Talk:2018 World Rally Championship/Archive 1

Confirmed line ups.
Is it really the case that only Hyundai have confirmed their driver line up for 2018?--Lead holder (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's not unusual for this to happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

One-table format
This year, I want to try and move to a one-table format for the driver table if we can. I think I have found a solution for it:

Although given the complexity of the 2017 table, it might be worth cutting the number column. We'll see how it goes after a few entrt lists are published. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you still have such obsession in unwieldily merging the tables? The two table format works just fine and has for ages. Nobody agreed with you last time. You are literally the only one take offence to it. And I which is there a non-points column when these (co-)drivers can still score point in any but the manufacturers' championship?Tvx1 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actively trying to improve the article here. I'm not the one breezing in and shutting down discussion without actually contributing to the article.


 * I find the dual table format awkward, especially when teams submit multiple entries that are variously eligible and ineligible to score points. It's already going to be an issue here, since Hyundai are committed to four cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the eligibility of points, one minor tweak fixes it: Otherwise, we're going to wind up in a situation like the 2017 article, full of redundancies&mdash;Citroën have rotated five different crews between their three cars; Andreas Mikkelsen, Craig Breen and Stephane Lefebvre have each driven two of them. A single rounds column indicating eligibility for manufacturer points fixes everything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I would do a worked example to show you what I have in mind. This is what Citroën's entries for 2017 currently look like: As you can see, it's quite complex. But this is what it looks like with my double rounds column: Now, I know that there is a lot of replication across the two rounds columns&mdash;Al Qassimi's entry in Portugal is the only non-manufacturer points entry. But bear in mind that Hyundai have four signed drivers for 2018, which means they need to nominate their points-scorers in advance. Both Citroën and M-Sport have the means to enter at least four cars (M-Sport can enter six) in the same event, which means that they would need to nominate points-scorers as well.

This version simplifies the table and eliminates redundancies. It works. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The current version works just fine. Your proposal just leaves the rounds columns in one random, sorrow mess. Right now we can perfectly see who replaced whom and where. That information is gone in your version.Tvx1 20:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; you know as well as I do that the table is a visual supplement to the article. Crew changes should be detailed in the prose of the article and act as the primary means of detailing these changes. The table should present information in the most streamlined fashion possible, and the current state of the 2017 tables is far from streamlined. Omit the number column, cut down on the redundancies, and make the table as straightforward as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on table format
I have opened this RFC to get more input on the team and driver tables. I would like to answer the question of whether the current two-table format should be kept or if it should be condensed into a single table as this article does not get much editing traffic and it has taken a long time to resolve issues in the past. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to move the team and driver table to a single-table format. The current system is to split the table in two: one for teams and drivers eligible to score manufacturer points, and one for teams and drivers who do not. The two-table format evolved out of the 2007 and 2007 where the sport was governed by a complex series of regulations to determine the eligibility of entries. Those regulations have long since been reformed, but the two-table format remains.


 * I believe that the entry table should be just that: a table that outlines entries. We use the entry lists as the major source for inclusions in the table, and those enty lists classify all cars as "RC1", the official designation for the top category of competition. Manufacturer points are awarded quite separately to this. The table should list who entered which car in which rounds.


 * Furthermore, we already have a table that details who is eligible to score manufacturer points&mdash;the results matrix. This is a much more appropriate place for these details as it does not simply list who was eligible to score manufacturer points, but shows who scored which results in which rounds.


 * Finally, the split table format often results in complex and awkward table layouts, with individual cells crossing multiple rows. By condensing it down to a single table (and trimming some superfluous details), I think we can make a much more effective and user-friendly table.


 * I'll leave it to a supporter of the two-table format to make the case for it. 04:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't in any way a neutral RFC. You're just outlining the course of action you think we must take. Why can you never accept something not being presented in your preferred version? Why do you always have to keep maintaining such a fight to get things your ideal way, even when you are literally the only one complaining about the current state of the article? This is getting very tiresome.Tvx1 23:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is neutral. I posted two messages here: one at 3:49 and one at 4:02. If you look at the RFC list, the message that was posted at 3:49 is the only message that appears so that editors looking at the issue understand it without being influenced. The message posted at 4:02 outlines my position on the issue so that editors can understand what the position is. I naturally have not outlined the opposing side since I don't believe it is best for the article.
 * ''"Why can you never accept something not being presented in your preferred version?"
 * Because the tables in the 2017 articles have developed into a bloated mess in recent weeks, which I feel impacts upon the quality of the article. However, my attempts to discuss the issue have been met with a refusal to talk, and given the low level of editing traffic, an RFC is entirely appropriate.


 * Now, are you going to offer something constructive here, or are you just going to try and disrupt things to dissuade editors from contributing? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rally names
@ Which source is used for the rally names (and headquarters)? Where is it said that French rally is called "61ème Tour de Corse – Rallye de France" and Turkish "12th Rally of Turkey"? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2018 World Rally Championship
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2018 World Rally Championship's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sordo": From 2013 World Rally Championship:  From Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC:  From 2011 World Rally Championship:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Entries and WP:CRYSTAL
This source gives details as to exactly who Citroën is going to run at which rounds; in particular, it lists Meeke as doing all thirteen rallies, while Breen and Loeb will share a car with Loeb doing Mexico, Corsica and Catalunya, and Breen doing everything else.

