Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

WRC teams' national flags

I've found some inconsisties regarding the nationality (flagicon) of Hyundai Motorsport motorsport, sometimes apeearing with Korean flag and others with German flag (for example 2016 World Rally Championship vs 2017 World Rally Championship). For me, like Toyota's Motorsports teams, since its an official team, its a japanese team, although Toyota Team Europe (WRC 1993-1999), F1 or WEC team is based in Cologne, Germany, or the current Toyota Gazoo Racing WRC is based on Finland. Several official F1 teams are based in England and they are not British. So, we should stick to nationality of the Master/Mother-Company (Hyundai-Korea) or base? And for the remaining official teams with a HQ in other country besides the Master-Company?Rpo.castro (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a good question. In the 2016 season's page there is a source next to Hyundai's entry, which states that it is a German-based squad. Whereas, there is no such information about this in the 2017 season's page. I changed the flag to German and pointed people to this discussion if they disagree or want to clarify. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It is whatever the team decides to be, actually. Just because Toyota is Japanese does not inherently mean all their teams are Japanese. ByKolles, and by extension their previous entry under Lotus, ran as German (2012), Czech (2013), Romanian (2014), and Austrian (2015-2017). By extension, Audi's Le Mans racing teams have been entered as German and American, even when they were run by Joest Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

And it can change year on year. Just because they were German in 2016, that does not automatically mean that they are German in 2017. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

And where are the sources that would confirm that they race under South Korean flag this year? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The old WRC site. Where are your sources that say it is still German? After all, there was a consensus formed on the talk page agreeing that it is Korean. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, they play the Korean national anthem when Hyundai win rallies, not the German anthem. In the same way, they play the British anthem for M-Sport, Japanese for Toyota, and French for Citroën. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You could have just pointed people to that discussion instead of going "your way" like always. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And you could have looked at the article talk page first, instead of swooping in and making changes without understanding the issue the way you always do. After all, the Korean flag is used four times in the article, not once. You clearly didn't read it; you just assumed that because they competed under a German licence in 2016, they're still German in 2017. Plus, the argument that "they're German because they're based in Germany" holds no weight—Toyota is based in Finland, but competes under a Japanese licence (and like Hyundai with the Korean anthem, the Japanese article is played when Toyota wins), but you made no attempt to change that. Could you at least read an article and try to understand it before coming to a conclusion?

Besides, I didn't decide anything. I made a change that kept the article internally consistent and reflected a consensus on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"the way you always do" I wonder when I did that? It is useless to discuss anything with you as you always get into conflicts with everyone at the project. I am not going to bother to discuss with someone who shows arrogance in every single post. Good luck. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Recognise the merits of your edits? There were none. You have a reputation on the Formula One articles for charging in and making edits without thinking about it. You clearly didn't make any attempt to understand the content of the article here. Is it too much to ask that you read the article and the talk page before making edits? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not have such reputation on the F1 articles so stop imagining things. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys and Sabbatino, lets leave the past where it belongs and forget old wars.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think when its a official team, its is running under the Manufacturer flag. The anthem is a good argument, and most of media (if not all) refers to Hyundai as Korean, Toyota as japanese. Even their victories are combined to make a balance between german vs japanese teams (for example Mazda being the only japanese winner in Le Mans despite the importance for Japan, highlighted during 2016 Le Mans, when Toyota almost won).

ByKolles is a different case (probably more complex), its a private company. But if you look at Toyota Team Europe, until 1993 was a private team founded by Ove Anderson and had in some years, some support from Toyota, but still private until Toyota bought the full team. From that moment on for me is a japanese. It responds to the mother-company in every important matters, like shutting down the team.

Besides, as a oficcial team, it can run for manufacturer championship. So if it represents the manufacturer, the flag must be the same as the manufacturer. The same facilities of TTE were used as HQ for Toyota WEC and F1 teams and they were always considered japanese. Renault F1 has a base in Enstone (some times Renault F1 is called "the team from enstone" in media) and nobody says its english, neither Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 team, based in Brackley or Sauber, or WTCC Honda team (running by JAS Motorsport).

Just to add some more confusion, in WRC official website, Hyundai apeears as based on Germany, while Toyota as based on Japan, which for me makes no sense.

PS forgot to fullfill the description of the topic, and so this was post under an existing one.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It works the same way as it does in Formula 1. A team registers with the national sporting body that then issues them with a licence to compete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And that means that the nationality of a team isn't automatically the same of the manufacturer running it. For instance, American manufacturer Ford ran a F1 team which competed with a British nationality.T v x1 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

But Jaguar was a British brand belonging to Ford. Chrysler and Dodge belongs to Fiat S.p.A. Would you say they are italian? For Hyundai, are they running with a german license?Rpo.castro (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not the point. The F1 team was owned, run and funded by the American Ford Motor Company. Yet they opted to run it with a British identity.T v x1 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For Hyundai, are they running with a german license?

No, they're running a South Korean licence. They were running a German licence previously, but now they're Korean. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Racing drivers born in YYYY" categories

FYI, an editor has created numerous "Racing drivers born in YYYY" categories (e.g. Category:Racing drivers born in 1962), which I have nominated for deletion, on the basis that we don't usually have "<profession> born in YYYY" categories. Interested editors may participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I gave him a warning yesterday about adding non existent categories and then he started creating them. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Kush Maini for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kush Maini is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kush Maini until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

notice

New Taskforce : Superleague

Hello members of wikiproject Motorsport! As the closing user, I would like to inform you that wikiproject Superleague Formula has been merged to yours as a taskforce after a discussion.

16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New Taskforce : A1 Grand Prix

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/taskforce/A1 Grand Prix, I have moved the wikiproject A1 Grand Prix to a taskforce of this wikiproject. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/taskforce/A1 Grand Prix. All sub pages have also been moved. Please check the task force and add/correct any content/links as appropriate. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jim Russell (racing driver)

