Talk:Autocross (European)

Polite rename
Hello, User:Rally Wonk! Thank you for renaming the page to "Autocross (European)". I also had concerns about the old name but could not figure out how to resolve it by renaming it so that the renaming could have been consistent with the other sister articles. However, would it have been more polite if you used a discussion template before renaming? There was no urgency to rename, and a few days pending opinions. If there had been no opinions, would it have been a friendly way towards other editors of Wikipedia? I would appreciate if you always rename using a discussion template unless there are solid reasons for urgency without the discussion template, in this case, I would value the explanation of the urgency on the talk page even post factum renaming. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed to prevent potential conflict (WP:PG); my understanding of these principles, after applying the commons sense rule (WP:UCS), suggests that changes, such as renaming a page, should ideally be discussed and agreed upon by the community of the editors (a page can usually be renamed if the existing title is incorrect or needs to be changed (WP:MV, H:MOVE)).

Renaming should adhere to standard naming conventions when choosing a title to ensure consistency across Wikipedia and help users find information more easily. As such, the formal rename consensus procedure on Wikipedia makes the reasoning behind renaming explicit, which aids all editors in understanding the decision, particularly those new to the community or the topic (the ensuing discussion from a rename proposal is educational, helping editors understand naming conventions and the rationale behind them so that this transparency can prevent future conflicts over renaming, as the clear explanations leave less room for misunderstanding). In addition, the consensus reached is documented and easily accessible, unlike reasoning that might be buried in the page history or implied through context. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Maxim Masiutin, I agree a discussion would have been friendlier than being bold. I was going to reply to this discussion on 'Autocross', but I realised it was myself who started it some months ago, and it's without reply. As I find many of my calls for discussion are unanswered, this time I felt bold. Anyway, what is done is done.
 * I'm wondering now if there is a need for more than one Autocross article. I'd still like to hear your thoughts if you have any.
 * The disam page makes no sense when Autocross is not disambiguated itself. The US bias on Autocross needs addressing IMO, such as the first sentence that all Autocrosses are also called Solo, Auto-X etc. Also, the styling of the disam page that it is the 'correct' autocross, like the others are weirdo offshoots.
 * British Autocross was voted to redirect some time ago.
 * I redirected Australian Autocross as it looked abandoned. CAMS was renamed years ago, Motorsport Australia no longer sanction Autocross, AFAIK. It made no sense to redirect British but not Australian Autocross
 * Does Autocross (European) need a separate article when the main justification is that competitors start at the same time? If FIA, FFSA, DMSB (etc) have a separate article for this, should Motorsport UK, SCCA, NASA, Motorsport Australia (etc) then all have separate articles for their different Autocrosses. Either all are different, or "Autocross is Autocross". I don't see justification for many.
 * Thanks for getting in touch. I think there is a lot of scope for improvement here. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)