From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Rallying was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Motorsport (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject World Rally (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying and hillclimbing related articles on Wikipedia, including the World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


I noticed that I was redirected to Rally Racing (with pleasure) from rally and I propose that "rally" be changed to a disambiguation page. My reason is that there are other types of rallys, such as political/social rallys, and motorcycle rallys. The latter are more appropriately termed "gatherings" or whatnot, although there is more parking than riding, but the common-use term remains "rally". TimothyPilgrim 20:37, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. (Although I was redirected as well, and was also looking for Rally Racing) There are just too many types of Rallies. ~Blake D. Hawkins 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I recently added a sentence about TSD road rally, gimmick and Pan Am / Monte Carlo style, but it really neads more. IMO, history is nice (but too detailed for the top of the page) and there's not enough about how to learn more and how to participate in today's rallies. Drtofu 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


The "Rallie des Pharaons" is a Rally-raid like the Paris-Dakar IMO the article should introduce the distinction somewhere. Ericd 15:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Why is this page "Rally racing" and not simply "Rallying"? Rallies are not, strictly speaking, races, after all. If "Rally racing" is the more common term in North America, then fair enough; leave it as it is; but here in Britain "Rallying" is used far more often (as the noun), and "Rally racing" is rarely seen. Loganberry 11:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I must admit I'd much prefer "rallying". When I came to write one or two of the linked articles here I found the page already in existence, so I left it, but maybe if there's a reasonable consensus it could be moved. Graham 00:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What about Automotive rally? This might make for more natural links. --Pekinensis 21:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't appeal to me, since I've never once heard the term used. My inclination is to move this article to Rallying (and redirect from "rally racing"), since that's what the sport is usually called. As backup for this, Google reports 305,000 hits for rallying cars as against 89,500 for "rally racing" cars, 183,000 for rallying driver as against 37,100 for "rally racing" driver and 158,000 for rallying championship as against 35,300 for "rally racing" championship. And so on for other related phrases. Loganberry 14:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I have now been bold and made this change. I think I've fixed all the (few) double redirects, and so there should be no problems with inward links. Loganberry | Talk 22:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two types of Rallying: Performance (as described on this page) and Navigational (which is not). Perhaps this page should disambiguate to Performance Rallying and Navigational Rallying? 2006-Mar-29 18:00 (UTC)
I'd rather see the article expanded to cover both types and also put them into a better historical context. There is a continuum between the two types you mention, so while I wouldn't object to seeing more detailed articles under separate titles, the general article (this one) should cover all the bases. Currently, the article is rather lacking on a number of fronts. Graham 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not keen on those suggested titles. "Performance rallying" is not a phrase I recognise - and sure enough, Google gives a grand total of sixteen hits from UK sites. "Stage rallying" is what I'd call it. As for "navigational rallying", again it's not at all common here: "road rallying" is much more familiar. However the point is moot anyway since I prefer Graham's suggestion overall. Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not an expert on this subject and will tell you that when I read the article it was frustrating as are many of these public edited articles because it does not tell my why this form of racing is called "rallying", that is why the basic word "rally" is used to describe it or at least it does not seem to get to the point on that at the start that one needing to know that would expect that I can see. Like such a person, if it is described further down in the article I had not the time to fish through the entire lengthy article to find it which makes it a problem. Fraberj (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Deathly accident in rally have always been very rare. The sentence "thanks to modern safety" biased IMO. In many ways modernity has made rally more dangerous that it was. Ericd 14:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That statement is POV. Surely computer designed rollcages and HANS devices have contibuted more to safety than the speed has detracted from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:46, January 24, 2006.
I don't know if this is POV. This is a nonsense. If accidents have always been rare we have to thank modern safety but also acient safety ? Ericd 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your very right; modern technology is making Rally Racing (And just about any other form of racing) more dangeous. However, there's a flipside to that coin. Modern technology is also helping. But I do agree with you; it shouldn't be biased like that. ~Blake D. Hawkins 01:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be good if we had some statistics on how many spectators have been killed.Tommy1441 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Say what?[edit]

I deleted this:
"This distinctive approach to motorsport is not truly “racing” in the strictest sense, instead best seen as a parallel approach to that of circuit racing."
In the first place, it's extremely POV. In the second, it's damn well false. It's racing the clock & other competitors. Just because narrow-minded sorts can't see that doesn't make it "not truly 'racing'" (& I'm N a rally fan). Trekphiler 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I was merely trying to convey that upon the birth of motorsport, there was a fundemantal divergence. One path became racing in the truest encyclopedic sense - whereas multiple cars are put on the same track to finish in an arranged number of laps (Indianapolis 500), or after a set period of time (24 Hrs. of leMans). The other approach was that of timed runs over a set course that only one car participated in at a time and elapsed time over the series of sections was compiled. Simple enough? I thought it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:37, January 16, 2006.