Should "Jim" be removed from the lead at Jim Russell (racing driver), in favour of 'Herbert James Russell'? See Talk:Jim Russell (racing driver)#WP:ALTNAME Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't there when I looked just now, so I put in "commonly called 'Jim'", seeing the pagename isn't Herbert Russell...& explanatory notes for even obvious cases (like Dick Bong) aren't exactly uncommon. (It also helps explain why some are "Richard", some are "Dick", & some are "Graham"...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Jim is a common diminutive of James, one of his given names, so by the letter of the guideline it need not be included at all. There is no law says you must use your first given name or a derivative thereof. As for the "commonly called Jim" bit, that is rather clumsy and entirely unnecessary in these common cases (Dick, Rick, Rich, Richard, etc.) as the article's title and the title of the infobox is enough to tell people what the subject is commonly called. Personally, I disagree with WP:NICKNAME and seen no problem whatsoever in including the subject's common nickname in quotations within the full name, as this practice is very widespread and well understood outside of Wikipedia. This is a much more elegant and succinct solution to the issue that Trekphiler mentions than creating a repetitious clause immediately following the subject's name. Pyrop e 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the pagename, you may be right about "commonly" being unnecessary, but I've run into editors on the Bong page changing "Richard Ira" to "Dick", which defeats the purpose of having his full name to begin with. "Commonly" satisfies both parts of the equation, if a bit clumsily. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and that's why I disagree with WP:NICKNAME, as Richard Ira "Dick" Bong is a more simple and elegant solution to both problems. However, the MoS argues against presenting a common hypocorism in this way. Daft. Pyrop e 14:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a general practice regarding the use of a nickname/commonname in the lead sentence. Searching around I found William Jefferson Clinton, James Earl Carter, James Robert Stewart but also John Ellis "Jeb" Bush Sr., Robert Francis 'Bobby" Kennedy, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy. Also Sir John Young "Jackie" Stewart, Paul Richard "Richie" Ginther, Massimiliano "Max" Papis, Alessandro "Alex" Zanardi, Teodorico "Teo" Fabi, Joseph "Jo" Schlesser, Joseph "Jo" Siffert, Alfred "Al" Unser. On the other hand we also have Keijo Erik Rosberg, known as "Keke" and Jyrki Juhani Järvilehto, better known as "JJ Lehto".

The difference between de facto and de jure practices. I don't see an issue with leaving a common contraction/diminutive out of the lead line name, in line with the suggestion at WP:NICKNAME, but also don't see a problem with including one and I'd argue that the "XX" form is preferable to an immediately subsequent clause that starts 'commonly known as...' Lehto is something of a special case as his common name isn't a simple diminutive, but more like an old fashioned nom de course in the ilk of B. Bira or Pierre Levegh. Pyrop e 16:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"the MoS argues against presenting a common hypocorism in this way. Daft." No, it's not. Whatever name he's known by, it's not his name at birth (or, as Mrs Petty famously remarked, "If we'd wanted him called Dick, we'd have named him Dick."). IMO, the MoS is perfectly right on that, & when I find the "embedded" presentation, I change it, for that reason. In addition, that formulation allows for other nicknames, as in the case of Alberto Ascari or (to toot my own horn) John Bradley. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is absolutely daft. This sort of construction is utterly standard across many forms of written media in English: newspaper obituaries, biographies, encyclopedic entries, etc etc. Your argument holds no water as there is clearly no implication that the nickname forms part of their proper name; that's what the (again, completely standard) quotation marks show. This form of construction is endorsed by the MoS for uncommon diminutive and non-derived nicknames, and is only argued against for common forms because of the assumption (clearly not a good assumption) that readers don't need common forms explicitly stated. I am very aware that you are unilaterally altering articles to your preferred construction, and I'm afraid that I do find it ugly, inelegant, and clumsy. Pyrop e 02:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix

Template:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Motorsport. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject Superleague Formula

Template:WikiProject Superleague Formula has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Motorsport. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

24 Hours of LeMons

I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at 24 Hours of LeMons. Recently, there have been attempts to tweak the name from LeMons to LEMONS/Lemons by new SPAs (I think it might be the same person). I've been trying to verifying any name change, but haven't been able to find the sources. I've also tried to get the editor(s) to discuss the changes on the talk page, but have no luck so far. If name change can be verified, then maybe the page should be moved so that it is not only reflected within the article, but also in the title. In addition, the infobox logo appears to still be the one used by the event, but changing the file name like these editor's have been doing will not work because file names (like article titles) also need to be moved to be changed. Anyway, any feedback or others watching the article would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Drivers for deletion

Vivien Keszthelyi, Ole Kristian Temte and Josh Burdon are all autobiographies and neither comply with notability guidelines. For notability I would also consider adding the following for a potential deletion: Christian Lundgaard, Presley Martono, Jamie Caroline, Aleksey Korneev and Tuomas Tujula. I would also pay close attention to some of the more recent driver article creations by User:Poppo154, which contain a lot of information but potentially no relevance. 2001:8003:2142:F500:C549:D14A:7B3:1D4 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:2001:8003:2142:F500:C549:D14A:7B3:1D4, thanks for the feedback, which drivers do you mean? Poppo154 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

About Magnum Cars

Hi motorsport people. I've just kicked off this article. I note that what appears to be its website - http://magnumcars.ca - is up for sale. Is this a notable motorsports marque? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Statistics in WRC tables

Recently, User:Pelmeen10 has taken to adding statistics tables to WRC season articles, most notably 2010 World Rally Championship and 2011 World Rally Championship. I have explained that these are both trivia and statistics and that they just repeat imformation from the results matrices, but he refuses to listen. Perhaps if enough editors point this out, he will start to listen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't added them. Look history, they have been there a long time (it was updated after each rally, and not be me). I just reverted your edits, because I don't think removing this info is justified. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been there in the first place. They don't actually contribute anything to the article because everything in them is already addressed elsewhere and presented in a much better way. They're completely redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn't exist on their own I think, as they include information about points which is already presented. Perhaps the columns can be tacked on to the end of the championship tables? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mattbuck — the whole thing is completely unnecessary. The statistics table contains details of starts, finishes, wins, podiums, points and the like, but all of that detail is already covered elsewhere in the article. The only thing that is not covered is the number of stage wins, but stage wins carry no value. It would be as meaningless as adding a table showing the number of laps a driver completed in each session (practice, qualifying and race) of a Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, imho, it's a good summary, also "wikitable sortable" gives number of options that you can't get from existing table. What about adding stage wins somewhere? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It summarises content that is already summarised elsewhere, and is thus completely unnecessary.

As for stage wins, they are worth nothing. You could win every stage of a rally, only to retire on the final stage and you won't get anything for it. They are little more than trivia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

2018 IndyCar Series

It would be good if someone could keep an eye on 2018 IndyCar Series page as certain people tend to change the format of schedule without giving any proper reason. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Your version, which I had reverted, contained nonsense, see [1] (f.e. IndyCap) I did not notice that it was not from you, but you dragged it from another version. --Mark McWire (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FIA Global Pathway

Recently the FIA announced the creation of a new Formula 3 championship (from 2019) to go alongside Formula 2 and complete the FIA Global Pathway. With this in mind, I would like to bring the Formula 2 and Formula 3 articles in line with Formula 1 and emphasise the connections between the three (a bit like MotoGP, Moto2 and Moto3). To do this, I would like to get a consensus to structure Formula 2 and Formula 3 articles along the same lines as Formula 1 in terms of their content, format and style (most of this already exists, so it's going to be little things like using centre alignment in the driver number and rounds columns of the entry table), but also to create dedicated round report articles and to increase the overlap between Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Question on nationality

