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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The discussion should have been relisted but was left stale for weeks. Several alternatives have been raised, it might be an idea to wait a bit and put forward a "→ ?" requested move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → IMSA SportsCar Championship – The full name of the series is IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, so it would make sense to remove the sponsor from the page title to make it consistent with other championships such as IndyCar Series and NASCAR Cup Series which do not have sponsors. I also think that the WP:COMMONNAME is IMSA because most people and sources (which are not obliged to mention sponsors) such as this, this, this and this refer to it as such. Also, if the sponsor changes this page would not need to be moved again. Carfan568 ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Move - Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. "Imsa Sports Car Championship" is both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NDESC. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Not "Imsa". IMSA. And it's not "advertising billboard" when it's the actual name of the subject, Wikipedia is not the BBC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

If the BBC reported on Nascar I'm sure they'd call the Xfinity Series "the Xfinity Series" because that's what normal human beings who aren't being paid to say the word "Xfinity" actually call it, as there isn't an obvious alternative name that's naturalistic. However, using sponsored names as article titles when there is clear evidence that independent sources do not use the sponsored name is a clear threat to Wikipedia's neutrality as there is no argument a normal human being could make in favour of using a sponsored name which is distinguishable from an argument an undisclosed astroturfer could make, with the exception of cases where an association may retroactively have become detrimental to that companies' image. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of being an astroturfer, I am merely setting out why I take such a firm stance against unnecessary use of sponsored titles. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Speaking of the BBC. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

As has been already stated, Wikipedia is not the BBC. The BBC is well known for their restrictions on advertising and sponsors. Those rules do not apply here. The³5₉ ( Talk) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Not an accurate reflection of the BBC's policies, as can be seen in this article where they use the name "Rolex 24". HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. A couple of google searches tell you as much. SSSB ( talk) 09:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose (edit: Oppose rename as proposed, see below) The actual name of the thing is "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". "IMSA SportsCar Championship" is actually - barring the stylized "SportsCar" - somewhat ambiguous as IMSA has sanctioned multiple championships for sports-car racing over its history. Also WP:COMMONNAME is not satisfied by the proposed change as many sources do use the sponsored title (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Claims that using the actual name of the thing consititute "advertising" are simply nonsensical and should be rejected out of hand as being non-neutral. Finally the comparison to other series in the nomination is, at least in part, slightly erronious - the page title of NASCAR Cup Series doesn't include a series sponsor because the series doesn't have a title sponsor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

But independent sources don't refer to the IMSA GT Championship or the American Le Mans Series as "the IMSA Sports Car Championship" because they had different names. There's also the issue that it's questionable whether those championships actually need separate articles since the three are all very clearly continuations of one another. As for the claim that it's "not neutral" to call including meaningless sponsor names in article titles advertising, I can just as easily say that it's "not neutral" to pander to astroturfers by allowing largely unrelated company names top billing in large font on the article. Per WP:OFFICIAL we should acknowledge the official name, but in order to avoid the appearance that Wikipedia is being manipulated by marketers we should avoid using sponsored names as article titles unless independent sources consistently show that that is the WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

...wow, I don't even know where to start with this, other than to say I you should really assume more good faith. I get it, you WP:DONTLIKEIT that it puts "meaningless sponsor names" (meaningless, millions of dollars naming the tour and paying point fund money, po-tay-to I geuss), but it is still what the name of the series is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose I am in agreement with Bushranger. IMSA SportsCar Championship is, at best, WP:SYNTH as none of the sources given actually use that title, they just use IMSA. Therefor this is neither the correct title, nor is it the common title as the name is fabricated solely for the purposes of Wikipedia. WeatherTech is more often then not used in reference to the series. Further, to add to Bushranger's correct point about NASCAR Cup Series, we have the NASCAR Xfinity Series easily showing that sponsorship is part of article titles. The³5₉ ( Talk) 17:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