The source has been used to update the rounds column but under WP:CRYSTAL, this is not an appropriate edit to be making even if the source is reliable and verifiable. This is because, as CRYSTAL states:
 * "''Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place."

And also that:
 * ''"Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."

In other words, we cannot say for certain what will happen until such time as it does happen. The further into the future the anticipated event is, the harder it will be to say for certain what will happen. So while Citroën certainly intend to put Loeb in the car for Catalunya, the rally is nearly a year away and it would be both inappropriate and premature to say that he will compete there so far out from the event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style
@ &mdash; the Manual of Style is a guideline as to how content should be presented. It offers editors advice, but allows them to use their discretion. Unlike Wikipedia policy, it cannot be enforced. With this edit, you deleted a source that is both WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. Not only are these policies, they are two of the most important policies on Wikipedia. You cannot deliberately disregard the source because it is inconvenient for you. If the team call themselves "Toyota GAZOO Racing", then that is their name. This isn't the first time you have done something like this. You cannot pick and choose which sources you observe because that violates WP:NPOV, and nor can you make up a name for the team because that's WP:OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not inconvenient for me, it's nothing to do with me. It's how official/primary source wrc.com puts it. You can't look past it just because the company wants to emphasize one word.
 * The team call themselves "Toyota GAZOO Racing". Therefore, that is their name. Another source may claim differently, but we have a source that comes straight from the team. Especially since there are several teams that use the GAZOO name. All of Toyota's racing teams are called "Toyota GAZOO Racing". And you're still ignoring WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think debates are measured in wins and losses and that you willfully ignore some of the most important Wikipedia policies demonstrates that you have no idea what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the longer you treat it as such, the less productive your edits become. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Rally Germany conflict is also your interpretation. 1986 season's 1000 Lakes Rally would have a 3-letter code "100" in Your opinion.--Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why "1000" cannot be used in that case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Article titles
The majority of third-party sources use the "FIA" moniker. Thus, under COMMONNANE, the use of the FIA moniker is most appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And given the way you have done it, you're obviously trying to prove a point elsewhere, which is pointy to say the least. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There you are again with your ridiculous bad faith accusations when someone does something you don't like. And your claim about what the third-party sources say is equally ridiculous and clearly shows you haven't even bothered to check those sources before starting this discussion, let alone before moving those articles. Unfortunately for you, I have and this what I have found third-party sources calling them:
 * Autosport: World Rally Championship
 * motorsport.com: World Rally Championship (most often abbreviated to WRC)
 * MotorSport magazine: World Rally Championship (most often abbreviated to WRC)
 * BBC: World Rally Championship
 * SKY Sports: World Rally Championship
 * GPUpdate: World Rally Championship (most often abbreviated to WRC)
 * speedcafe: World Rally Championship
 * ESPN: World Rally Championship
 * The Daily Telegraph: World Rally Championship
 * The Guardian: WRC


 * So it's very clear that the third-party sources in fact do NOT use the FIA moniker and that the common name is the one without it.Tvx1 12:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I did more than Google it. A lot of offline sources use the "FIA" moniker, as do sources that are televised and online results archives. Given that a lot of these are used to substantiate historical results in particular, the FIA name is entirely appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How convenient for you that it’s only sources that you can’t cite here allegedly refer to it with FIA. I have quoted more than enough sources to substantiate the WP:COMMONNAME.Tvx1 19:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; convenient? Not at all. Citation templates offers a full range of citation templates for a variety of sources, including offline content and things broadcast on television. All would be considered legitimate sources for Wikipedia. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Save that I have actually bothered to cite a myriad of sources, whereas you just allege that “some sources” exist without actually naming any. You apprently insist that we should take your word for it. That’s not how it works. Even off-line sources need to be properly cited, per WP:VERIFY. You can’t expect the readers to do your work for you. Bottom line, I have provided actual evidence while you haven’t.Tvx1 01:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not "allege that 'some sources' exist". There is a lot out there from Reinhard Klein's Rally Cars to Automobile Year, RallyXS, Max Rally and Auto Action, some of which are used in articles. Then there's the magazine format programme broadcast as part of the championship, plus all the materials you get when you physically attend the rallies&mdash;access passes and the like. But most importantly, the historical results on Wikipedia are drawn from publications that use the "FIA" name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So this is how it's going to be &mdash; I provide sources upon request and you just ignore it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course official publications like official programs and official broadcasts will likely include the word FIA. These are of no interest to us. We are looking for independent, third-party sources. And on that point you're still requesting that others do your work for you. You need to properly cite exact issues of the magazines and the names of the particular articles and pages were the information you claim exists can be found. That's the only way anything can be verified. Regardless, I find I hard to believe that only offline sources would use the FIA, while none of their online counterparts do. I don't see any good reason why this vast pepondransce of online sources should simply be ignored because they are inconvenient for you.Tvx1 23:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have given you the publication names. If I haven't given you the specific articles or issues, that's because these are specialist publications that consistently use the full name throughout every issue. What you're asking for is the same as asking which articles and issues of F1 Racing refer to Formula 1 as "Formula 1".