Various IPs have changed the nationality of Dario Franchitti from British to Scottish in numerous articles. Examples of this can found here, here, here and here. The main Franchitti article was edited to change his nationality in April, again by an IP. I noticed this because one of the articles on my watchlist had a similar edit, and I don't know how nationality is normally handled for British drivers. Were the edits correct or should they be reverted? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is the FIA recognises Great Britain and not each home nation individually, therefore he should be listed as British. But I don't have a source handy to back that up. Mattlore (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Franchitti is British. Same as Irvine is British, Coulthard is British or di Resta is British. They all should be reverted. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no particular axe to grind either way, but what is your argument in support of that? For most drivers their official competition nationality is set by the FIA, matching either their passport or licence nationality, depending on the series. Franchitti is notable for his participation in non-FIA competitions, so is applying FIA criteria really justified? Pyrop e 15:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Indycar and the other American bodies that are affiliated with the FIA still use the same rules on licences and nationality. The main purpose of ACCUS is to deal with international licences and the like, and Indycar is even nominally regarded by the FIA as a national championship. CART, which Franchitti of course participated in, was actually an FIA international series in the 2000s, so I would definitely say the FIA criteria is relevant. QueenCake (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

They list other British drivers as British as well, so I don't really see why an exception should be made solely for Franchitti. All racing drivers from the United Kingdom use a license from the British Racing Drivers' Club.T v x1 18:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen Indycar TV graphics with English and Scottish flags, but it should be changed back to British - at the very least for the sake of consistency with other British drivers in the results tables. Boothy m (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Since it looks like there's a consensus forming that he should be listed as British, I'm going to change his nationality back to that in the articles that now list him as Scottish. I was leaning towards reverting them before, but wanted to be sure. Thanks again for the input. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Motorsport

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice

1980 Stock Car Brasil season has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WP:F1

Over at the WP:F1 talk page, there is currently an RfC asking:

For post-2013 articles, should each unique entry in the Teams and Drivers table be defined as a driver/team/number/car combination or as a driver/team/number combination?

Any input from the wider motor-sport community would be greatly appreciated. Please respond at the RfC discussion and not on this talk page. Thank you. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move proposal

A proposal to move some WRC articles has been made here. Any additional opinion is welcome.T v x1 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of flags with Manufacturers

User:Vettelisthebest adding to the 2016 Intercontinental GT Challenge and other Intercontinental GT Challenge articles flagicons to manufacturers. This is an WP:Original research. Because unlike the teams and drivers, the manufacturers hadn't any racing license. He can't even provide a source that Intercontinental GT Challenge manufacturers represent any country. What are your thoughts on that issue? 18:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

SRO Motorsports stuff is tricky because it's not an FIA run series. It is likely that, since there is a manufacturers championship that manufacturers are registered and have a designated nationality. On the same token, manufacturer flags are currently used on all FIA WEC articles, and I believe WTCC does as well. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that there is a Manufacturers' championship and trophies are handed out to manufacturers. Manufacturers represent their country in the Intercontinental GT Challenge as much as manufacturers represent their country in Formula One, the FIA World Endurance Championship and the World Touring Car Championship. I don't see why it would be any different in IntGTC than in the before named championships and other series. Even on IndyCar pages, engine constructors have flagicons. Vettelisthebest (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And do you have any evidence of that claim. Do you have any documents that mention the manufacturer's nationalities. Are the national anthems of the manufacturers played whenever they win a race, like they do in one? Just because there is a manufacturers championship, it doesn't automatically mean their nationalities have any importance.T v x1 20:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

On Pages 3 and 4 of the rulebook (http://www.racb.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Intercontinental_GT_Challenge_Sporting_Regulations_S2.pdf), you can see it's all about manufacturers in the Intercontinental GT Challenge. At http://www.intercontinentalgtchallenge.com/news/998/2016-intercontinental-gt-challenge-champions-handed-unique-trophies, you can see that trophies are handed out to manufacturers. I believe that flagicons at manufacturers' names give the needed information. Also, in Formula One it's not the national anthem of the manufacturers being played; it's the anthem of the teams, as shown on page 45 of the Formula One rulebook (https://www.fia.com/file/54256/download/18381?token=lMCfyJzf). Don't come with facts that aren't true, Tvx1. I've shown enough evidence that flagicons at manufacturers' names aren't any different than on other pages. If flagicons aren't necessary on IntGTC pages, they aren't necessary anywhere. Vettelisthebest (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Those sources only prove that there is a manucfacturers' championship and that they receive trophies. Nobody is contesting that. The sources don't however show any evidence that their nationalities carry any importance, let alone receive a special recognition, which is what's been queried here. And regarding F1, it's the national anthem of the constructors. There is a constructors' championship, not a teams' championship.T v x1 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vettelisthebest, just provide a source that manufacturer have a designated nationality, like in the FIA World Endurance Championship. We need a clear evidence, not assumptions. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To counter the argument, the WEC website listing flags does not inherently show that the nationality is important either. I don't see much problem with listing a flag alongside a manufacturer's name, major automotive manufacturers are fairly clear cut when it comes to their nationality. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is an issue not about importance of the nationality. It is an issue about verifiability. If you have seen List of Formula One constructors, you should notice that sometimes constructors used different racing license at some point of their existence (Benetton, Renault, Marussia/Virgin, Shadow). So all I ask is a clear and direct source to verify their designated nationality each season. If we can't prove it, then we can't add it. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case we don't have that problem, because the manufacturers are represent by diferent teams along the season. SRO prefers local teams over factory teams, so Audi might be represented by a Australian team in Bartusch and Belgian in Spa, but the manufacturer will be only one. About proof of identity of manufacturers, is like asking if the Pope is catholic. This competition puts efforts on manufacturers instead of teams (and even drivers) so makes sense adding nationality. Refering to Audi being german and winning IGTC https://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2017/12/winkelhock-audi-pick-intercontinental-gt-challenge-trophies/ and https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-defends-title-in-intercontinental-gt-challenge-9542.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

