Merge

I would still suggest to merge the article with hardly WP:NOTABLE alone subsidiaries like as: 2020 Ligier European Series 2021 Ligier European Series 2022 Ligier European Series 2023 Ligier European Series 2024 Ligier European Series

As a least merge usability example, that will help Ligier European Series#Circuits to become from WP:OR a not with detailed and properly sourced each season separate circuits list. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've gone ahead and started a merge discussion, as a WP:Alternative to deletion I'll remove the AfD tag. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a good idea as merging is quite fresh and still qiestionable (as 21-22-23 seasons does not have any info sourced with WP:RS and therefore there's still nothing to merge and it mostly better to still delete it) but I can't deny the policy.
Thank you. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing comes of the merge discussion, feel free to renominate the article. Who knows, maybe the merge discussion will uncover reasons to delete after all. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case is AfD nomination is quite a hard and timely process for IP ) Even admins make a false statements about it forgetting about how it's hard. Renominanting again it for me will be just a hell I don't want to feel again. Sure, if someone registered would help me do it fast when time will come I wouldn't worry much. Will you if any? ) 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, if I'm convinced there is a compelling reason to delete I will nominate. Do want to see some more discussion first. (Also FYI GalacticVelocity08 isn't an admin, we're just users of semi-automated messages). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Volatile said, I am not an admin, and I do apologize for making that statement (although I corrected myself when I realized my mistake). I was actually unaware that unregistered users couldn't start discussions until earlier today, but I guess you learn something new everyday. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly put, merging is not a good idea, purely because it wouldn't work out in the slightest as there would be too much information to put in an article which is essentially the overview of the championship.
Also, with the attempted nominations of deletion and this last-minute plan to try and merge all LES pages into one for this apparent crusade against LES seasons make your ideas less clear to understand as I don't know if you're trying to delete the pages or merge them or turn these pages into whatever you like. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, based on the fact that user has nominated page for deletion, then tried to make improvements to the article. Appears that the user prefers deletion to merging based on above discussion, but for a nomination (at least for me personally) I'd like a bit of discussion and review regarding the sources first. Based on a cursory glance, there does seem to be a lot of citations to press releases, which are generally dubious (WP:NPOV and all). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that there are some citations to press releases, in the case of 2020 or the main LES page, there are no press releases, which the IP has erroneously changed quite a few times to "Cite press release". While these are two cases, I am open to try and find non-press releases for the 2021 seasons and beyond as I am sure that they do exist somewhere. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute

Pinging all involved editors 83.142.111.65, Road Atlanta Turn 5, GalacticVelocity08 for further discussion on the recent WP:WARring, WP:NPOV, and sourcing concerns raised at User Talk:83.142.111.65. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ping don't work on IPs. I see notifications only if something is wrote on my talk homepage )
So, I done it (moved the discussion) below. I think exactly full discussion starting from the warning message have to have place here for further understanding.
Anyway it's a good new start ) 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However not sure - what's now? ) How to try to achieve WP:consensus on current step? Just waiting until someone will look onto it ever? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, hopefully this'll get some more eyes on it. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 21:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:83.142.111.65

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ligier European Series. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. While I am aware that you are repeatedly citing this policy in your edit summaries, you are about to—if you have not already—violated the three revert rule. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best. However I merely ask you to notice other involved about it also. That would be just great for common useful contribution. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically warned you due to the potential 3RR violation. However I do agree that @MSport1005 and @Road Atlanta Turn 5 (pinging on purpose so they see this) could both be doing more to explain their disagreements in better detail. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying away from the dispute. I find some of the IP's WP:PRIMARY concerns valid – this arbitrary bombardment of tags and edit warring, however, is problematic. MSport1005 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is some sort of consensus reached I will just try and fix the article by addressing IP's concerns, although I don't get why so many Improvement tags (about 90% useless in this case) are put on all LES seasons. But I frankly want to avoid edit warring while trying to improve the page(s) as it wouldn't be constructive in the slightest. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both.
But @Road Atlanta Turn 5: can you please also look here and provide explanation why did you hiddenly reverted my edit to MSport1005's version providing it with outstanding to what you exactly did comments?
Also Wouldn't it be a good idea to revert your own such hidden revert (for me to not reasonably accuse you in WP:WARring again as I don't think such "hidden warring" is not a WP:WARring) and still start to deal with improvement tags appropriately (by fixing the issues first and not just unreasonably remove it)? Can you please do it?