 * Also, the broadcast is produced independently of the FIA by Red Bull House Media and dustributed by WRC Promoter GmbH. You know full well that the FIA is a regulatory body rather than a commercial enterprise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * On top of that, many of the online sources you cite don't do their own reporting&mdash;they run syndicated stories from the likes of Associated Press, Reuters and AFP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not support adding "FIA" either. But currently, after Prisonermonkeys page moves, there are still "FIA" in WRC2, WRC3 and JWRC seasons. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "I'm ignoring what a whole host of reliable and verifiable sources to say to oppose another editor on principle" is not a valid argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so you should stop using it as your sole argument for your case.Tvx1 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that there are a much wider range of sources available than simply news articles and when all of these are taken into consideration, WP:COMMONNAME is much less clear-cut than you make it out to be. There are entry lists, event itineraries, route books, the regulations, results archives, specialist publications, the magazine-format television programme that covers the sport and non-fiction publications. WP:COMMONNAME says:
 * ''"Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above."
 * It does not specify what form those sources must take. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only policy influencing article titles. WP:TITLE lists WP:CRITERIA before WP:COMMOMNAME, but also calls on WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:TRANSLITERATE and WP:OTHERNAMES, among others. While WP:COMMONNAME is important, I think you're overstating its significance. WP:SOURCEACCESS also states that difficulty in accessing a source (because it is obscure, behind a paywall, etc.) does not mean that a source should be used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a series of article moves because I feel that these names best represent the sport. These names incorporate the "FIA" name into the title because the FIA is the sport's governing body. I am basing these requested moves on the following: As a postscript, I realise that the sport existed prior to 2013, but have only gone back as far as 2013. This is because 2013 saw a massive overhaul of the regulations that abolished old categories such as Group N, Group A and Super 2000 and instead created Group R regulations and the World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3. It was a complete overhaul of the structure of the sport and one of the key platforms of FIA President Jean Todt. Therefore, 2013 seemed to be the most appropriate place to draw the line (for now). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2018 World Rally Championship → 2018 FIA World Rally Championship
 * 2017 World Rally Championship → 2017 FIA World Rally Championship
 * 2016 World Rally Championship → 2016 FIA World Rally Championship
 * 2015 World Rally Championship → 2015 FIA World Rally Championship
 * 2014 World Rally Championship → 2014 FIA World Rally Championship
 * 2013 World Rally Championship → 2013 FIA World Rally Championship
 * Under WP:COMMONNAME, the majority of sources use this name. Although a Google search usually yields "World Rally Championship" as the most common name, these articles do not only use sources taken from Google search results. Entry lists, periodicals (such as Automobile Year and Max Rally), historical results archives (such as Reinhardt Klein's Rally Cars), television programmes (such as the magazine show that broadcasts coverage of events, arguably the source most people would use to follow the sport before news articles) and specific resources (such as route books) are being used with increasing frequency. Although some of these are not widely available, WP:SOURCEACCESS clearly states that difficulty in accessing a source does not invalidate that source's merits.
 * On this subject, rallying is a niche sport. It does not receive the widespread coverage of other, similar sports such as Formula 1. Many of the news articles available are simply reproductions of an article from another source; for example, this source from Speedcafe clearly attributes the original story to Autosport. Therefore, the extent to which COMMONNAME applies is questionable since sources are re-writing the same story produced by another media outlet.
 * As per WP:TITLECON, "Article titles states as its fifth naming criterion, after recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness". There are currently four series given "World Championship" status by the FIA: Formula One, sportscar racing, rallycross and rallying. Three of these series currently use the "FIA" name in Wikipedia article titles; for example, 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship, 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship, and 2017 FIA World Rallycross Championship. The World Rally Championship articles are currently the only series of articles that do not use the FIA name. This also contributes to precision, as per WP:TITLE without affecting the naturalness of the article title.
 * The sport's support categories already use the FIA name, such as 2017 FIA World Rally Championship-2, 2017 FIA World Rally Championship-3 and 2017 FIA Junior World Rally Championship.
 * This also applies in the broader context of sporting articles where the names of governing bodies are included in a range of article titles; for example, FIS Alpine World Ski Championships (skiing), 2017 UCI World Tour (cycling), IAAF World Championships in Athletics (track and field) and FINA World Aquatics Championships (swimmimg, diving, etc.).
 * The FIA name clearly appears in the sport's logo. This logo also appears all over the sport's official website. This is quite a common practice, as in the case of the World Endurance Championship and Formula 2 logos and even the old World Touring Car Championship and Formula 1 logos. All of this contributes to recognisability under WP:TITLE.
 * Oppose per Tvx1 here. In my opinion all of those page moves Prisonermonkeys made without discussing (WRC2, WRC3 etc) should be undone. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: do you have an actual policy-based reason for opposing these changes? Because the comments you cite rely purely on COMMONNAME, which a) I addressed in the argument above and b) COMMONNAME is not the only policy that discusses article titles, and I have also addressed that in the above argument. On top of that, some of your comments suggest that you're opposing the changes because of the person suggesting them. We all want the same thing here; we just have different ideas about the best way to go about achieving it, which is why you need a policy-based argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you click or tap on links other users provide? COMMONNAME IS a policy. You haven’t adressed it at all, you’ve just given your opinion. And it is clearly contradicted by the sources.Tvx1 22:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do follow those links. You're the one refusing to acknowledge the potential for offline sources to exist, much less that they use the name. For example, the 2017 Monte Carlo Rally route book uses the name and clearly gives Peïra Cava station as the finishing point of the final stage. It is invaluable as a source because it accurately gives the route details. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:PRECISE it is a more accurate and farsighted titles for the articles. Formula Two taught a great lesson, that we can have three absolutely different championships under almost the same name, but when we use precise names we can somehow avoid confusion. So omitting is not helping for the disambiguate purposes. We never know what can happen with WRC. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I strongly disagree with the claim of the commonname made here. I have already listed a myriad of sources which clearly do not use the FIA monniker at all and can find many many more. Only the official sources do. I find it extremely hard to believe that the off-line sources unanimously use the monniker. Certainly the ones I checked over the last month don't (e.g. Auto, Motor und Sport December 2017, L'Automobile December 2017, MotorSport Maqazine November 2017). Furthermore, when I repeatedly asked Prisonermonkeys that name a specific issue of a (non-official) magazine using the monniker so that one could verify the claim, they stubbornly refused to do so, desperately searching for exuces why they couldn't to do so. Therefore I'm very doubtful to the veracity of their claim. Lastly to adress the WP:PRECISE concerns, the policy states the following: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.". Well I think the current titles are more than precise enough. A precise title is not synonymous to a full official title. There is only one Word Rally Championship and therefore no confusion arises from the current titles whatsoever. Certainly, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL are much more important here. We should never name articles based on what someday might be needed even though we have no idea whatsoever that it might. This is no the same as say the BDO World Darts Championship and the PDC World Darts Championship or like the WBA, WBF, WBO, IBF and AIBA World Boxing Championships.Tvx1 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was not able to name a specific issue of the magazine because there is no specific issue. It's in every issue. What Tvx1 is asking for is the equivalent of asking which issue of National Geographic is