Talk:Rallying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create, expand and improve World Rally Championship -related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

Rallying is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents 1 Disambiguation 2 Distinction 3 Name 4 Danger 5 Say what? 6 Rally ho 7 History of rallying 8 Ga on Hold 9 GA failed 10 History too detailed 11 Bollocks

[edit] Disambiguation

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)

[edit] Distinction

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)

[edit] Name

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? User:andrew.george.hammond 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)

[edit] Danger

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 128.230.121.224 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Say what?

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 128.230.121.224 (talk • contribs) 02:37, January 16, 2006.

[edit] Rally ho

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 128.230.121.224 (talk • contribs) 20:21, January 22, 2006.

[edit] History of rallying

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

[edit] Ga on Hold

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)

[edit] GA failed

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)

[edit] History too detailed

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)

[edit] Bollocks

"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 71.106.193.186 (talk • contribs) 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.