Rally ho[edit]

I'd question incl the Targa Florio as a rally, any more than the Mille Miglia or the TT. Trekphiler 16:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove it from the list, though that old-style open road racing does share some similarities with rallying. --Robert Merkel 02:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think I disagree. Certainly rallies have evolved over time and older events don't bear much resembance to modern ones - but the article is about Rallying in general, not just its modern form. The Florio counts as a direct ancestor of modern rallying. If you feel the need to make the distinction, why not add a section called historic events or somesuch, and list it there? I think an encyclopedia article should endeavour to be as inclusive in its terms as possible. Graham 05:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Rallying has taken many forms throught different times and in different places. This article should be all inclusive to reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:21, January 22, 2006.

History of rallying[edit]

I researched and wrote a 3600 word history of rallying about 2 weeks ago and posted it on the Rallying site. It has now been deleted. Can anyone out there explain this, or take exception if I put it back? User:John R C Brown 13:30, July 22, 2006

  • Your paper isn't a citable reference. Basically, if an English professor at a University wanted someone to write a paper on rallying, could the student use your paper as a listed reference? Those references that student would use and that professor would accept are the only ones allowed. (FYI to passer-byers)Colonel Marksman 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ga on Hold[edit]

I'm placing this article on hold, as the lead is 6 paragraphs, and as per WP:LEAD, it shouldn't go beyond five. I don't think this would be complicated to solve, so im not failing it now or anything. Homestarmy 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw snap, I just checked WP:LEAD and they changed the policy, ok, the "guideline" says it shouldn't go beyond four if it's about 30,000 characters....uhhh...anyone know how many characters this page has? Try to smush the lead together more concisely if you can is the moral of the story here. Homestarmy 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

GA failed[edit]

This GA has been in limbo for far too long, so I'm closing the nomination for now. There are far too few sources, and therfore it's not surprising that there's a tremendous amount of unsourced statements. Some of the sources listed may fit the bill, and it could be that the article just needs more cites. Every statement about the history of the sport should have a source. Every statement explaining the reasons for its popularity should have a source.

I'm also not crazy about the list of different rallies, but that didn't factor into my decision. I'd recommend trying to do something with it before re-nominating. Kafziel 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

History too detailed[edit]

The history part of this article is too long and has too many details. Please someone cut it down somewhat, and insert intermediate headers, if necessary. --HelgeStenstrom 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also not enough wikilinks, and far too much use of bold text. --DeLarge 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is far too long and does not make for comfortable or easy reading. -- Scancoaches 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


"There was another revolution in the 1980s, arguably one that saved the World Rally Championship. As most of the European manufacturers withdrew from the sport, leaving only Lancia as the main flag carrier, so the Japanese car companies arrived: Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Subaru and, most important of all, Toyota. These companies sustained the sport through the last dozen years of the 20th century, and on into the present era of the World Rally Car - a special kind of rally car, to be sure: very quick, with all-wheel drive and a host of other technical features, but one which is essentially safe. The lessons of Group B have not been forgotten."

Who added this ridiculous information? The Lancia Delta was Champion until the early 90s. Toyota finally won and then was subsequently banned for CHEATING. Mazda? Nissan? give me a break. Did some teenage Japanese-car fan write this b.s.? This is completely not factual information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:58, September 21, 2006.

Well, it's badly written, but not total bollocks...
  • Mazda - their best years were indeed the late 80s. They won the Swedish Rally in '87, and had four consecutive top five finishes in the manufacturers' championship from '88-'91 before they buggered off to Le Mans.
  • Nissan - the only bollocks is the suggestion they "arrived" in the late 80s. By that time they were declining from their most successful years in the early 80s.
  • Lancia - by 1989 or 1990 they were the only non-Japanese company in the top five of the manufacturers' championship.
  • While Toyota were banned at the end of 1995 (when Subaru won), they'd already won the manufacturers' crown in '93 and '94, and the WRC drivers' champ was a Toyota driver in '90, '92, '93 and '94. And since they were the first Japanese company to succeed in either the WRC drivers' or manufacturers' championships, they probably are of greatest significance from a historical perspective. --DeLarge 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I will say you are both correct. The point from the original statement I agree with though is that this paragraph definitely is way too Japanese-biased, as if they made WRC cars what they are today.


