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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[1]: 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)[reply]

@Tvx1 — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Tvx1 — convenient? Not at all. Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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—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)[reply]

So this is how it's going to be — I provide sources upon request and you just ignore it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Indeed, so you should stop using it as your sole argument for your case.Tvx1 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: Beer, Matt (15 November 2012). "Dani Sordo returns to Citroen for 2013 World Rally Championship". Autosport.com. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 15 November 2012. Citroen has chosen Dani Sordo as its second driver for the 2013 World Rally Championship season.
• From Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC: Evans, David (22 August 2016). "Hyundai keeps Dani Sordo for 2017 and '18 World Rally Championships". autosport.com. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 22 August 2016.
• From 2011 World Rally Championship: English, Steven (5 January 2011). "Sordo finalises deal with Mini". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 5 January 2011.

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)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is no reason why "1000" cannot be used in that case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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

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:

• 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, "Wikipedia: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.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I strongly disagree with the claim of the commonname made here. I have already listed a myriad of sources here 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)[reply]
  • 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—a lot of the stories they run are simply re-posted from other publications—and he is ignoring the wider range of sources available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 (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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Comment: @Cwr09 — 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 — FIA World Rally Championship" and the commentators always use the full name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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 @Corvus tristis was saying about farsighted titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]