I think it will be a good start for all of us. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what? I genuinely don't understand what you meant in the first and second paragraphs. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your 2 last changes to the article you didn't change anything with except just reverted my edit and let's start over with article edition according to the policies and not hidden intentions. Ok? Can you do it? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a valid reason to the changes as there were grammatical mistakes, weaker lead section and the use of unnecessary tags in your version. I don't understand why you want to make the page better according to your ways and not according to English vocabulary and grammatical rules and suggestions from other users who have warned you and reverted your changes multiple times. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't play your WP:CANVASS games anymore.
I see you don't want to find a WP:CONSENSUS and continue whatever unclear accusing me in. As you wish.
If I'm not right with my conclusion above please be more specific with what exactly you mean above. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note, first of all, that I do understand your frustrations. I fear the day when I might get embroiled in an edit war and face sanctions such as being blocked for violating WP:3RR. We are all looking for consensus here, raising concerns as appropriate, and accusing other editors of WP:WARring and WP:CANVASSing is not helpful in the regard. Let's try to assume good faith and discuss in a civil manner. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll try. I already made a civil manner post below. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you're going with this, randomly bringing up Canvass, failing to recognize criticism and not trying to find a consensus.
"Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants work together to achieve a broad acceptance." According to this definition and also seeing how the situation is going, it seems like you're not trying to find a consensus as you demand for things to be done your way, which goes against WP:OWN, which states "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content." Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yep, you right, and that exactly the same I already told you much earlier. So why do you mirroring me?
For now there's only your own vision of article's content, that clearly violates what you provided above, or, in short, WP:NPOV. And please stop bolding. Use italic instead. or just a single quotes. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier you said "WP:NPOV the article is not yours but shared content. Stop WP:WAR and just enhance as I do."
The "Enhance as I do." is quite literally WP:OWN, basically contradicting what you said in that same sentence. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "Do as I say" (you probably got it as), I told you exactly what I said (suggesting to follow my behaviour example with not just reverting someone's contribution, but clearly enhancing article's content without conflicting with other editors) so I don't see there any contradict to WP:OWN. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant above is you didn't do the "not a press release - it's more of an introduction to a newly-announced championship; also car prices wouldn't be included in press releases" (that is fake and was explained you repeatedly why) and "Name = name of the championship; grammar fixes; better lead section" (that both still excessive until it's not same as article name and text you returned is failed to verify as supported by provided by you sources) and also was explained to you earlier.
If you mean any issues about my ostensibly poor english (that however still covered by provided sources) - just rephrase it and not revert it.
So. Will you revert your changes? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(that is fake and was explained you repeatedly why)" It quite literally is not fake and me (and others) have repeatedly told you those weren't press releases, yet you chose to stick to your ideas while not taking advice from any of the editors.
"(that both still excessive until it's not same as article name and text you returned is failed to verify as supported by provided by you sources) and also was explained to you earlier." Let's break this down.
The parentheses part doesn't make any grammatical sense and the article name is literally "Ligier European Series" and the infobox has a section where it's said "name" referring to the championship's name. Also you didn't explain it to me earlier as it wasn't directed to me. Quick note about the mystic edit summary which didnt make sense.
The last question is borderline WP:OWN. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quotes, but my edits follow WP:NPOV and yours exactly to it's violation (as one as noted by you WP:OWN) as you continue being the only major editor with no any changes made to the article by anyone else.
If you don't understand any of my changes - please be clear what exactly you mean (which phrase, which source template etc.) and we can discuss that way. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits don't follow WP:NPOV from what I've been seeing. 1, 2, 3 are three nominations of contradicting a Neutral POV. Also you continuously asking me to revert my edits under no consensus is just not neutral is it? Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is absent there. That's what we trying to achieve here. so - can you please be clear what way my these edits are violate WP:NPOV? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, do your WP:NPOV concerns stem from this portion of the edit: inspired by the 24 Hours of Le Mans race and organized by Ligier Automotive in collaboration with the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO).? — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yep, there's (at sources provided) no words " inspired by the 24 Hours of Le Mans" as one as "organized by... Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO)." but exactly "(ACO) labelled" and organized by "Ligier Automotive and European Le Mans Series".
