Jump to content

Talk:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:c7d:3fb0:300:b5d1:ef7c:725c:f443 (talk) at 10:46, 29 October 2020 (→External links modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

FIA classifications

It would be good to have a reference here for those FIA categories: Group 4, Group 5, etc. of the 1970s and Group A, Group B, Group C from the 1980s. Most people don't realize that Group B was not intended just as a rallying category; the Porsche 959 was first shown as the "Porsche Gruppe B" concept; the Ferrari 288GTO was also designed with Group B regulations in mind. Both cars had 2.8-litre turbo engines. For circuit racing, manufacturers simply didn't show interest in that category (the Ferrari GTO Evoluzione being a Group B prototype that never raced). Group C was another matter of course.

Vandalism

Removed "FIA president Max Mosley has said all FIA members are either gay or lesbian" lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db1987db (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors I think we need to protect this page to prevent vandalism due to the controversial 2019 Canadian GP Karter873 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North America - Eurocentric

The organistan appears to be eurocentric. What's the reason behind the lack of a North American presence (ie. it relationship with NASCAR, IRL CHamp etc)? Htra0497 19:00, 22 oCtober 2006 (AET)

Well, that might have something to do with the simple fact that the FIA has no involvement in the governing of U.S. motorsport.... Adrian M. H. 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that's through choice either. They are the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, after all. Some explanation in the article wouldn't go amiss mind you. --kingboyk (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FIA is involved: The ACCUSFIA is a FIA member and North America's sporting authority. And ACCUSFIA's members are NASCAR, IMSA, Champ Car, ... For example FIA approves the Champ Car calendar. That's why they were disallowed to to race in China in 2007. But the North American series aren't to much involved with adopting FIA sporting code and rules. --Motorsport-archive (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Faculty

If anyone takes on the task of re-writing and expanding this article, which it certainly needs, be sure to include information about the new FIA Medical Faculty. References can be found on the usual motorsport news sites if you need them. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WMSC?

The WMSC and its decisions should IMO be a separarte article. The way it works could then be documented in more detail, and the directvies taken by it could therefore be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALCUS36 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it should be a section here until such time as it outgrows this article. However, if you really want to edit the WMSC article you need this link: [1] There would be various redirects to sort out too. --kingboyk (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

What about what probably tens of thousands of race enthusiast (particularly Porsche ones who I have encountered in the past) said about them, favouritism of French marques such as Matra and Peugeot, especially Group C and in the 70's or changing the rules to suit them, that will be worth adding. Willirennen (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would attract an almost instant NPOV unless carefully written. --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs

That list of clubs (or is ASN the correct terminology rather than club) is going to swamp the article. Surely it would be better to break that out into its own article as "List of FIA affiliate clubs or organisations" or a permutation of such and refer to it by link from ther FIA page. Readability is the most important part of any article and the majority of people browsing across the FIA article will have little interest in a list of the 163 member ASNs. --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Info on 'Paul Metternich'

I found plenty of info on this guy. One day, his family will be forgotten if we dont do anythin bout it tho and they were a bunch of pretty important ppl.

This is a hyperlink to a summary of his wifes life and details quite heavily on Paul himself...

link title

This is a summary of what he done on the FIA. A list of all the past governors of the FIA can be found on the right which is pretty useful.

link title

This is an article of him on the German Wikipedia. Pretty amazed you didnt know who he was.

de:Paul_Alfons_von_Metternich-Winneburg

Lastly, it is in German so I will give you a rough translation thru Google Translate.

link title

Hope this helps.