According to your analogy if Renault F1 is the Pope, then in 2011 the Pope was protestant. We need a clear source that Audi manufacturer registered as German representative in the Intercontinental GT Challenge. Your sources don't contain all the manufacturers and don't confirm that Audi had German registration. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides the fact that a. the regulations of said organizers aren't Wikipedia's rules and b. "national representation" is done through nationally representing bodies--in the case of the Olympics, for instance, there are national Olympic committees, and in athletics, soccer, etc., there are national sports committees who decide which athletes get to represent their country in a World Cup or European championship, and so on. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And in motorsports, a national motorsports governing body fulfills this taks where necessary. I haven't seen any evidence yet that this applies to this category of motorsport.T v x1 19:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you expect me to take you seriously, when you're disputing clear facts, Tvx1? On page 45 of the Formula One rulebook it says "The national anthem of the winning driver and winning team will be played." Don't then tell me they play the national anthem of the constructors.
I still don't see a difference between manufacturers in Formula One and the Intercontinental GT Challenge. It's hard to find evidence that for example Bentley is registered as a British manufacturer in the Intercontinental GT Challenge - though it's easy to see that it is registered as a British manufacturer in general - with the series website being an absolute mess. I'm fine with flagicons at manufacturers' names being removed, but it should be removed everywhere then. On Formula One pages, literally the only "source" for flagicons of manufacturers is common sense. The source for the Entry list on the 2018 F1 season page is this: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2018/2018-f1-entry-list. I don't see any prove there of what countries the manufacturers come from. Nor do I see prove at https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2017/team.html. As long as nobody can provide prove for other pages that have flagicons at manufacturers' names, I stand by the fact that flagicons at manufacturers' names matter on the Intercontinental GT Challenge pages. Vettelisthebest (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Do your research more clearly please. The nationalities can easily be found here. The national anthems are played following the races as well.T v x1 17:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You just gave me a source showing teams and not constructors. Also, if that is the source you would like to use for the 2018 F1 Entry list, all the team names on Wikipedia are wrong then. So why give me a source that shows nothing to prove your point? Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If you would bother to do your research more thoroughly you would find that the the FIA and F1.com use the words team and constructor interchangeably. In fact the source you provided actually has a column named "team" in the constructors championship's table. It's the nationalities of those competitors that are listed in the page I linked to.T v x1 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can't find a source that Bentley is registered as a British manufacturer in the Intercontinental GT Challenge, then don't add your assumption to the encyclopedia. We can't add information based on our knowing that in general some manufacturer represents one country. In accordance with your logic, we should list Renault F1 as French even in 2011, because in general they are French. If you think that flags should be removed from Formula One constructors — start a discussion at WP:F1. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Renault was always french. Its a french car manufacturer. The team Renault F1 is not equal to Renault like Toyota Gazoo is not equal to Toyota. We cant say Audi its german or Renault french? Maybe we have to change their articles. And their registration is not legal on WP eyes.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What about 2011 then, if "Renault was always french"? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What is even the point of this discussion, when you refuse to know and acknowledge the difference between teams and manufacturers, Corvus tristis? Rpo.castro said that Renault F1 as a team is not equal to Renault as a manufacturer. However in Intercontinental GT, for example Porsche as a manufacturer in IntGTC is equal to Porsche as a manufacturer in general.
I'm using the same common sense assumption, when it comes to flagicons at manufacturers' names, like everybody else. Audi is for example a German manufacturer, McLaren is a British manufacturer, Reiter Engineering is a German manufacturer, therefore German, British and German flags correspond with the manufacturers' names, respectively. There is not more to it, just like on other pages. Vettelisthebest (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No you just assume those are the nationalities and you have not given any source at all demonstrating that the manufacturers nationalities has even the slightest bit of importance in this championship.T v x1 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Vettelisthebest, I pretty well know difference between manufacturers in general and the teams that represent that manufacturers. The point is that Renault F1 as constructor was British in 2011. Manufacturer in IntGTC isn't equal to Porsche as a manufacturer in general. It is just an identity which uses the same name, like a constructor in Formula One. PROsport Porsche isn't manufacturer in general, it is manufacturer only in IntGTC. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have prove that Porsche as a manufacturer in IntGTC isn't equal to Porsche as a manufacturer in general? Evidence has to come from your side to, you know. I feel like you're using your common sense now to say that manufacturers in IntGTC aren't equal to manufacturers in general. Vettelisthebest (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"PROsport Porsche" is a manufacturer in general? It is your obligation to provide the source, as you are adding the flags. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Silly question, but what proof is there that manufacturers have registered a nationality with the FIA in the WEC and other series? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Championship standings and national anthems on the podium (not sure about WEC, but it is true for F1). While in IntGTC we haven't any confirmation for nationalities of manufacturers. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That does not confirm anything. The WEC could equally be using the same method that Vettelisbest is using. As you said, manufacturers do not hold licenses, so where is the information coming from? The³5₉ (Talk) 06:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about their method but at least we could reference to the championship standings. In the IntGTC we reference only on our knowledge that in general Audi is German and Bentley is British. If the standings don't confirm anything (I can't understand why, because it is an official site of the series), I see no problems to remove flags from WEC manufacturers as well. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lets get off all the flags from most of autosport articles. I don't know how can someone said the germans have 34 victories in Lemans. Or the sources about the sport licenses for 1959 or something for F1 championship. Questioning about manufacturers nationality? Considering a team that only tunes cars, as manufacturer? Like Kimi Raikkonen said, bwoah.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Race numbering under Calendar

Do you see a point of having every race numbered (like we currently have in WRC)? Can't see any other motosport doing that.

Current situation in 2015 World Rally Championship:

Round	Dates	Rally name	Rally headquarters	Surface
1	22–25 January	83ème Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo	Gap, Hautes-Alpes	Mixed
2	13–15 February	63rd Rally Sweden	Hagfors, Värmland	Snow
3	6–8 March	29º Rally Guanajuato México	León, Guanajuato	Gravel
4	24–26 April	35º Xion Rally Argentina	Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba	Gravel
5	22–24 May	49º Vodafone Rally de Portugal	Matosinhos, Porto	Gravel
6	12–14 June	12º Rally d'Italia Sardegna	Alghero, Sardinia	Gravel
7	3–5 July	72nd LOTOS Rally Poland	Mikołajki, Warmia-Masuria	Gravel
8	31 July–2 August	65th Neste Oil Rally Finland	Jyväskylä, Keski-Suomi	Gravel
9	21–23 August	33. ADAC Rallye Deutschland	Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate	Tarmac
10	11–13 September	24th Coates Hire Rally Australia	Coffs Harbour, New South Wales	Gravel
11	2–4 October	58ème Tour de Corse	Ajaccio, Corse-du-Sud	Tarmac
12	23–25 October	51º Rally RACC Catalunya – Costa Daurada	Salou, Tarragona	Mixed
13	13–15 November	71st Wales Rally GB	Deeside, Flintshire	Gravel

Most of the rallies don't actually include that number in the rally name. It quite hard to actually find sources to support the current situation. I think it would make more sense to just link Rally Monte Carlo, Rally Sweden etc. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Most of the rallies don't actually include that number in the rally name."

How would you define "most"? Because they all do it.

"Can't see any other motosport doing that."

But rallying does.

"It quite hard to actually find sources to support the current situation."

Except for the entry lists and itineraries that are already used in the article.

"I think it would make more sense to just link Rally Monte Carlo, Rally Sweden etc."

Why? So far all you have said amounts to "I don't like it".