As one as he do not want to admit improvement tags I made hiding dependant sources under ostensibly independent (by removing any notification it's dependant both press release template and third party/primary tags) and relevant ones (that is not true). And he do it whole the day long with more 5 articles 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VolatileAnomaly: do you nave any more suggestions for a civil manner discussion on the talk page? Because it looks like it's a good idea to move to the next step as, in fact, initial article state (before my edits) did not much changed after last "improvement" (and, in fact, revert of all of my edits done to his own view) that way clearly violating WP:NPOV Road Atlanta Turn 5 does not willing to admit. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering asking for a 3rd opinion to have more uninvolved eyes on this. As it stands the content in dispute is relatively minor and wouldn't be fit for a noticeboard. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VolatileAnomaly I see. Thank you. But how to do it without noticeboard? And what if to add info about similar things he continue to do at i.e. 2020 Ligier European Series and 2024 Ligier European Series? Will noticeboard ok for such a request? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboard would be ok if there was more discussion in talk pages. As it stands, this issue is confined to this user talk page, which is insufficient grounds for any type of dispute resolution. Let's try to move further discussion to Talk:Ligier European Series first. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for advice. I'll do it just now. ) 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really an outside opinion, but here are my thoughts comparing these two versions ([1] and [2]:
  • Overview section is not needed as that is supposed to be covered in the lead.
  • Sportscar racing is the type of motorsport, while sports prototype, so while technically not incorrect, "sport prototype endurance event" doesn't work as well as sports car racing endurance series.
  • One make is the motorsport specific term for One-design racing, so again, while it is not incorrect, one make is more specific.
  • "ACO Labelled" just sounds weird to me? I've never heard the word labelled in reference to a motorsport series.
  • 24 Hours of Le Mans inspired is nonessential; it isn't wrong, but it doesn't fit as well as it does on European Le Mans Series (given that ELMS is directly named after the 24hrs)
  • "coupés" would the plural word for coupé, so would probably be better?
  • "The Ligier European series have/Series is divided into two classes" both work, but in my opinion "is divided into" flows better.
I'm not a grammar nerd nor an outside opinion, so feel free to disagree, but hopefully this will jumpstart some better discussion. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ))) I didn't expect you will join the discussion )
In order of as I was involved in terms written there (or importance for me or whatever different from yours):
  • I am also don't have a clue what "(ACO) labelled" means but that's exactly what wrote at this press release (and I mean it is a WP:PRSOURCE or at least WP:NIS, Road Atlanta Turn 5 deny, as there's clearly said "Ligier ...have announced")
  • I wrote a sports prototype instead based on exactly an added by me source that is despite WP:SELFSOURCE, but still good for clearing the subject definition, where exactly wrote the next: "a brand-new single-make series dedicated to its latest cars, the Ligier JS P4, a sports prototype with a futuristic look and the Ligier JS2 R, a small GT designed exclusively for racing.", so despite it's not the same as Sportscar racing it still covered by the source and no way WP:OR as looks like "Sportscar racing" there do.
  • As of "One make" I just suppressed it with not much thinking leaving the term it was linked to only. I still don't know what is it and how is it written right - that's why I omitted any substantial change (like as changing the wikilink) there.
  • "24 Hours of Le Mans inspired" yep, first what came into eye is favouritism of "inpired" that is bad idea at the article. While further sources research I did not find any support of any of it at the source. As of assumptions about some connection because of connected subject have a connection to it that probably had place before - that was a clear WP:OR I fixed by deleting it.
  • I didn't change (that was not added by my edit) "coupés" is obviously, in fact, a french word, using a exclisive é there and probably was just copied from french wiki or wherever else. As a suggestion I'd change it to just a "small GT" with no any "coupes" behind as it exactly named at subject's website' page meant #above.
  • Overview section was not meant by me as mandatory - mostly as a good start for future article filling.
  • I think have two classes sounds even better.
Hope above mentioned will also help the discussion. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have to also add that same (duplicate) naming of sections despite is not critical but still bad idea, that's why I renamed it but still was reverted. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to put (insert car here) Class when the sub-section is already under the "Classes" section because it's already implied that (insert car here) is a class within the championship. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said - that's not critical.
Despite I understand your vision (and would even step on it if there would not be a duplicate section names) I also have a look from aside of a reader who can be confused and make a mistake forming link to section manually (adding the #CurrentSectionName not taking in view that can be a same name above and he make a errorous link that way as he won't add "_2", "_3" etc. to that manual linking). That's why I made that change you reverted and still suggest to make it again. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't reply to the message below I'll reply here.