about geography. Furthermore, the magazines I refer to, such as Max Rally, only discuss the sport whereas the ones Tvx1 has named deal with motorsport more broadly. I pointed this out to him at the time, but he never responded. As for the "myriad of sources" he cites, I have addressed that in the initial argument&mdash;a lot of the stories they run are simply re-posted from other publications&mdash;and he is ignoring the wider range of sources available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No they don’t repost things at all. If you had bothered to check the sources I cited at all, you would have noticed the every single one of them deals with a different specific event. And don’t go accusing other people of ignoring a wider range of sources, when you keep insisting to use only a specific set of off-line sources which suit your argument. Your claim that no issue exists is ridiculous. By defenition, every magazine has at least one issue. If you want to prove your claim, you need to provide a specific instance in a specific where what you claim to be the common name is used. That is the only way someone else can verify it. WP:VERIFY requests us to properly cite off-line sources as well. Just claiming they exist isn’t even remotely enough. And sure enough, having researche a couple of the publications you named in the previous discussion, I’ve found some scans from MaxVR RallyXS (which was the official WRC magazine and is no longer published) here, here and here wich all show World Rally Championship or WRC being used without the FIA monniker.Tvx1 22:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never named MaxVR as one of the publications. Nor did I claim that "no issue exists". I said that the name is used consistently in every issue. Finally, I never said that I intend to use a specific set of offline resources. I intend to use all available resources including online ones and that when all available resources are taken into consideration, the FIA name is more appropriate. For example, the route book for the 2017 Monte Carlo Rally specifically states that the final stage ends at the Peïra Cava station rather than in Lucéram (which is about 15km away). I think you are grossly overstating the significance of COMMONNAME to the exclusion of all other policies that influence article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have been presented with a source you cannot refute and so you just pretend the discussion isn't happening. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So just because I have something better to do on New Year’s Eve I’m pretending like this discussion doesn’t exist?? Do you really think that I have nothing else to do this time of year than to post replies to you every couple of hours even though it’s very obvious to everyone that you’ve already made up your mind and are unwilling to accept any counter-arguments at all. Your last personal attack is just shameful and if you have any sort of respect for others you would scratch it.Tvx1 23:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was just on New Year's Eve, you might have a point. But this isn't the first time that you've done this. You requested sources in the above discussion on this page; when I presented them to you, you ignored the discussion. Now you're presented content from MaxVR and claiming to have refuted my point when I clearly named the publication as Max Rally. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just mixed up the names. I've corrected it in the mean time. The scans strem from RallyXS and very clear do not show what you claim they do.Tvx1 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name should reflect that most commonly used. While 2018 FIA World Rally Championship may be the official title, 2018 World Rally Championship is how most people would refer to it as. Same as we have the 2016–17 Premier League, not the Barclsys 2016–17 Premier League. Cwr09 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: @ &mdash; Barclays is a sponsor; the FIA is not. The FIA is the regulatory body. A more apt comparison would be to the UEFA Champions League as UEFA fulfills the same role there as the FIA does here. Rallying is a sport with niche appeal compared to other sports. Chances are that most people will follow the sport on television and the first thing you see in the broadcast is "WRC &mdash; FIA World Rally Championship" and the commentators always use the full name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it’s not an apt comparison because in the Champions League case UEFA is present in the title because that part alone tells our readers which Champions League it deals with. In football alone, we also have the AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League and the CONCACAF Champions League. On top of that there are other non-football ones like the CEV Champions League.Tvx1 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A better example, then: the FIFA World Cup. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WDF World Cup, VIVA World Cup, ISSF World Cup, UCI World Cup.Tvx1 12:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the series is clearly branded WRC – World Rally Championship (wrc.com, WRC+ etc). There's no notable competing World Rally Championships under other organizers. Also per: WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title Official name is FIA World Rally Championship, but it is branded as World Rally Championship which qualifies as common name. Klõps (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is no World Rally Championship without the FIA. The FIA is the only body with the power to award a series World Championship status and it can rescind that status at any time. The World Touring Car Championship lost its World Championship status for 2018 and is now know as the World Touring Car Cup. Without the FIA's approval, the championship may continue to exist, but it will not be the "World Rally Championship", which goes back to what @ was saying about farsighted titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then if such a split up should happen in WRC, the FIA name should be added, but right now there isn't a need for that. Klõps (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a need because a) it's accurate, b) does not violate COMMONNAME, and c) still applies even if it never loses World Championship status. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need because a) it’s overly precise, b) DOES very much violate COMMONNAME, and c) is utterly redundant because only one WRC exists.Tvx1 23:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not violate COMMONNAME at all. The offline sources support it. You just cannot, will not or do not recognise their existence. It's a violation of WP:SOURCEACCESS&mdash;you won't acknowledge their existence because you cannot access them and have all but accused me of lying about it. All of this amounts go WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It does violate it. And I do acknowledge existence of off-line sources. I've checked one you named and it contradicts your claim. That I mixed up the titles doesn't changed that.Tvx1 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you checked one'. Well, I guess that settles it. Never mind that I named half a dozen different sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd just like to point out that "20XX FIA World Rally Championship" is not a radical departure from "20XX World Rally Championship". WP:COMMONNAME only states that Wikipedia prefers the common name so its gravity here is perhaps not as serious as if the proposed name change was something completely different. Between this and the contextual issues I have outlined, I don't think that a rigid, unwavering interpretation of COMMONNAME is in the article's interests. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a confusion with World Rally Championships? No. Let me also bring you an example from athletics (without IAAF) and aquatics (without FINA). Don't try to fix something that is not broken. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As previously pointed out, there is no World Championship without the FIA. "World Championship" is a status awarded to a championship recognising it as the highest class of competition in a motorsport discipline. For the series to call itself "World Rally Championship" without FIA approval would likely trigger some kind of censure. Thus the name is indefinite without "FIA". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one is claiming the FIA isn't involved and nor does omitting it from the title. The name is very much definite without it as there is no other World Rally Championship. Everyone knows perfectly what this articles deal with with the current titles. All the opposing statements here should have made you realize that by now.Tvx1 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: PM here (posting from public computer) &mdash; I have a few sources that use the name "FIA World Rally Championship": from WRC.com and Wheels magazine, the Coffs Coast Advocate (which is a mainstream publication), Rally Sport magazine, Red Bull TV, Crash.net, motorsport.com, Chequered Flag and Voice Online. In fact, the only source I can find that regularly uses "2018 World Rally Championship" is Autosport &mdash; and I think that relying on Autosport too much treads dangerously close to WP:SINGLESOURCE. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one claimed the FIA moniker isn't used at all. It's usage is simply far inferior to the usage without the moniker. You just refuse to accept that fact. For instance, let's look at how many times each is used in the sources you provided in your last reply:
 * {|class=wikitable

