- Fixed Lvi56 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The lead contains nothing about the track's construction or renovations
- I have expanded the lead Lvi56 (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bucket List filming (last sentence in "In pop culture") probably needs a source
- Source added. Lvi56 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be some significant coverage problems with this article. The GA criteria does not require comprehensiveness like the FA criteria, but the coverage does need to be reasonably broad. Specifically, I would expect a major community project like this would have had some more background before construction was approved in 1995. Was there local support or opposition to the track's construction? Also, you briefly mention two renovations (where you said something was "overhauled") This probably needs to be expanded on, what do you mean by overhaul? You mention what was added (paving of some infield grass in 2000, attractions added in the midway in 2006), but what else happened to the track? Anything removed, adjusted, etc?
- The only overhaul mentioned is of the midway which was attractions being added. Lvi56 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have expanded on construction of the track. Lvi56 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- In attendance problems, you say fans complained of boring races, do you have any quotes or analysis from experts? You also briefly talk about factors leading to the decision by NASCAR to take away one race, was there any debate on this? Some promises by the track's operators to try to address the concerns in an attempt to keep the 2nd race, etc?
- I have expanded upon this section 05:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- In fatalities, you basically just have a description of the accident. Was there any criticism of the track operators or talk about construction defects in the track that led to the death?
- I've added some additional info and re-worded it a bit to hopefully clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvi56 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Auto Club Speedway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212120327/http://www.pe.com:80/sports/projects/2007/10years/ to http://www.pe.com/sports/projects/2007/10years/#
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531214158/http://www.danspitstopracing.com:80/greg_moore to http://www.danspitstopracing.com/greg_moore
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Auto Club Speedway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816083642/http://www.trackpedia.com:80/wiki/California_Speedway to http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/California_Speedway
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 3 June 2023
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This discussion is a bit hard to follow since a technical move from Next Gen California to Auto Club Speedway was completed during the course of it. If a move is still desired, suggest making a new RM with reasoning that matches the article's current name. (non-admin closure) WPscatter t/c 14:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Auto Club Speedway → California Speedway – "Next Gen California" is not the name of the speedway, it's the name of the renovation/reconstruction project. That's not the name of the place. The previous sponsored name "Auto Club Speedway" is, of course, outdated. This article should be moved back to "California Speedway". oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Support speedy moveto whatever the title was before it was moved to this bizarre title, before reopening the discussion about what title the article should actually have. "Next Gen California" is factually inaccurate and fails basically every WP:CRITERIA there is. I honestly can't tell if the move was a very-misguided good-faith attempt at updating the article or just vandalism. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- Update: I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests that the title be restored to Auto Club Speedway since "Next Gen California" is uncontroversially an incorrect title for this article. This action is not a statement of support for retaining that title in the long term. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I completely agree that the current title was a good faith mistake (obviously), but I don't think restoring the outdated sponsorship name is a good idea. The fact that the sponsorship ended is well reported and sourced in the article, and even using sponsored names for sports venues is a somewhat controversial practice on Wikipedia. (There are those who say they lack stability and play into POV promotional purposes Then again, there are those that say using less common non-sponsored names itself is a non-NPOV thing in light of WP:COMMONNAME.) Using the original non-sponsored name, which was clearly the common name before the sponsorship, allows for the title to avoid being clearly outdated and also avoid the obvious mistake of the current title. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: I requested that that title be restored simply because the article was erroneously moved to an incorrect title without discussion. While I agree that we should move this article away from the "Auto Club Speedway", it remains a correct title for the venue (see WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRESENTISM), even if it isn't a preferable one to use. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I completely agree that the current title was a good faith mistake (obviously), but I don't think restoring the outdated sponsorship name is a good idea. The fact that the sponsorship ended is well reported and sourced in the article, and even using sponsored names for sports venues is a somewhat controversial practice on Wikipedia. (There are those who say they lack stability and play into POV promotional purposes Then again, there are those that say using less common non-sponsored names itself is a non-NPOV thing in light of WP:COMMONNAME.) Using the original non-sponsored name, which was clearly the common name before the sponsorship, allows for the title to avoid being clearly outdated and also avoid the obvious mistake of the current title. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support moving title away from "Auto Club Speedway" - Unsure if "California Speedway" or some variation on "Fontana" is a better title. The "Auto Club Speedway" title is relatively commonly used in sources from the period where it had that title sponsorship, however, I believe "Fontana" is actually the WP:COMMONNAME of the venue, (see Autosport, Crash.net, USA Today, Associated Press) although any variant on that title would need to be disambiguated. "California Speedway" is the current WP:OFFICIALNAME, but is also more WP:RECOGNISABLE than "Auto Club Speedway" in that it at least specifies which US state the venue is located in, whereas "Auto Club Speedway" is an extremely generic name and could frankly be located almost anywhere. "California Speedway" is also a stable title, being the original name of the venue when it opened and not being tied to any ephemeral title sponsors. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: I wouldn't mind moving the page to "California Speedway" but I feel like people called the track "Auto Club" more than "California", even when Auto Club was the title sponsor, which is unlike a track like Gateway which name with sponsorship, "World Wide Technology Raceway", is a mouthful, unlike "Auto Club Speedway". In fact, I feel like people called the track "Fontana" more than "California" (likely because of Sonoma Raceway also being in the state of California). Therefore, I would prefer the title "Auto Club Speedway" stay despite Auto Club not being the title sponsor anymore but I wouldn't mind and do understand if the page is moved to "California Speedway" because of their title sponsorship ending. Cavanaughs (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 29 July 2023
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. While generally having a split consensus, there is a lack of any evidence for WP:COMMONNAME with regards to the proposed title. Any editor is free to open a new RM with evidence pointing towards the proposed title being the common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Auto Club Speedway → California Speedway – Race track is currently called "California Speedway". Eurohunter (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support As I did when I proposed a move last month. The Auto Club Speedway name is outdated and WP:NAMECHANGES applies when determining the common name. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Mark McWire (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Long overdue. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 20:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
WeakOppose WP:NAMECHANGES requires WP:RS after the change that support that the new name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Is there actual evidence of this? glman (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Update, still no sources provided to support that the WP:COMMONNAME right now is not Auto Club Speedway. Removing "weak" from my comment. glman (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Support per WP:NOTPROMO. Wikipedia does not exist to cater to the highest bidder of an entitlement sponsorship. Proposed target is official, concise and informative and there is no evidence that "Auto Club Speedway" was ever the COMMONNAME. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's plenty of evidence that it was the common name from the time period it was the name already in the article. But it no longer is, so it should be changed. But your !vote is incorrect in assuming that we never should use a sponsored name. If it is the most common name there is no reason to avoid it. To do such is itself biased in contradiction with NOTPROMO. The sole reason to move this article is the name is outdated, not because it was sponsored. oknazevad (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Neutral and descriptive title. Conforms with WP:NOTPROMO. As the original name of the venue it can continue to be used as the article title while retaining WP:RECOGNISABILITY even if the circuit gets renamed to something else. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: No evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, despite such assertions. This claim was disputed in the previous RfC; evidence of this needs to be presented. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Regretfully Oppose While it has been renamed post 2023, there are no more notable events happening at this configuration of the track. I think per WP:COMMONNAME, since 2008 this track has been referred to far more commonly as either Auto Club Speedyway or Fontana than it has been California Speedway. If over the next span of months, the speedway is referred to far more commonly as California Speedway than at present, I think another WP:RM should happen, but in my view it has not yet hit the usage needed for it to be the common name. Almost anything I can find from RS as of late refer to it as ACS with California Speedway at best in a parenthetical. TartarTorte 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Like BilledMammal said in their relisting comment, no evidence for WP:COMMONNAME is provided. If the situation still ramains the same after seven days, this may get closed as no consensus by any experienced uninvolved editor. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)