If you actually read beyond the article headlines you'll see that these articles from independent sources use the term "IMSA SportsCar Championship", such as this article and this article that the OP linked. Regardless, the "Weathertech" part is nothing more than meaningless ephemeral guff that doesn't need to be included. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to get rid of part of the proper title for a series. Please present a policy that points to eliminating sponsors from article titles. There is zero evidence that Wikipedia is presenting itself as biased for including a proper sponsored title. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Further, your use of WP:NDESC is a complete misinterpretation of the policy as a sponsorship title is not being used as a descriptor. This policy in no way applies to this article title or discussion. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying that "I don't like it". I'm saying that independent reliable sources clearly don't consider the sponsored part to be an actual part of the name, and that since that is the case including the sponsored title makes Wikipedia vulnerable to astroturfers who want to get whoever's paying them's name to appear in large font at the top of articles. It's a clear threat to Wikipedia's neutrality. While I don't think anyone arguing in favour of using the sponsored name is an astroturfer, it would be very easy for an astroturfer to use sockpuppets to create the appearance of a consensus about using a sponsored name. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Except you're ignoring the independent sources that do use WeatherTech. Therefore you have failed to show how this inventee title is common. Your invention of this being astroturfing or a precursor to astroturfing still has no policy to back it. Please provide a policy to back this thought process. Otherwise this is a garbage argument. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Your implication that the suggested correct title is somehow just a "garbage" invention of editors is quite frankly offensive, since it is clearly used as a shortened version of the official title by reliable independent sources who aren't being paid to say the word "Weathertech". As for the WP:PRECISION issue, can you please explain how this series is not the WP:PRIMARY topic for the term "IMSA Sports Car Championship" or even "IMSA Championship"? HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I will accept recentism as an argument against it being the primary topic for "IMSA Championship", but since "IMSA Sports Car Championship" is clearly not a common name for the "IMSA GT Championship" I think it at least counts as WP:PRIMARY for that. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Not only is there zero indication that the sources provided from Bushranger are not independent or unreliable, but you still have shown absolutely zero policy to back your claim that a proper title needs to be removed because it is from sponsorship. Independent sources and primary sources back the title. Article titles do not need to solely rely on independent sources. You seem to be bent on an attempt to use this move disucssion to WP:POINT and attempt to create a policy that does not exist. This is not the place for such a thing. So yes, I believe your continued argument is without merit at this time. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per Bushranger. Now Neutral. If anything, we should be moving IndyCar Series → NTT IndyCar Series -- GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be opposed to moving WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, though. -- GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I would support this move too. Rpo.castro ( talk) 18:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose by WP:PRECISION. WP does not have necessarily to use the official name, but neither is it forbidden or should it be avoided. This competition hasn't just a common name, since both IMSA SportsCar Championship, WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, and IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship have all great coverage among reliable sources. We don't have a crystal ball to know if or when the name will change, and moving the article isn't a problem, by WP:NAMECHANGES and by WP:TITLECHANGES (name has been stabe). These aren't really make or break criteria (both options seams viable), but if we look at WP:PRECISION it will tells other way. Take the example of List of IMSA SportsCar Championship circuits. You could think that is a list of the WeatherTech SportsCar Championship circuits, but its a list of circuits used by IMSA in sportcars races since 1971, long before this competition has started. IMSA "is a sports car racing sanctioning body", so it has been helding several sportscars championships through the years, like IMSA GT Championship which "was a sports car racing series". Rpo.castro ( talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

It's almost as if IMSA GT, the ALMS, and the current IMSA championship are actually all just different names for the same thing. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

They are not, and even if they were, it does not change the naming convention of this article. Further, your very use of IMSA Championship easily shows that this is not a proper disambigous descriptor, as IMSA has dozens of championships over history. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