!Source||FIA World Rally Championship/FIA WRC||World (Rally) Championship/WRC !Total||19||75
 * WRC.com||1||6
 * Wheels magazine||3||6
 * Coffs Coast Advocate||3||12
 * Rally Sport Magazine||3||3
 * Red Bull TV||1||2
 * Crash.net||2||4
 * Checker Flag||1||24
 * Motorsport.com||2||1
 * Voice Online||3||17
 * Red Bull TV||1||2
 * Crash.net||2||4
 * Checker Flag||1||24
 * Motorsport.com||2||1
 * Voice Online||3||17
 * Motorsport.com||2||1
 * Voice Online||3||17
 * Voice Online||3||17
 * Voice Online||3||17
 * }
 * So very clearly, the FIA-less version is far, far more commonly used than the version with the moniker. This a clear-cut example of a common name and an official name. Also, your single-source complaint is outright ridiculous. Dozens of sources have been provided which commonly used the FIA-less version.Tvx1 12:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Except that you haven't addressed the route books, the entry lists, the itineraries, the historical results archives, the non-fiction publications or the periodicals like Automobile Year&mdash;all of which have been pointed out to you several times and none of which you have even acknowledged as potential sources, much less addressed. All you did was look up a defunct magazine, get the name wrong and call it a victory. Your entire hypothesis is "all the online sources use this name, so I can't imagine that the offline sources are any different", which violates both WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Route books, the entry lists, the itenariries and historical results archives are all official publications from the official organizers or the governing body. Off course they use the official names. For the rest, there are dozens of sources in the discussions here, both on- and offline ones, that commonly used the FIA-less version of the name. There is nothing hypothetical about that. It's a simple fact and you just don't wan't to accept it. I didn't claim any victory either, because I'm not in any match of any kind of here.Tvx1 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those sources provide invaluable information that no other source can provide. We cannot use some parts of the source but wilfully overlook others.