Anyone still here? The last discussion appears to have taken place in September. Also, why isn't anyone working on getting more references? I'm sure they're out there. Colonel Marksman 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Map reader[edit]

sometimes they use a wingman as map reader, don't they? Would be nice with some info about this

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, a co-driver is standard in most rally championships these days. The maps are called pacenotes. There is some information on the "Pacenotes and reconnaissance" section, but I agree there should be more. Prolog 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Brass Era[edit]

Why is the "Brass Era" called that? This needs to be explained in the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rygel (talkcontribs).

I'm changing it to Pre-war as a. It fits better with the next two sections namng and b. as I stated on the Brass Era page, I've never heard anyone use the term or even seen it written down outside of this page and its own on wikipedia. If anyone has any better ideas please make them known but please don't use 'Brass era'.(Morcus (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Rallys in film[edit]

The Monte Carlo Rally is prominently depicted in the famous French film, Un homme et une femme (A Man and a Woman). Perhaps some reference to that film and the accuracy (or not) of the depiction would be in order. Are there other noteable films that include rally sequences? For many Americans who are not especially automotive sport fans -- myself included -- the very concept of a rally would be rather obscure were it not for this film, which provided a sense not only of the grueling character of the competition but also the Tour de France-style hoopla surrounding it. (The Wiki page on this film is also very obscure on this point, making refernces to automotive sport but never quite using the word "rally.") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

External Links[edit]

Surely External links should be a list of links to any site related to Rallying? We put our Rally team website link here and it seems to have been deleted? Just wondering as I am completely new to this as to why? N —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The links were removed because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. Prolog 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the external links section including the reference to links not suitable and I still do not agree the link should be removed. It's completely related to the subject of "Rallying" it provides information about a team competing in rallying and in time the site will offer instructional tips on co-driving, etc. it also provides links to other rally recources, like the BTRDA Championship. I see no difference between a link to this page and some of the other links shown? Finally who decides what goes on the page and what does not go on the page? There are many people who like the Escort Cosworth Rally Car and seeing pictures or hearing of a former Ford Works prepared car is surely of relevance to Rallying?

N —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Please note that the external links are to sanctioning organizations, rally news, or provide information about the sport and various events. None of the links are for an individual team or automaker. There are numerous Rally Teams with various brands of race cars around the world that may interest readers. However, this article is not the place to link to their web pages. Once again, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links no matter how many individuals may be interested in a particular rally car. Thanks -- CZmarlin 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As a Rally Driver, former commentator for the WRC and a Rally Fan, I believe this is the perfect page for anything connected with rallying, therefore anyone could and should be allowed to link to it. But then again I thought Wikipedia was meant to be of use to people looking to find out more about a subject, not simply be an "Article" written by someone and then controlled by another! I think the page is vey useful, but completely disagree on not letting major teams, or manufacturers, car clubs, etc, link on to the page. Anyway any further discussion on this is useless because... wikipedia is not a collection of external links...blah blah...blah

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Yet again it's down to page controller as to what external links are shown. The Fireball Rally is not even a true Rally as per the purpose of this page? The editor needs to learn a little more about Rallying before deciding whick links "Should or Should not" be permitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I have removed most of the links now, as they were unnecessary in this article. There is no "page controller" and everyone is welcome to edit the page. Prolog 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Point to point?[edit]

Can I suggest adding the start/end points, route, & length of the various rallys? I haven't been able to find anything myself, but if somebody's got better sources...? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate writing style[edit]

This article is plagued by a writing style that is more suited to fiction or to an advertising brochure than it is to an encyclopedia. Some examples:

-"These stages, ridiculed by many purists, seem increasingly popular with event organizers." (Is there a reference for this ridicule?)

-"Individuals interested in becoming involved in rallying are encouraged to join their local automotive clubs." (Wikipedia is not meant to be a way to get people interested in a sport.)

-"Rallies are also run every month of the year, in every climate, bitter cold to monsoon rain." (A colourful statement, but an encyclopedic article can do without the fluff.)

Do people agree that someone has to go over this whole article carefully and make adjustments? Nojamus (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope too Narrow[edit]

How can you have an article about rallying and not even mention the Dakar Rally or the Baja 1000? I mean, if you want for this article to be just about WRC, then re-title it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Random problems[edit]

First para: "Prizes were **not** awarded to the vehicles by a jury based on the reports of the observers who rode in each car; the joint winners were Panhard et Levassor and Peugeot."

Uh, what is this sentence supposed to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It was vandalism that went unreverted for seven months. Fixed now. Prolog (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliablity trial[edit]

Looking at WP:RS, I see self-published sources are, by def, not reliable. Should they be removed from the page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)