Also, you're already putting this proposal forward at 2018 FIA World Rally Championship. It's extremely poor etiquette to do this. It looks like you're trying to establish a second consensus so that if the first does not go your way, you refer to the second to justify changing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm putting it also here to get more opinions. You seem to be only one opposing there, so as part of WP Motosport, I felt the need. Which exact link puts those rally names in a calendar this way? Please provide me that link, because I can't find any from any WRC season's article. [2] [3] [4] What do we gain by adding something that the sources don't? I even went to each rally's home page, they don't put those names this way. Other motosport season (like F1) have figured better and more logical solution. Like Tvx1 said "It’s not the purpose of a season article to provide individual background to the rallies". Wikilinking like this [[Rally Sweden|63rd Rally Sweden]] just looks wrong. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you took the 2015 WRC example and you saw a problem but the wrong problem. You have [[Rally Sweden|63rd Rally Sweden]] because nobody notice and correct that to 2017 Rally Sweden. And as you can read in each WRC event "The 2017 Rally Sweden (formally known as the 65th Rally Sweden)". This happen with most of the rallies if not with every. Speaking for my country, each long lasting event is refered (advertising and promotion) by the number of editions. Its XXth Rally of Portugal instead of 20xx Rally (the same with Falperra International Hill Climb for example). So its a question of correcting the wikilinks. About you having problems finding that, I didn't have any. For example http://acm.mc/en/edition/rallye-monte-carlo-edition-2018/ where is clearly stated 86e or 86th (depending language settings) Rally de Monte Carlo. So for me there isn't a problem, there isn't anything to fix besides correcting the wikilinks.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

But none says "83ème", ewrc-results.com puts them all "XX. Rally" (source that adds numbering to calendar, but not wrc.com or fia.com or news sites). Tour de Course, Rally Argentina, Rally Deutschland, Finland has the year "20XX". Didn't find numbering at Rally Australia, Wales Rally GB. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"But none says "83ème", ewrc-results.com puts them all "XX. Rally""

The individual rallies have the right to call themselves what they want to. If a source from the organisers of Monte Carlo call their event "86ème Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo", then that source should take priority. What you're proposing is the same as you being forced to call yourself "Jim" because I have decided that you are not "Pelmeen10", even if that's the name you want to use.

"source that adds numbering to calendar, but not wrc.com or fia.com or news sites"

Maybe try some other sources for once. These seem to be the only two sites you rely on.

We do not need a source to say that the 86th event follows the 85th. That's the same as saying we need a source to say that 2018 follows 2017. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

PM, you are arguing against yourself now. On the one hand you claim that we should use the ordinal numbers because that's how the rallies are called by others, the organizers and the sanctioning body, but when presented with evidence that they are not routinely or commonly referred to by their ordinals you then argue that we don't need a source because one event follows the other. Which position are you advocating here? The fact that in the table the ordinals are presented as part of what appears to be some sort of formal name (else why present them in the languages of origin?) means that, yes, you do need a source. So provide them and stop trying to blether your way out of a corner. Pyrop e 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"why present them in the languages of origin?"

Because that is the name by which they are commonly referred to. Why does everyone have such a difficult time understanding this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Commonly"?? Cobblers. Sources please, as previously requested and pointedly not provided. Pyrop e 00:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sources please, as previously requested and pointedly not provided."

Don't interpret my failure to provide sources just now as an inability to provide sources. I wanted clarification on a particular point before I provided any sources because I knew that if I provided sources in response to an unclear comment, you'd pounce on it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Monkey see, monkey don't do. So now your failure to provide evidence to back up your claims is someone else's fault? Mine? That's hilarious. The only point that is unclear is yours, and still you haven't provided any evidence to support it, whichever of your contradictory claims it is. Blowhard. Pyrop e 10:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blowhard."

I have some fairly strong opinions about you and your particular style of editing, but I keep them to myself because it helps me assume good faith in your edits and I have no desire to engage in mud-slinging. The least you can do is have the common courtesy to treat others the same way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's nice for you. However, while you continue to disrespect other editors by attempting to shout them down while providing no evidence for your own point of view please don't expect any respect for your abilities to be forthcoming from this quarter. Also, AGF has nothing to do with this, as you might know if you had ever bothered to read that policy page. As usual, though, you haven't, and you are rather lamely attempting to use it as a blue-link bludgeon to cow people who disagree with you into submission. You are, I repeat, a blowhard. Put up or shut up. Pyrop e 13:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I gave you the opportunity to keep it civil. Since you have chosen not to, you can take it up with the admins at ANI. The rules about personal attacks—however tame they may be—apply to all of us, no matter how justified you think you may be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, although I note that this response still doesn't include any form of response to the fundamental point. Deflect, deflect, deflect... Pyrop e 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify anything you say with a response until such time as you lose the condescending attitude. This may come as a shock, but people can disagree with you and they're not automatically idiots for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pot-kettle, yadda yadda. More empty words and evasive posturing. I love people disagreeing with me, it opens eyes and broadens minds. However, when they do so I expect them to provide proof and sound reasoning. You fail on both counts. Pyrop e 20:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rpo.castro, no-one is claiming that rallies don't have a formal name. The question we're asking is why is it so important to use these full formal names in our calendars in season the articles. Surely these belong in the individual articles on the rallies in question. We don't use these names in any calendar for other motorsport season articles, so why should we make an exception for rallying?T v x1 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"We don't use these names in any calendar for other motorsport season articles"

Do you have examples of these formal names from other categories (even if they aren't used in the articles)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I already provided some from Formula One in the discussion on the 2018 WRC talk page.T v x1 23:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And you know my feelings about making edits in one article based on edits in another. We have to make the edits to the WRC articles based on what is in the interests of the WRC articles, not based on what is in the interests of F1 articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ofcourse. F1 and other motosports season articles are brought in just for a comparison. But other arguements stand strong. If this calendar can't be verified and every source has it own way (looks like it), then that's a good reason to find a better solution. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There are more solutions than "they all have the numbers or none of them do". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10 But none says "83ème", ewrc-results.com puts them all "XX. Rally" Is it me or ewrc-results.com use "85. Rallye Automobile de Monte-Carlo 2017" here?Rpo.castro (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"ème" is the French equivalent of "th". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes that site has "85. ..." for 2017 rally and "83. ..." for 2015 rally. The question is, is it necessary to have numbers on every season calendar, or just 2017 Monte Carlo Rally. They have those on Monte Carlo Rally page aswell. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm having serious doubts that your campaing have a good faith basis. ewrc-results.com (one of the sources and pointed by you to this conversation) uses that in every WRC event, which is common in a great amount of reliable sources (also spoken before). So far I haven't identified any problem regarding the article, only a thing that you dn't like.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the rally homepages, they don't seem to be part of some official name (is it a common name? - no). I have asked a source from Prisonermonkeys so many times, and all I got was "66 comes after 65". Lets take juwra.com - Rally Mexico (2017): "Official name: Rally Guanajuato Mexico", Edition: 31st. compare it to ewrc-results.com "14. Rally Guanajuato Mexico 2017". While wrc.com and fia.com have no idea of any editions. So it seems like that event number (edition) is not even always clear (and certainly not official). So how is our situation actually different from other motosport seasons, where those editions are excluded? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rally Mexico joined the calendar in 2004. 2017 was the fourteenth time that it had been run as a WRC event, hence ewrc listing it as "14. Rally Mexico". However, the rally existed before 2004; its history stretches back to the late 1970s (it hasn't always been run annually). So technically both numbers are correct: it has been run 31 times and 14 of those were World Championship rallies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10 — you do not have a consensus to make these changes. You haven't even responded to the last point about the numbering, which explains the apparent discrepancy. You have taken it upon yourself to make project-wide changes despite two separate discussions that have been inconclusive at best. Change them back, please, or get a consensus to make the changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven’t given any coherent argument as to why it is important to use names with an edition number in the season articles‘ calendars. Consensus is not the same thing as your personal permission.T v x1 00:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