BTW, I will become a Wikipedia user until the 'beta' is released publicly. I like the look of that (altho it is still under development. MUCH more easier to use.--90.192.107.101 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autosport

What does that source? Antimatter31 (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sources the paragraph about the World Motor Sport Council - it was originally provided as a source for World Motor Sport Council and was added to this article when that article was merged into this one in this edit in October 2007. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Antimatter31 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


licences

This article needs some information on the various FIA licence classes, e.g super. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.223.220 (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at FIA Super Licence. The drivers racing licences are issued by the various national ISNs, not by the FIA. --Falcadore (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2015

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: No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile → FIA – per WP:COMMONNAME, exactly the same case as FIFA and FIBA. Cybervoron (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, because this acronym is well known and used in a plenty of names of the auto racing championships. Also as it said Zarcadia, it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Readers mostly search the article, not the articles from disambiguation as it clearly seen from page statistics. Cybervoron (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it the common name? It's a well used acronym, but I'm not sure whether that's because it is indeed the preferred form, or just simple brevity. The style guides for most publications generally write out the name in full first, then use the acronym after, so I don't think we can gather much from researching the net. I would say "FIA" does primarily refer to the federation, which meets the second part of WP:ACRONYMTITLE, but I'm not sure if the FIA is primarily known by the acronym. QueenCake (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it used in a plenty of names of the auto racing championships. And it's clear that acronym is more commonly known than full name. When I create articles, I used many different sources, and I saw VERY rarely that somebody wrote in the sources Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile or International Automobile Federation. Cybervoron (talk)
Agreed, it's as commonly used as NFL, NBA, FIFA etc. There isn't another article at the FIA disambiguation page that comes close to primary topic, it's overwhelmingly the motorsport organization, and this organization is almost always referred to as FIA as evidenced by Google News results: [2] vs [3]. Zarcadia (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is invalid as we use the common name, not the official name. Zarcadia (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 9 May 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: No consensus (non-admin closure) - Yashovardhan (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile → FIA – It's a clear case of the WP:ACRONYMTITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And it's nothing different from any other international sport federations like FIFA and FIBA. Previous discussion was closed without consensus, but the people who opposed haven't provided any valid arguments. All of their arguments haven't conform any of the WP policies. FIA even on their site in the "About FIA" section doesn't use "Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile". Corvus tristis (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired the link to FIA (disambiguation).Moriori (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepho-wrs, please read carefully WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. None of the articles from disambiguation have even close usage to FIA. For example, probably someone will look up for National Association of Theatre Owners, but NATO is a primary topic. In a case when users need something different then they should use a disambiguation for a different meaning. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and its contents. The primary topic is very much subject to personal opinion. To people interested in motor sport, Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile is the primary topic. To iron workers in Australia, the primary topic is very clearly Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia. To fire workers in the UK, the primary topic is very clearly Fire Industry Association. It all depends on what the reader is interested in - not what the editor is interested in pushing forward. The onus is on you to show that your interpretation is orders of magnitude better than other people's interpretation. Or to put it another way, why is your motor sport interest more important than a fire industry worker's interest? WP:NWFCTM spells this out.  Stepho  talk  10:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepho-wrs, Page view statistics, reflection in the third-party sources and simple google test are not my personal opinion. And it shows that the international federation is far more notable than any article from disambiguation. P.S. Your examples are defunct organization and local organization for 700+ people, while FIA includes 239 member organizations and it reflects interests of thousands of people. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being international doesn't make it primary - it is still restricted to the area of motor sport. You are making claims that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile is the more common usage but have provided no proof. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined") and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Since you are the one pushing for the change, the onus is on you to provide the proof.  Stepho  talk  21:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum page view per day: 675 page views, 21 page views, 10 page views. The difference is obvious. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - FIA is already a redirect here, so there's no extra problem with a move. I would agree that "the FIA" is way way way way way more common than the fill name. If NATO is at NATO, then this article being at FIA makes sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain tilting towards Oppose. Provided differing opinions are supported by (an) adequate redirect page(s), my usual reaction to these rename discussions is that it doesn't terribly matter. But there are lots of other uses of the term "FIA", and English language wikipedia is unique in the extent to which it is consulted by people whose mother tongue is not English. Those of us who think FIA has something to do with motor sport are far more likely to have come across (or been prompted to look at) this discussion than folks who think it stands for something else (1) quite unrelated and (2) far more important (to them - if not to you and me). In that sense we are in part a self-selecting discussion group. It is only natural to take that a step further and devalue the preconceptions we do not share. But that can also be seen as gratuitously arrogant, and it runs counter to the idea that wikipedia is there to share knowledge that people don't already have. That's even more important - much more important - than sharing between ourselves stuff that we already (think we) know. Even if sometimes it doesn't feel that way. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles01, there are lots of different meanings to IBM (disambiguation), but are they WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? No, they don't. The same is correct for FIA. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As in "...there are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists". Seriously, wiki rules and guidelines are there to serve wiki goals and objectives. Not vice versa. Any wiki rule or guideline worthy of the name is capable of necessary interpretation, and none the worse for that. I freely accept that your interpretation and mine may differ. Frankly - maybe it shows - I'm not wishing to be dogmatic about one interpretation being better than another. But I do think that if you simply state as you're argument "that's what the rule says", then you'll get into a seemingly endless discussion with someone who asserts that the rule actually says something different. I'm not sure that such discussions necessarily lead to wikipedia becoming better at fulfilling its core objectives. Rules and guidelines are helpful as a means to getting to a better place. They are not the better place itself. Sorry, I didn't really intend to come back on this. Success Charles01 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Whether FIA is supposed to be an article or disambiguation page depends on personal opinion only. And changing just for the sake of changing? No. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It depends on the usage rate, about which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states about. It's changing for the sake of the most common usage. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was at weak support to indifferent, but Charles01 makes a good argument. I'm also inclined to prefer the more accurate pagename to the simpler (if more common); for anybody who only knows "FIA", & for anybody looking for other "FIA"s, there are redirects & dab pages. Leave it be. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Abbreviations should be used as article titles only when the subject is referred to almost exclusively that way. This case doesn't quite rise to that level. "Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile" is used on the subject's web site and Facebook page, by the BBC, the Independent and the European Commission, among others. FIA redirects here, so no one is getting lost by having the full name rather than an abbreviation as the title. Station1 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why they don't call themselves as Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile here? There is only one use of the full title in the header of the site. BBC? They predominately use FIA acronym. And if you will look up for another third-party sources you will see that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile is exactly the opposite to common name. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They do call themselves Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile at their link. The whole purpose of an abbreviation is so that the longer full name need be used once and then not be repeated over and over. So of course the abbreviation will appear much more often. A name and abbreviation are two different things that should not be confused. I agree with you that FIA is also often used without spelling out the full name, but I think not enough to qualify as the article title. Station1 (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I'm not something understand but why FIA case differs from FIFA, FIBA, IBM, NBC, etc? It has the same level of the usage for abbreviation instead of full name. It's a second discussion about renaming but nobody can answer this question. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's true or not that they have the same level of usage, since I haven't researched it. My guess is that FIFA, IBM and NBC might have a higher level of usage. FIBA used to be at International Basketball Federation. But if it is true, those articles should be at their full names as well, in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note there are relatively few or no other topics abbreviated FIFA, FIBA, or IBM, compared to the number of other topics abbreviated FIA. Station1 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I neither knew FIBA nor NBC. If somebody talked about "Fiba", I would have had to look it up. On the other hand, International Basketball Federation is self-explanatory. Things that would most definitely need an explanation should not be abbreviated. We must not expect that everybody is familiar with something or knows certain things. Simmering for example is abbreviated 11. If you don't even know what Simmering is, how would you be supposed to know that 11. refers to Simmering? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile for a non-French speaker is a way more confusing than FIA, probably it is not hard to guess what does it mean, but is hard to remember correct spelling and repeat it in when you are creating/editing an article. International Automobile Federation is impossible to find in the reliable sources. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2020

Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile → FIA – Most articles link to FIA. Furthermore, all uses of FIA refer to this. 2A02:C7D:3FB0:300:B5D1:EF7C:725C:F443 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fédération_Internationale_de_l%27Automobile&oldid=986027383"