 * Furthermore, why do you only dispute this name? "FIA" is used in Formula 1, World Rallycross and World Endurance Championship articles. You have shown no objections to its use there, but vehemently oppose it here. You take a much more active role in other articles, but have consistently opposed this article bring changed. You have an unwavering interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME but disregard large sections of WP:TITLECON. Why is that? The whole thing looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and now I'm wondering which online sources use the "FIA" name that you have consciously overlooked to make a point here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Calendar outlook
Based on previous discussion, I'm suggesting a new calendar outlook (based on 2017 season). Main difference is adding "report" section to add easy access to rally articles. The other is avoiding confusion with "official" rally names (pointing out to each edition of the rally - removing that), which is basically not part of the rally name in half the cases. The number of edition can be found in each article - which now we link. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Version 1:
 * Version 2


 * First of all, what previous discussion? You said that you wanted to do it, but I was the only person to reply (and I opposed it). You need to wait for a discussion to take place first and you need to get a consensus before you make the changes.


 * Secondly, there are links to the specific rally report articles in the results table (which is currently hidden). Your proposal to include them in the calendar table is inconsistent with a) other WRC articles and b) most (if not all) other motorsport articles.


 * Third, could you please read the Wikipedia policies you cite before you cite them? You have previously claimed that the numbering of rallies is original research but please show me where (and how) it is original research to say that #65 is followed by #66. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are opposing, but with no arguement what so ever. The content of Wikipedia should be verifiable, but these numberings are not. They claim to be the "Rally name", but are they? There's no value of having them - being excessive and false. I made an example about Rally Mexico, where currently we have false info. And you are totally ignoring Tvx1, who to my understanding, also supports removing those numbers. Does even any other motosport season have those? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ''"You are opposing, but with no arguement what so ever."
 * Except for the sources.
 * ''"The content of Wikipedia should be verifiable, but these numberings are not."
 * # 65 is followed by #66. This does not need to be verified. If #65 was followed by #67, then you would need to verify it because the change is out of sequence. Again, could you please read the policies that you cite?
 * ''"I made an example about Rally Mexico, where currently we have false info."
 * Then correct it.
 * ''"you are totally ignoring Tvx1, who to my understanding, also supports removing those numbers"
 * He opposed renaming the pages because of the use of official sources. His argument in favour of removing the numbers is based on an official source. He can't argue it one way and then the other. Even if there was no contradiction, two in favour and one opposed does not make a consensus because a consensus is not a vote.
 * ''"Does even any other motosport season have those?"
 * No, only rallying. Some stand-alone events like the Macau Grand Prix might do it. But we should not remove them simply because no other championship (much less Wikipedia articles) does it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, you're inventing names again. You cannot refer to "Rally Germany", "Rally Spain", "Rally Great Britain", "Rally Portugal" or "Rally France" because those are not the names of those events. You have been told this before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the names how some sources (FIA) put them, but none of the sources put the calendar as the way it is in this article. Without "inventing" new rally names like FIA, the link would go to direct article anyway (Tour de Corse, Rally di Sardegna, Rally Catalunya or whatever their article titles), I was just making an example. Maybe continue here? And yes, those numberings needs to be verified - Rally Mexico was a perfect example why, also this. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ''"These are the names how some sources (FIA) put them"

When I proposed that the articles be moved to "20XX FIA World Rally Championship", it was rejected on the grounds that it was an official name. Therefore, the FIA source should not be used here. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 * ''"none of the sources put the calendar as the way it is in this article"

That's an over-simplification. The sources used for the calendar are really just there to give the order of the rallies and the dates they run.
 * ''"Maybe continue here?"

Maybe stop and think about what you're doing. It's quite clear that you don't understand the policies you cite and this isn't the first time you have come up with proposals that violate those policies. When somebody needs to double-check every edit you make to ensure it follows the policies&mdash;which I have to do&mdash;something has gone horribly wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the thought I'm contradicting myself. I argued not to use the official name for the article's title and now I argue not to use the official names in the calendar. Exactly the same if you ask me. This should be a simple calendar showing our general reader when and where which rally takes. For that reason, I agree with you that it doesn't need the column with the links to the reports. I feel that the dates can be presented in an easier way as well. Why can't we merges the dates columns to arrive like this:


 * I feel that provides the most efficient calendar for our readers.Tvx1 17:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, good one. I support this calendar. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keeping the dates separate provides structure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t. It just duplicates the names of the months. It’s just as structured without seperate dates.Tvx1 17:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Gorban problem
I think I have a solution to the Gorban problem that plagued us last year. Valeriy Gorban entered seven rounds of last year's championship and used six different numbers. In the end, the table looked like this:

It's really quite excessive but we were at a loss as to how to fix it. However, I have come up with this:

It's not perfect, but I think it works well enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works well enough.Tvx1 17:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We might have to do it differently for manufacturers. I find this to be quite awkward: The largest cells should be on the left and smaller ones on the right; it helps make the table easier to read when the table extends beyond the width of the screen. However, I find Lappi's entry to be difficult. This would be a better alternative: It is a bit of a redundancy, but it's better than having cells all over the place. I doubt it will be needed much anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That’s how it’s generally done in WP:Motor.Tvx1 03:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If it comes up. Table from Citroën World Rally Team. Looks awful. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's completely wrong. The number column should be removed and the drivers' results confined to a single line. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Next rally
When we have an article about the next rally, we should have place in here to mention it. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have told you before, we already do. Those links are currently concealed, but once Monte Carlo gets underway, they'll be revealed. Just have a little bit of patience please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking and synthesis
Please stop WP:CHERRYPICKING your sources. This source may give certain names for the rallies but it ignores other sources, particularly the sources used to substantiate the details of events. You are far too reliant on an single WP:PRIMARY source and are misrepresenting the subject. You need more sources to demonstrate that this is a long-term and widely-accepted change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the use of the aforementioned source is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Nowhere does it say that the event it "86ème Rallye Monte Carlo". It does say that the event is "Rallye Monte Carlo", the short form of the name and the page for the event lists it as "2018 Monte Carlo Rally", but nowhere does it refute that the event is called "86ème Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo". It also contradicts this source, which is (now) in the article as source #26 and clearly gives the event name as "86ème Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo". Let's not forget that you previously lobbied for Rallye Deutschland to be known in-article as Rally Germany because it was more convenient.


 * On top of that, the event has beem known as "Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo" for eighty-five years. Where is the evidence that the nane suddenly changed? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, don't you think it's wrong when the link says "66th Rally Sweden", the link goes to "Rally Sweden" rather than that 66th Rally Sweden article (even though it does not yet exist)? Your link for Monte Carlo is not working, but their home page says 86e Rallye Monte-Carlo. Most of rallies (Monte Carlo being the exception) don't use the number of rally as a prefix, but okay. Already last year, "Rally de España" was actually used RallyRACC Catalunya COSTA DAURADA/Rally de España. And "Tour de Corse" is the most often used (WP:COMMONNAME). 2018 Tour de Corse. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. You have yet to show a secondary source that demonstrates a different name.