PM, with the way that table is formatted those links should be either the common name or the official name. Despite having been asked numerous times you have provided no evidence that your preferred titles are either of those things. Neither the promoter nor the FIA use ordinals of any kind, and as Pelmeen10 has shown above (with sources!) the individual rally organizers themselves are inconsistent. Pelmeen10 does not need a 'consensus' to be able to remove unsourced original research and invention. Pyrop e 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"as Pelmeen10 has shown above (with sources!) the individual rally organizers themselves are inconsistent"

Neither of the sources he provided came from the rally organisers. You cannot claim that the organisers are inconsistent when they did not produce the sources being used. Furthermore, I have already addressed that point: ewrc.com is only counting the times that rally was run as a World Championship event.

"Pelmeen10 does not need a 'consensus' to be able to remove unsourced original research and invention."

Except that it's not unsourced original research or invention. This source (which actually is from rally organisers) clearly uses the full name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, let's look at what the different rally organizers use:

So clearly only two of the rallies use an ordinal in their official names. Secondly, it's not even the point. The question is why do we have to absolutely use full official names in the calendars in our season articles and why isn't mentioning them in the individual articles on the rallies sufficient? No one has even attempted to answer that question. Given that only two rallies actually use an ordinal in their names, I can't understand where this obsession to use them here comes from.T v x1 04:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"The question is why do we have to absolutely use full official names in the calendars in our season articles and why isn't mentioning them in the individual articles on the rallies sufficient?"

Because the two should match up. We cannot call it one thing in one article and something different in the other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s utter nonsense. That wasn’t a problem for F1 articles so I can’t why that would be an issue here.T v x1 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

They are invented and have not been correct for previous seasons in the first place. Making it a tradition to have false statements. For the 2018, it's crystal balling. Those names that has been used (which are incorrect) are told in each event article to be the "maiden name" or "official name" - false info that needs to be overchecked and corrected. I'd hope you can use the sources correctly, but looking at 2018 Monte Carlo Rally, when the source said "86e Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo 2018", but you wrote "86ème Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo" – how can you explain that? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Because the two should match up. We cannot call it one thing in one article and something different in the other."

Are you trying to say that making false statement is 2 articles is better than avoid it in season articles and try to fix it in each event article?

"So technically both numbers are correct: it has been run 31 times and 14 of those were World Championship rallies."

They are both factually wrong.

We cannot predict which names are gonna be used for each rally in 2018, there are no sources for each name yet - which makes pointless to try to use official names in season articles. And for the previous season articles - those inventions have not been changed to the official names. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"We cannot predict which names are gonna be used for each rally in 2018"

Yes, we can because we know the numbers are ordinal.

"And for the previous season articles - those inventions have not been changed to the official names"

They're not inventions.

"They are both factually wrong."

No, they're not. You've cherry-picked your sources again. You've only looked at juwra and e-wrc because you know they contradict one another. You haven't considered any other sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There are sources with both designations but some are cherry-picked to prove one POV. Like the list above, for 51º Vodafone Rali de Portugal, its present as not having. Well, in the organization website, you have this. Both designations are used, both have reliable sources so what in discussion is personal preferences only.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There no personal preferences in the mix at all. You have only proven with that additional source that just 3 of the 13 have a formal name with on ordinal. So what? Why should we cherry-pick the formal names with ordinals for those rallies and invent formal names with ordinals for the others to make them watch, when even those who use them don't use them consistently?T v x1 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: This is just about personal preferences. Its the only thing in discussion. The sources where presented to proove one POV. The list was present like "only 2 rallies have ordinals" now you say "only 3". Well, present just onem more source makes both your statements wrong. There are sources for both opinions. I cannot pick only what I like and ignoring the others like there isn't. I have no personal interest in having my POV aprooved, I don't need to satisfy my ego, so I won't be feeding this war, because this is not about getting a better article or better information. Funny how this "question" started and how the arguments changed since its being knock down. There's always excuses.

And so once again we are at a point where there is literally only one person arguing a point. Prisonermonkeys, sources are against you, logic is against you, common usage is against you, and consensus is against you. This has all be shown with good sources provided by pretty much everyone else here, but there has been not one jot of evidence presented by you other than your own personal preference. You have not shown these titles to be in any sense official, you have not shown that they are the commonly used titles, and you have not shown why we need use these complex, invented titles in the table. Time to move on. Pyrop e 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

♠"none says '83ème'" This clearly identifies it as "86^e", which is the short equivalent of 86^ème, so what's the problem?

♠More on-point, not being a rally fan, I can't say I'm deeply informed, but what I've seen & heard suggests every event is officially numbered in sequence, just as the Indy 500 is. How many people call it by the official name, & not the year, outside the record books & TV commentators on the day, IDK (few, I'd guess). Nevertheless... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have something to add that isn't guesswork? Pyrop e 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond to one thing that you have said:

"You have not shown these titles to be in any sense official"

I have. I supplied a source from the Automobile Club de Monaco—the organisers of Rallye Monte Carlo—that clearly show the use of the name. You completely ignored it. So why should I take the time to respond to each of your requests when I know you will ignore the parts that you find to be inconvenient? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

One, finally, well done. And Tvx has shown two more. And the others? Always some excuse with you, isn't it?You have also only shown that that form of title is iused in some fairly obscure and hard to find timetabling document. You, in turn, have conveniently ignored the fact that the ACM have not used that title in any – none! – of their promotional or other externally targeted material. Pyrop e 20:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"You have also only shown that that form of title is iused in some fairly obscure and hard to find timetabling document."

It also happens to be a major source in two articles. It is used to justify the route details in 2018 FIA World Rally Championship and 2018 Monte Carlo Rally. Over half the 2018 route is different from the 2017 event. It certainly is not obscure—itineraries and entry lists are used throughout articles and have been for years.

"You, in turn, have conveniently ignored the fact that the ACM have not used that title in any – none! – of their promotional or other externally targeted material."