Let me show you some actual press releases - [3], [4], [5]. These three examples are all press releases, yet you still claim that [6] and [7] are such despite them not being press releases.
For the section part, refer to my previous message and I don't understand where you're trying to go with the "errorous link that way as he won't add "_2", "_3" etc. to that manual linking".
Meanwhile for the famous question of how to use the verb "Have", I suggest you check [8] and for reference "Ligier European Series" is an IT.
Though at this point we should probably get an admin involved because we're not going anywhere. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it says "Ligier has announced" it doesn't imply that it's a press release. The article could have taken info from a press release issued by LES but the article really doesn't read as such (which was told to you several times) and we have told you several times that there is no indication that it's such.
For example, Endurance Info's LES coverage was taken from press releases (which I realized later) as it was mentioned right at the beginning that IT WAS taken from the official press release.
However, DSC does NOT publish press releases and in those articles there is NO mention of it being a press release.
The overview section isn't necessary as the lead section already does that job, and for "I think have two classes sounds even better." it may sound better but it's not grammatically correct as Ligier European Series is not a plural subject, rather a singular subject in the way that it is a championship and not the championships. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to get involved but... anyway, I'll be short.
  • If you "don't have a clue what "(ACO) labelled" means" – why do you add it?
  • This is not PR, nor is it WP:NIS. It's written by Mat Fernandez, who is unaffiliated to Ligier and covers it in a neutral way.
  • Sportscar racing is a form of racing; sports prototype is a type of car. Not all cars in LES are prototypes, therefore "prototype event" is a bad description.
  • "One-make championship" is the standard definition.
  • "Inspired by the 24 Hours of Le Mans" is, as GalacticVelocity said, non-essential. We can remove that.
  • "Coupés" is an English word. "Small GT" is a vague, made-up term that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
  • Overview section is unnecessary.
  • "Ligier European Series have two classes" is bad English.
MSport1005 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Road Atlanta Turn 5 and MSport1005: As your comments are quite meaning-similar, let me answer you both at once.

  1. All I added is covered by sources - that's the primary goal I followed according to WP:V, and that's quite obvious from where you read it from so please do not ask me what you can read about on your own where exactly you read the base you question me about.
  2. Now let me explain what is WP:PRSOURCE not from someone's subjective view but from the view of the whole of at least local wikipedia community, if it's still not clear for you. So "A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually [which does not mean always, as you claim, that's the answer to you r"who is unaffiliated to Ligier" (first - how do you know? second - reporter affiliation is just one of options of how press release can look as)] written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization.... Usually, but not always [repeated what I meant above, but already at the policy, that's the answer to your "there is NO mention of it being a press release.], a press release will be identified as such. Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications [That's exactly what I meant about Graham Goodwin's articles at Talk:2020 Ligier European Series#justification for deletion writing "it just repeats press releases from endurance-info with minor changes", who's writing his articles exactly at DSC you claim above as "DSC does NOT publish press releases" that now for me, taking in view Graham's articles, is hardly belivable]. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism"). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article."
Despite last bolded statement is not clear about can I mean company's own citations in the article as "press release sign" we can still follow to the main article wof what is it which mentioned in the policy (by wikilinking) and read there the next:
A press release (also known as a media release) is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing new information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release.
that way your claim "Just because it says "Ligier has announced" it doesn't imply that it's a press release." is clearly faulty not because of "I think so" but because a meaning definition says so.
That way no matter how much right way press release is written or not, is it indicated as one or not, is it clear article's author being paid or any way affiliated to the article's subject or not, even if there word "announce" have place or not.
Main thing is exactly how article looks and only sign of public is it clear it's based on any company speech, official press release (with words "press release" you like so much to note about), it's post on social or even direct speech of any affiliated to that article's subject person. That way all of the next is still WP:PRSOURCE and still have to be indicated as "press release" to not confuse the readers and/or other editors with information WP:VERIFYcation possibility:
  • article contains words "press release"
  • article contains words "said/written/posted by [any affiliated person]"
  • article contains words "announced" if it have connection to article subject as the announce author.
  • article just contains [[direct speech] of any article's subject affiliated person;
  • article is just quite a similar to press release based in it's content neither you can find it to approve it or not.
  • article does not have any critical view regarding article subject (questionable but still probably)
  • etc.?
As additional I have to add here template:cite press release is not even pointing to the WP:PRSOURCE but exactly on press release (where's definition is much wider) as the source that have to be tagged by that template.