It's almost as if there's a reason why the article on Silverstone is called " Silverstone circuit" and not " Silverstone". In an ideal world this article would just be called "IMSA" because that's how normal human being's speak, although come to think of it I think " IMSA Championship" would be a perfectly acceptable title on the grounds that this article is clearly WP:PRIMARY in that regard. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a gross misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY and your example of Silverstone makes no sense. How "normal human beings speak" is irrelevent, this is Wikipedia, not Twitter. This is a poorly made and disingenious argument. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm going to stop arguing with you now as it is clear that the differences in our viewpoints are irreconcilable, and any further points I might wish to make would take me into territory where I would no longer be assuming good faith and would be engaging in direct personal attacks. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 18:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Partially yes, but mostly no. You can't ignore the merge with Rolex Sports Car Series. Daytona prototype and GTD are huge part of current series. As for IMSA GT and ALMS, now you can say that one took the place of another but its was more like one championship became defunct while another one started, using and major flag a new category and the link wit ASO and Le Mans, that took the place of the previous competition including the competitors (not to mention the role that the success of ALMS had in other series especially in current FIA WEC) Rpo.castro ( talk) 18:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Regarding the comment above that the NASCAR Cup Series page doesn't have sponsors in the title because it currently doesn't have a title sponsor, there was a consensus to remove the sponsors when the series did have a title sponsor. Also, many of the sources listed in the same post are not independent, but even then all of the sources listed here have used the term "IMSA" but not everyone, especially the independent ones, have used "WeatherTech". Carfan568 ( talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

To add to my previous comment, of the five sources that were listed above using "WeatherTech", the biggest one (racer.com) is literally listed as an "Official partner" on the official IMSA website, one of them is from a race that is part of the championship, one of them is a copy of a press release from a manufacturer participating in the series, and the other two still use "IMSA" in addition to "WeatherTech".

That doesn't even compare to the independent sources that were already listed and many others such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this which use "IMSA SportsCar Championship".

Since there are so many independent sources using "IMSA SportsCar Championship", and the sources which use "WeatherTech" still use "IMSA" as well, it is simply not commonly recognizable to call this page just "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Carfan568 ( talk) 21:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

To imply that Racer is somehow not independent because they use the proper name for a series that they sponsor is exactly why this debate over the inclusion of a sponsor name is foolish. Racer doesn't become unreliable just because you suspect that they include the full, proper name of a championship in their articles solely for sponsorship purposes.

Further, And here is Autosport using WeatherTech meaning they go either way with it. And Motorsport.com who own Autosport. DailySportsCar and Endurance-Info.com. The point is that there is no clear common name to shorten the title. In fact some of the examples given don't even capitalize "Sportscar Championship", meaning they are not using, nor even claiming to be using, an official title.

I'd also add that the majority of your sources are European. WeatherTech is an American company that has no sales presence outside North America, meaning the brand means nothing to the majority of the readers of those magazines. To shorten an article by leaving off a name of a company that means nothing to the magazine or their reader does not imply that the name is somehow less common or correct.

Finally, you can't support your own nomination. The nomination is the support. The³5₉ ( Talk) 22:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Here is the FIA using WeatherTech SportsCar Championship. And again. And the FIA WEC. And AutoWeek. The³5₉ ( Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

WeatherTech is an American company that has no sales presence outside North America, meaning the brand means nothing to the majority of the readers of those magazines.

This just highlighted the problem with naming this page after a sponsor. WeatherTech is not a recognizable brand to a significant amount readers, and the majority of people will likely search for "IMSA".

There is one common theme here: every source uses IMSA in some way to refer to the championship. Some – like the ones you posted above – use "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", but almost no one exclusively uses "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Therefore "IMSA" in the title would make it more recognizable. Carfan568 ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

So you agree the page should be moved to IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, then? -- GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - I don't know if WeatherTech SportsCar Championship is the common name or not, but I would say that IMSA SportsCar Championship definitely is not. It is rarely used, and even when it is, it is often capitalised differently, or written that way once and otherwise referred to as the IMSA Championship (this is going by sources listed by others above). I would be more likely to support a move to IMSA Championship since this is generally how it is referred to, and is a better candidate form for being the common name. Strongly, strongly oppose any suggestion of a merge with American Le Mans Series or IMSA GT Championship as these are absolutely not the same thing. A7V2 ( talk) 23:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Literally almost no independent source exclusively uses "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" to refer to the series, and many sources don't even use "WeatherTech" at all, so how is that a more recognizable name? And regarding your point that the full name is used once and then it is referred to as just "IMSA", that same thing applies to the other titles too. Carfan568 ( talk) 07:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't know what kind of searches are you doing but when I do mine, in news tab I got autosport.com, sportscar365, motorsportweek.com, motorsport.com, motorsports.nbcsports.com (just from first 2 tabs to avoid duplicate and imsa.com results) reffering to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Rpo.castro ( talk) 10:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