And none of that is used as a source in any of the articles. What you're effectively proposing is that we ignore the name used in significant sources in the article and instead use the name presented in sources that are not used. This is not a COMMONNAME issue because COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, your old habits are hard to break, aren't they. That the info the document contains might be important isn't in question, but it is only important to a very few specialists and not widely known. Hence, obscure. That you have used it in multiple places doesn't somehow convey status. It is a reliable source for the route, but when compared to the huge amount of other material, much more high profile, that ACM has put out about the event it is a very poor-looking source for the event's name. That you haven't used better sources (despite the many that are available) and have relied upon only the one obscure one that supports your preferred, anomalous nomenclature says more about you than the article topics. Please stop setting up false dichotomies and faulty logic premises. They are laughably easy to disassemble. Pyrop e 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And your sources only relate to the Monte-Carlo rally. I still don't see how the Monte-Carlo Rally organizers using on ordinal in their official name forces us to use an ordinal in the calendar names of all the rallies, including those which don't use one in their official names. Even Monte-Carlo, for instance, doesn't use an ordinal in the official logo T v x1 17:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we just have an entire discussion where "it's in the official logo" was not considered an acceptable argument? If so, why is it suddenly acceptable?

"Hence, obscure."

Obscurity does not mean it is invalid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not an argument. It’s an example of an official name they use.T v x1 22:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, when I pointed out that the championship's logo clearly says "FIA World Rally Championship", that the logo is clearly visible in every broadcast of the championship and adorns the sport's website, and that the website and broadcasts are likely to be the main source of information for people, it apparently wasn't enough to call the championship "FIA World Rally Championship". But now we have a logo from the rally organisers and apparently it is good enough to be used as evidence of the rally name. You'll forgive me if I'm being too cynical here, but it looks like you're applying the same rule differently with nothing to apparently justify the difference.

"Please stop setting up false dichotomies and faulty logic premises. They are laughably easy to disassemble."

This coming from the man who dismissed the significance of the source used for the rally route as being "only important to a very few specialists" despite half the route being changed from 2017. It suggests that you don't understand the subject matter, so how can you reasonably make decisions about what is best for the article?

How about you go out to Entrevaux–Val de Chalvagne–Ubraye stage this year and see how many rally cars go past? (Hint: none will go past; it's not on the route this year.) Then come back and tell me that the route details are only of interest to "a very few specislists". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said before there are different rules for article titles and for article content. It's the exact opposite of applying the same rule differently. And as I said before as well, it's an example of a name for the rally in question, not the rally name. Most importantly there rallies which don't use any ordinal in any title used in any official document, yet for some reason they have an invented name with an ordinal in our calendars. And how many people do you genuinely believe will go and stand alongside those rally stages after having downloaded the itinerary from the official site. In comparison to a tennis match, a football match or a circuit race, yes that information is only of interest to a few people.T v x1 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1:

"And how many people do you genuinely believe will go and stand alongside those rally stages after having downloaded the itinerary from the official site."

Thousands. I'm not kidding—I've been to them before. Just getting into places like the Col de Turini, Colin's Crest and Fafe—among others—can be impossible if you're not prepared. It's not uncommon for people to camp out overnight beside the best spots. Last year's Lucéram 2 stage had to be cancelled because of overcrowding. You need the itinerary to plan ahead (especially if you want to see multiple stages). That's why they're published so far in advance.

"In comparison to a tennis match, a football match or a circuit race, yes that information is only of interest to a few people."

There's a big difference between rallying and those sports—those sports take place in a stadium or at a fixed venue. Rallying is often spread over a massive area. It's a four-hour drive from Gap, the Monte Carlo headquarters, to the final day's stages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The worldwide television audience for last year's Monte was 120 million. You do the maths. Pyrop e 12:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how the television audience would have no need for the itinerary, but would need anything else produced by ACM. What you're suggesting is the same as saying that the Formula 1 championship articles don't need to list the circuits where the races are held because that's only of interest to the few hundred thousand who visit the races whereas the millions who watch on television will watch it wherever it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Strawman.... again. And again and again and again and again. When you have no answer you concoct some bullshit, make out you are answering a point that was never made, and pretend like you are right. Sorry, no. No more. Your WP:IDHT disruption is pathetic, and I am going to leave you to flog this dead horse on your own. Pyrop e 00:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is trying to undermine the significance of a source that contains important information. Where else would we get route details, if not from the itinerary?

Also, please point out the part of WP:DISRUPT that says disagreeing with you is disruptive editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you are getting off the subject, constantly. You have no good arguements and we have pointed out several sources for every rally, but you keep talking about Rally Monte Carlo. It would be decent of you to give us sources to back your claims (whole season) - unless you have none, which ofcourse is the case. Can you just accept the situation so we could move on? The next rally is in Sweden, what about that rally name? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You presented the sources as being contradictory. When the contradiction was resolved, you ignored it, but continued to claim to have multiple sources to support your claims. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the sources needed to prove my point to you, are provided. If you can't accept that you were mistaken, it's not my problem. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your point was that different sources use different numbering and so ordinal numbers were not appropriate. This apparent duscrepancy was explained to you. It was a major part of your argument, and you have consistently ignored it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No their point was that only a small fraction of the rallies use an ordinal in their official name. That has been proven beyond any doubt with links to official documents from all the rallies' organizers and you have done nothing to disprove that. The only argument you have brought is "Monte-Carlo uses an ordinal". It's getting more and more ridiculous with every reply that's being posted. The latest cycle of replies has not brought anything useful to the question that has been asked. In fact, absolutely no one has even tried to give a remotely coherent answer to the question which has been asked since the beginning. Why, considering that only a small fraction of the rallies actually use an ordinal in their official name, is it in any way important to use full formal names in our season calendars in our WRC articles. We don't even use them as names for our articles on the individual rallies.T v x1 02:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that discussion has resulted in a consensus. It is inconclusive at best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to start this discussion over and over again? Removing those inventions don't need a consensus, but if you read this discussion, you would understand that the consensus is against you anyway. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Any changes need a consensus. You failed to convince two of us that your argument has merit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is neither unanimity nor your personal approval. This discussion has been open for 20 days and Pelmeen10 has more than proven their case. You on, the other hand, have not provided any coherent argument explaining why it would be necessary to have full official names (note that we were not even using the correct ones) in our season articles. Our readers can perfectly understand the calendar without these formal official names. I see no justification whatsoever in support of them so Pelmeen10's actions are entirely justified.T v x1 23:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"You on, the other hand, have not provided any coherent argument explaining why it would be necessary to have full official names"

That's very difficult to do when the person asking for sources clearly doesn't understand them:

"as Pelmeen10 has shown above (with sources!) the individual rally organizers themselves are inconsistent"

The sources provided were not official sources. How am I supposed to have any confidence that the person asking for sources will understand them when they clearly cannot get the basics right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, what are you blithering about now? Many more than one person has asked for sources, and we are certainly able to understand them. And Tvx1 and Pelmeen1 have provided multiple official sources, that dominantly prove you to be talking cobblers. That's two lines of spurious garbage in one posting right there. Quite the achievement, well done, have a 'nana. Pyrop e 00:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"we are certainly able to understand them"

Your actions beg to differ. You misread two sources as official sources. How am I supposed to have any confidence that you won't make the same mistake? After all, you went on to dismiss an important source as only having relevance to a handful of people. As soon as I offered the very source you were looking for, you went out of your way to dismiss it. You then went on to say this:

"You, in turn, have conveniently ignored the fact that the ACM have not used that title in any – none! – of their promotional or other externally targeted material."