 * As for your concerns about the 66th Rally Sweden directing readers to Rally Sweden rather than 2018 Rally Sweden (currently a redirect), we need to acknowledge that it is the 66th running of the rally and the best place to do that is in the calendar. The link to 2018 Rally Sweden will appear elsewhere in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look previous season's articles, where would you more likely want end up in, "Rally Sweden" article or that rally that actually takes place that year? If it's that year's calendar, then it's that year's rally we are interested in. Isn't it logical? Linking twice would be okay. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So where are you going to link to Rally Sweden? The calendar is the most appropriate place. Linking twice is not okay because a) one is redundant and b) it has come at the expense of the link to Rally Sweden. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The system to link this way comes from when there was not articles for each rally (example 2004). But now there is/will be. Look at "season summary" in 2017 article. There is again link to Rally Sweden with confusing text "65th Rally Sweden", but the link is actually under "Report". " 65th Rally Sweden " is no way logical and violates WP:MOS. We should be able to find link to each rally before reading the whole article. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you want to link to 2018 Rally Sweden and omit the link to Rally Sweden entirely, which is not acceptable. This system, where the link to the rally overview comes before the specific rally report is a convention of WP:MOTOR. For example, the calendar section of 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship has links to Australian Grand Prix, not 2017 Australian Grand Prix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That f1 example is different because the link doesn't read "56th Australian Grand Prix", no confusion there. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But rallying does use those names. So until such time as you find an alternative solution, leave it be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I can't find a source in this article, where it is said that the official name is "66th Rally Sweden" or "32º Rally Guanajuato México" - more like 15.... Or "61ème Tour de Corse – Rallye de France" - please provide a source. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbering is sequential. It doesn't need a source. What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking for a source to say that the year 2018 followed 2017. Or are you disputing that Rally Sweden has previously been run 65 times? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I have been wondering why were still using these full official names in our rally season articles. We've had a discussion on titles in the F1 project as well and decided to get rid of them in favor of the common names, even in the calendar. I don't see why we couldn't use the same approach in different areas of motorsport. After all Formula used numbering in their titles as well (some examples:,, ).Tvx1 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That discussion on titles was about the naming of sponsors and the use of a local language. Sponsors were removed because they didn't affect the running of the race. The local language was removed because it was used inconsistently and didn't add anything except a redundancy to the article. Neither is the issue here. And you know perfectly well that COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is "Rallye Deutschland" any less local language than "Großer Preis von Deustchland"? Also, I have shown very clearly than numbering of the editions is also used in F1. And yes, I'm fully aware that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't strictly apply to article content, but that doesn't mean we are forbidden to use a common name in the content if that actually improves the article. I really don't see what the full official names add to a season article and thus why there such an obsession to use them here. Surely there are more relevant in the articles on those rallies.Tvx1 19:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's local language, but it's also the COMMONNAME. Rally articles frequently use those names as their titles&mdash;for example, Rallye Deutschland, Tour de Corse, Rally de Portugal, Österreichische Alpenfahrt and Critérium du Québec. It's not uncommon for articles to use their local titles; cycling, for instance, has the Vuelta a España. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated the URL for the Monte Carlo route. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, these are not the official names of the rallies. Okay, we removed the sponsors, but somewhy added a number in front of the rally name (which none of the sources points out - original research?). What is that number in this article even referring to? For example, Rally Mexico's is not even correct. According to their homepage it should be 15 (even though it's not 15th Rally Mexico, not even the number of times to be on WRC calendar), but we have 32º - what kind of source says it's 32nd? And only some of the other rallies add a number to the rally name. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And apparently, the FIA themselves use a calendar with generic English rally names. So why can’t we? I still believe the official names belong in the individual articles for the rallies. It’s not the purpose of a season article to provide individual background to the rallies.Tvx1 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ''"So why can’t we?"
 * Because you just spent an entire week protesting the use of official sources over the COMMONNAME. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point? In this case, we are not using the official name nor the COMMONNAME. Can you answer my question about the sources? Is it original researh? I'm going to change it to direct link to rally article, because your arguement are WP:ILIKEIT and ignoring WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY etc. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that Tvx1 made a point that we cannot rely on officicl sources. Now he's presenting an official source in support of an argument. He can't have it both ways. As for your changes, I suggest you get a consensus first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself, titles adhere to WP:COMMONNAME and article content doesn't. That's the difference.Tvx1 17:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that the discussion at WP:MOTOR justifies making some of these changes. At best, the discussion is inconclusive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rally Sweden entries
If, as per this edit, entries for Rally Sweden have only just closed and been approved by the FIA, why do we include content related to Rally Sweden entries beforehand? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone just added it. If it's inappropriate, just remove it.Tvx1 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Registration was closed earlier than FIA's confirmation. And those entries didn't change anyway. I think if official sources (rally's homepage) publish it, we have no reason to doubt it. If there is a reason to question it, then we'll see. I understand your consern with that article's content, but it didn't contain the whole truth (I mean entrant can be either Adapta or Henning himself). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ''"if official sources (rally's homepage) publish it, we have no reason to doubt it"
 * Except that in this case, it clearly wasn't the final version. There's a potential for contradictory sources to emerge. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How did the "final version" differ from the version that Johannes275 provided on 17 January? It didn't, your reverts weren't actually necessary. Your reason "Henning has a history of submitting entries without then taking part" = exlude him from entry list. That's cherry picking because that article you provided was published also on 17 Jan. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ''"It didn't"
 * That's beside the point. We might have gotten lucky this time, but that does not mean that history will repeat itself.
 * ''"That's cherry picking"
 * Could you please stop making arguments based on policies you learned about five minutes ago and haven't read? It's not cherry-picking at all, since Speedcafe is recognised as a reliable source, directly quoted someone from Adapta and was an independent source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Access
If you want to uphold a consensus, that's fine. Just make sure you're upholding the agreed-upon consensus. The table captions were only introduced because the tables were split, and the tables were only split because we had issues with accessibility under DLL. But now we have the markup needed to circumvent the issues raised by DLL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth is DLL? Anyway, the markup does not work for captions. The markup serves to make cells look like header cells, without actually being formatted as one. Captions need to be formatted as captions or they are not accessible.Tvx1 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant DTT, not DLL.


 * I disagree that they are captions because a) we found a way to avoid the issue, as explained, and b) this is the only article that you insist that it must be used in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * a)They are titles for the tables running across the width of those tables, ergo they are captions. As explained the markup does NOT work for captions, it's only good to shade cells on the side or the bottom that don't have to been read as headers or captions. b) This is not the only article I insist it's used on. In fact I have applied it to others as well.Tvx1 17:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this the only motorsport article where you insist upon their use? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep falsely claiming that? It's wrong. I have applied it to others as well. Just no so many articles in WP:Motor articles have tables with a caption.Tvx1 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bolding the manufacturers
I just wanted to know if you guys think this is a good idea. If we are including World Rally Car entries from privateers in the same sections as manufacturers, I think distinction is needed for the manufacturers. Do you like this idea?

- Johannes275
 * I reverted the undiscussed overhaul by someone else. There was no consensus for it and really did not constitute any improvement. With regards to bolding, it's not an accessible way of conveying information, so unfortunately it's not a viable option.Tvx1 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Any time you want to contribute something to the article instead of just ruling in the negative on various proposals, that would be great. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Any time you want to contribute something to the article instead of just ruling in the negative on various proposals, that would be great. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pot, black, kettle. And there's no need to say it twice.Tvx1 23:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually do contribute content to the article because I have knowledge of the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do as well. You just think I don't have any knowledge of the subject.Tvx1 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? When was the last time you added content to the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)