So, some sources use "IMSA SportsCar Championship", some use "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", but almost no one just uses "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". How exactly does the sponsor make the title any better? Carfan568 ( talk) 15:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

For your question just read my vote on this discussion. With the reply above I am just prooving that the use of WeatherTech is common on reliable (and recent) independent sources. Rpo.castro ( talk) 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

If you are referring to confusion with the "List of IMSA SportsCar Championship circuits" page, you can't use a Wikipedia page – without any discussion of its name – as a reference, because that page is clearly imprecisely and inaccurately named as "IMSA SportsCar Championship" is clearly not the official nor the common name for the other championships in that page, and there is no evidence that it is commonly used to refer to all of the championships.

As for the "With the reply above I am just prooving that the use of WeatherTech is common on reliable (and recent) independent sources." part of your comment, yes, you proved that some sources mention the sponsored full name, but I and HumanBodyPiloter5 have provided many reliable independent sources which do not mention the sponsor, which shows that it is unnecessary and irrelevant. Not to mention all the other pages which don't have sponsors in the title such as Supercars Championship, British Touring Car Championship, IndyCar Series, NASCAR Cup Series and GT World Challenge America to name a few. Carfan568 ( talk) 20:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Switching to Neutral - Initially as I saw some sources using "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" in my own searches, and since literally none of the links given in the nomination were to sources using the proposed name I was opposed. However, there are sources using this proposed name as given by Carfan568 above (even if some were not reliable sources, and some are not in English so are not relevant for finding the common name). So I am neutral between the current name and the one proposed, although I would prefer something simpler like "IMSA Championship" (but this may be considered too ambiguous). I am opposed to the proposal below as being unnecessarily long, and rarely used in reliable sources. A7V2 ( talk) 00:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would have opposed moving NASCAR Cup Series in 2019 as WP:TOOSOON had I been aware of it, as the COMMONNAME at that time was still "Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series" Only when the deal with Monster was up should that page have been moved. -- GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 04:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Formally propose moving WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship -- GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 04:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Support per Common Name. Rpo.castro ( talk) 10:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Support if this page is not moved to "IMSA SportsCar Championship". I still don't think that the sponsor is necessary or relevant, but "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is more recognizable and more common than just "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Carfan568 ( talk) 15:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - If we are to argue that it is WP:RECENTISM to call this the primary topic for the term "IMSA Sports Car Championship" over IMSA GT (which I personally find somewhat questionable), is it not also recentism to consider the "Weathertech" title over the previous name, despite that arguably being more descriptive. Personally I think "IMSA United SportsCar Championship" should be strongly considered as it is both a name which has been used frequently by reliable sources and makes clear reference to the series origin from the merger of the American Le Mans Series and the GrandAm Series, and also makes reference to the series geographic basis in the United States. Regardless of what the title is it should obviously contain the word "IMSA" since that is the series actual WP:COMMONNAME even if from an article naming perspective this article isn't the WP:PRIMARY topic for that term. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I think this would also be a preferable title to the sponsored title because sponsored titles are often used in common parlance to distinguish a lesser series from a given sanctioning body's premier series and this title would make clear that the series being referenced is not a lesser IMSA sanctioned series which needs to be disambiguated using the name of a title sponsor. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

It should be fairly obvious if you dig through the press releases and the reports on them at the time that the merger of ALMS and RSCS created a new championship. Furthermore, IMSA, and the secondary sources have not used the word "United" since Tudor stopped being the title sponsor. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, and a person who is looking for information about IMSA's premier sportscar racing championship following the unification of the ALMS and GrandAm will be given a far stronger indication that they're at the right page from the word "United" than from the word "Weathertech". Again if it's recentism to consider this article the primary topic for the term "IMSA Sports Car Championship" over IMSA GT then it's recentism to consider whatever the current title is to be the better disambiguator than a former title which is actually descriptive and not just a meaningless word plonked in the name for sponsorship reasons. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 17:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

No. This has absolutely nothing to do with recentism, and no one discussing the separation of IMSA GT and WeatherTech has done so in regards to recentism. This suggestion is WP:POINTY as it is no longer the series title and is, again, being invented.