So please, as about press release, let's stop WP:GAMING and start contribute responsibly not confusing readers with what you want to see but what in fact is not. And use exactly "press release" template where it's quite clear.
If you have any questionable sources you want to discuss is it press release or not - be detailed and discuss first - and not just revert my edits. And try to read and understand edit comments I make - that usually quite a clear.
Taking in view example you provided it is clearly a press release as there told "Ligier... have announced" according to the definition ("an announcement directed for public... The newswire then scatters the information ...resulting in the information or announcement becoming public knowledge.") and therefore have to be cited by template:cite press release exactly according to it's initial description ("This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for press releases.") as Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions and readers/editors clearly have to have availability to differ it to be sure information provided and cited by such sources is absolutely WP:Verifiable or still some way questionable. Especially in cases of WP:LINKFARM mentioned both @ Talk:2020 Ligier European Series#justification for deletion and Talk:2024 Ligier European Series#justification for deletion and still having place at other similar articles (2021 Ligier European Series 2022 Ligier European Series 2023 Ligier European Series) where the eye is just becomes blurred.
3. Phrases you claim as gramatically incorrect etc. Your vision about ostensibly my bad english etc. does not mean anything when that exact writing is covered by sources:

So, are we clear to start editing articles together with no any WP:WARring even when you don't like someone's change but there's already a wider (community) WP:CONSENSUS exists (that does need nor your nor my additional approvement, like as WP:VERIFYcation availability of all you state at the article and not deleting/reverting it if it is covered by sources and easy deletion acception when it's not, even if it was written by you and you don't like it) clearly following WP:NPOV with no need of such long discussions or you still have a questions before accepting someone's point of view that differs from yours with no any aggro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.111.65 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article containing quotations or the word "announced" is no evidence of WP:PRSOURCE. Please read up on what a press release is before trying to educate experienced users. You get a well-earned WP:TROUT for baselessly accusing DSC of churnalism and insinuating these are paid stories. MSport1005 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I see you continue accusing me with no any reason. Please stop it and stay on the topic.
Word "announced by [article subject or someone close to it]" at the news is exactly evidence of press release that have to be tagged with template:cite press release. Why is explained right above.
Let's wait for wider consensus.
@VolatileAnomaly and GalacticVelocity08: Can you please tell us your opinion about it? 83.142.111.65 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful if I take this to the Reliable Sources noticeboard so others can weigh in? — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably smart to do so. As long as the article meets the source requirement as a whole, I see no guideline saying that everything needs a nonprimary source. For example, standings, calendars, and results may not be outright stated by independent media. This is getting out of hand. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, primary sources can definitely be used to support such uncontroversial information. The main issue in dispute in this case seems to be whether this article qualifies as a press release. I'll make the posting from the perspective of a relatively uninvolved editor. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 20:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I apologize; I've been looking at all the reverts the individual pages and thats what came to mind. Given the amount of disagreement over a press release, it could probably be brought to a noticeboard at this point. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just made the posting at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 20:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noone says there's such a requirement, however we talk here about exactly what is press release because according to WP:PRSOURCE: "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions.", which, taking in view questionable WP:NOTABILITY of both that exact subject as one as their seasons to have separate articles - that question is out of "no guideline saying that everything needs a nonprimary source" (that noone's arguing here).
Also WP:IIS notes:
"Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources."
Case is what I see - whole the article is based on many primary sources as one as terribly close to exclusively 2 questionable "newsmakers" (that I see as press releases) with 4 (but 3 of are authors having less then 5 articles as sources provided total, and only 1 author there exclusively writing many articles (more then 10), that, on my opinion, with no doubt just too close repeat subject's press releases or citing it) different "journalists' from there that looks quite similar to just a press releases, that, if it really is, means subject is NOT WP:NOTABLE.
And that's all what article is supported with - just primary and press releases (which in fact, can be counted as also primary).
Therefore current discussion decides the further fate of the subject of the current article and it's subsidiaries (seasons) about how to be (or not to be (c) Hamlet) described in wikipedia.
That's why it's quite important. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue at 2024 article

Reposting this here to bring this to the attention of involved editors who have not seen this yet. tldr; alleged NPOV, COI, and ADVERT issues. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As one as good to look here to talk about it's WP:NOTABILITY and is it time to #Merge it - I think I have nothing more to add and waiting for any fresh opinions. 83.142.111.2 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ligier_European_Series
No tags for this post.