But did you offer any of that promotional material as evidence? No. I'm being held to a different standard than you and the only difference is that I disagree with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Both Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 had already provided that material. The links were there and that's what we were discussing, and I had pointed out that. And please do point to the point where I "misread" those sources. Pyrop e 00:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"please do point to the point where I "misread" those sources"

Right here:

"as Pelmeen10 has shown above (with sources!) the individual rally organizers themselves are inconsistent."

The sources that Pelmeen10 provided included e-wrc.com and juwra.com. Neither of these sources are in any way official. Likewise, neither the FIA nor the WRC Promoter organise rallies. Furthermore, on 17 January, you said the following:

"It is a reliable source for the route, but when compared to the huge amount of other material, much more high profile, that ACM has put out about the event it is a very poor-looking source for the event's name."

So where is this "huge amount of other matetial, much more high profile that ACM has put out"? I haven't seen you post anything, much less a volume substantial enough to eclipse the provided source.

I made a claim. You asked for a source. I provided a source. You made a claim—but you haven't provided any sources. So, let's see them. Where is this other material? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What are trying to prove here? Regarding Pyrope's comment, there's no misreading at all. FIA.com and WRC.com are the official sites of the official governing body and promoter of the sport. You're claim about misreading is utterly hilarious, because it's actually your side who keeps justifying the numbered titles by misrepresenting e-wrc as an official source. The "huge amount of other material" is clearly present in this discussion. I also fail to understand in any way why you keep going on about Monte-Carlo when no-one ever disputed their official name and when there are 13 rallies in the current season, only 3 which have a number in their official name. How does Monte Carlo using in any way obligate us to use formal ordinal using names for all rallies in the calendars in season article? All the last 24 hours have yielded so far is another cycle of replies, none of which attempts to even remotely answer the main question which has been posed since the start: Why is it necessary in any way to use formal official names for all rallies in the calendars in season articles? All you have replied to the question is "I can't", "It's difficult" or even "You wouldn't understand because you have no idea what you are talking about.". You have literally contributed nothing in this discussion that could actually support your case.T v x1 18:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

But they are not the organisers, which is what he called them. There is a difference between organiser, promoter and governing body. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What does that matter? How do the names used by the organizers themselves dictate us in any way which format we should use for the calendars in season articles?T v x1 21:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It matters because he said "organisers" when he clearly meant "promoter" or "governing body". How is someone supposed to know what another person really meant when they say one thing and mean another?

As for the significance of organisers, they are the ones responsible for overseeing the event. They created it and everything that goes with it, so we should use the name they use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty ironical you to mention it when I have to correct them [5] [6] Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Except for the way you ignored the Monte Carlo itinerary, the only source used in the article which is producdd by the organisers. Or are you relying on the "huge amount of other material" that Pyrope insists exists but has failed to provide evidence of? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Now with Rally Sweden you should see why you are wrong. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More bullshit. You dismiss evidence presented here because I didn't personally post it? Unlike you, I read other people's contributions. Pyrop e 15:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The "huge amount of other material" is very much present in this discussion. You're continuous denial of its existence just demonstrates very clearly that you simply cannot bring yourself to admit to other people to being wrong.T v x1 17:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, "huge amount" refers to a substantial number of sources, enough to demonstate that a particular source is in a minority. I wouldn't go putting an exact number on it (because it may cause problems later if there is a substantial number of sources, but not enough to meet the number decided earlier), but would suggest that it is more than half a dozen.

And no, Pyrope, I have no issue with you referring to other peoples' posts. What I do have issue with is you specifying "a huge amount of other material" specifically produced by ACM, but then posting none of it. Only six things produced by ACM have been posted in this discussion, and five of them use "86e" or "86ème". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'll just have to remember this for the next time you demand sources from someone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that a huge amount of other material produced by the ACM had been posted. And for the last time, this is not only about Monaco.T v x1 12:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Pyrope just claimed that ACM had produced that material and that they had produced such a volume of it that it outweighed the source(s) that had been produced. The problem is that none of that promotional material has been posted. This isn't about Monte Carlo anymore—this is about the fact that Pyrope has repeatedly demanded sources to support claims made by others, but he has not seen fit to support his own claims with sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after re-reading the entire discussions, I cannot find such a claim by Pyrope. They just mentioned that me and Pelmeen10 provided many other sources, not in particular from the ACM, and we have. If the only thing you are still trying to achieve is to settle a personal score with Pyrope, than there is no point of continuing to discuss here. Use your own talk pages.T v x1 23:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — on 17 January, he said this:

"It is a reliable source for the route, but when compared to the huge amount of other material, much more high profile, that ACM has put out about the event it is a very poor-looking source for the event's name."

But he does not share anything specific. Only half a dozen sources from the ACM have been shared, and most of them use the "86e" or "86ème" name. For the record, these are all the sources from the ACM shared in the discussion:

(The others are the same sources re-posted.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's been four days since I asked to see Pyrope's sources and so far he has produced absolutely nothing. All that has been posted is a spruious accusation that I won't accept sources if he hasn't personally posted them (which is unprovable), the suggestion that other people posted the sources he was referring to (which he hasn't) and people who sided with him in the debate claiming that he never made the claim (despite my repeated quoting of him). Despite his repeated demands for sources to support claims, Pyrope has not even attempted to provide any evidence to demonstrate his own claims. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems very logical to me why Pyrope doesn't respond. No-one really knows what you are trying to achieve here now. No-one ever disputed the official name of the Monte-Carlo rally in the first place. The question that was asked is why is it any way important to use full official names in the calendars and results tables. No-one has even attempted to give a coherent answer to the question. All that has been happening is trying to side-track the discussion with some blabbering about the ACM.T v x1 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I am asking him to provide sources to prove his claim about the ACM producing "a huge amount of other material, much more high profile" that demonstrated the source I posted was in the minority.

As for why I'm doing it, he made a fuss over me providing sources. He should at least do the same here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

Group of editors ignores MOS:DONTHIDE guideline for the collapsible table, like in the article. What is your opinion on that issue? Corvus tristis (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there isn't much discussion about this issue. That kind of content shouldn't be in a collapsible table, as explained in the guidelines.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but it can't find anything that forbids the usage of collapsible tables for such content. The only thing it states is that such tables shouldn't be in a collapsed state by default. There is nothing against them being collapsible at all.T v x1 12:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They have root exactly for the collapsed state by default. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)