Again, there is no policy against using a sponsors' name in an article title. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

In addition, United has absolutely nothing to do with the United States. Provide a source. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not even arguing here that we shouldn't use the sponsor's name because it's a sponsor, I'm arguing that we shouldn't use the sponsor's name because including it only serves to make the article title longer than it otherwise needs to be and is potentially confusing to readers who may only know the series by it's common name, which is "IMSA". The sole argument against using "IMSA SportsCar Championship" (which is not an invented title, as evidenced by it's frequent usage in reliable independent sources; "Sports car racing series in North America sanctioned by the International Motor Sport Association and sponsored by Weathertech" would be an invented title) is that it is potentially ambiguous as to whether the primary topic for that term is this series or IMSA GT, in which case the actually meaningful former title (which definitely wasn't invented by anyone other than IMSA themselves) can be used for disambiguation. If you continue to suggest that I and other editors are "just making up invented titles" when we suggest anything other than your preferred title, even if our suggestions are both clearly backed up by their usage in reliable independent sources (and in most cases are also clearly just shortened versions of the WP:OFFICIAL name) then I will have to start questioning your motives. Regardless I take offense at the implication that my perfectly reasonable suggestion (which made no mention of my prior arguments which I assume you are alluding to) was only being made with the intention of making a disruptive WP:POINT. At best there is clearly a fundamental philosophical disagreement which cannot be resolved here and as a result I doubt it is possible for me to have any sort of constructive further discussion with you on this matter. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 19:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support alternative renaming of IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship as proposed by Carfan568 and GhostOfDanGurney. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Move to Sportscar Championship , currently a redlink. No need to disambiguate further (perhaps surprisingly and rather sadly). We should have a hatnote to link to World Sportscar Championship but that's all that is needed. Andrewa ( talk) 09:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Andrewa: Except even if there were a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sportscar Championship" it would be the World Sportscar Championship and not the IMSA SportsCar Championship on the grounds that the series which existed from 1953 to 1992 was a world championship while IMSA is largely a United States based series with occasional rounds in Canada and possibly Mexico.

  There's also the fact that "IMSA" is fairly demonstrably the common name for this article's subject even if the primary topic for that term is the organising body and not the championship they run. Since the ideal "IMSA Championship" is ambiguous with the former IMSA GT series that this article's subject is the successor to; "IMSA Sportscar/Sports Car/SportsCar Championship" (any spelling) is the most WP:CONCISE title which is also sufficiently WP:PRECISE and fits the recognisability part of WP:COMMONNAME.

  The recognisability part of WP:COMMONNAME (as well as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE) is honestly for me one of the biggest arguments against including the "WeatherTech" part of the title as it isn't universally used by sources (especially independent ones) and doesn't convey obvious meaning in the same way "Sportscar Championship" does, which makes it look like the "WeatherTech" part is being included to disambiguate from another, more notable IMSA SportsCar Championship which doesn't actually exist.

  HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 15:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I looked at World Sportscar Championship (and of course linked to it) and didn't think there was any way it could be considered primary topic of Sportscar Championship. But yes, I'm assuming that under the current naming policies (which I don't agree with) there is a primary topic for Sportscar Championship and that it is the current US one, not the one last run in 1992.

  I think you may be underestimating the notability of the former World Sportscar Championship. While most of the Wikipedia articles relating to it are in something of a sorry state, that's largely a result of WP:RECENTISM and the fact that Wikipedia's general editor demographics tend to trend younger; there are a wealth of resources on that era out there, but many of them are printed and not necessarily the easiest to access. Although certainly not a reliable source for our purposes, I would argue that the recent major Hollywood film Ford v Ferrari is a good indicator of the continued status of the former World Sportscar Championship as the closest thing to a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "sportscar championship", although personally I believe that that term is too vague to be the primary topic for anything. Regardless I don't think that the current IMSA championship is the primary topic for the term. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Yes, and this is exactly why the whole concept of primary topic is busted. Whichever way we go, some readers will be astonished. The tools we use to attempt to minimise the number of astonished viewers are very blunt indeed... page views is probably the best, and it only shows what people found, not what they were looking for. So in practice our decision is guesswork at best, and more often based on the personal opinions of whoever turns up for the discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  This alternate move would also IMO make it easier for those who do want the World Sportscar Championship article to find it, via the hatnote.

  Certainly agree that it's best not to use the sponsor's name here. See Wikipedia:Official names#Practicality. Andrewa ( talk) 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strongly oppose the proposal by @ Andrewa:. Too ambiguous without the disambiguating "IMSA" and/or "WeatherTech". Also, the stylized "SportsCar" is part of the name. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 05:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Good point about stylisation, but it may cut both ways. See MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM. Andrewa ( talk) 06:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• And frankly, I'm now starting to lean support to the initial proposal (to IMSA SportsCar Championship). @ HumanBodyPiloter5: makes a strong case for this in his reply to Andrewa, in my opinion. I don't believe that including the sponsor "WeatherTech" would make the article more confusing at all, no, but if tomorrow WeatherTech hypothetically announced "hey we didn't like that our car got punted before the green flag at Daytona, we're pulling our sponsorship," we'd all be here trying to change this to "IMSA SportsCar Championship". GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 05:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with this. It's a good natural disambiguation, and if disambiguation is needed it's a much better way to go than the sponsor name, which should be a redirect as with any official name. Changing my !vote in view of no prospect of consensus on my proposal. Andrewa ( talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I made a WP:BOLD non-admin close of this as a no consensus. However, per this discussion/query on my talkpage, I've reverted that for someone else to make a judgement. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but reversing this closing is without merit. This discussion has been stale for nearly two weeks now. There is clearly no consensus to change the title, especially not to the original proposal. This is not a vote and there is no clear cut title for this article, therefore the default response is to close with no consensus.

Claiming that the person who closed the discussion did not properly look over the discussion before closing is just fishing. The³5₉ ( Talk) 19:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You were literally the only user who supported "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" over all the other titles, and the only arguments for using it seemed to be that there was no policy against using sponsors in article titles (which ignores the conciseness and consistency characteristics from WP:CRITERIA) or that "IMSA SportsCar Championship" supposedly is a term used to refer to all of IMSA's championships (which was a completely unsourced statement not backed by any reliable sources).

And no one has claimed that the person who closed the discussion did not properly look over the discussion before closing. Carfan568 ( talk) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Those who are neutral did not inherently oppose the current title. To claim that I am the only one opposed to the move is a fabrication. There is nothing inconsistent with this article title, nor is the title failing to be concise. The user of a sponsor name does not automatically fail WP:CRITERIA. The very fact that we had a discussion over whether or not "IMSA SportsCar Championship" would also be a similar title for the IMSA GT Championship shows that your suggestion is not concise and disambiguates the subject properly.

So if you are not opposed to the user closing the discussion, why is this still a discussion? Your discussion with him seems to imply that he made the wrong decision based on your own argument. There is clearly no consensus. The³5₉ ( Talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The title is clearly inconsistent with the vast majority of other motorsport articles which don't have sponsors in the title ( Supercars Championship, British Touring Car Championship, IndyCar Series, NASCAR Cup Series and GT World Challenge America to name a few) and is not as concise as it could be. Furthermore, it is also failing the recognizability characteristic from WP:CRITERIA, given that numerous reliable sources don't even mention the sponsor at all and pretty much everyone uses IMSA in some way to refer to the series (and the sources provided here which supposedly use "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" actually use "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship"). And just because something is discussed here doesn't make it true, I did not find any sources using "IMSA SportsCar Championship" refer to the IMSA GT Championship and they all referred to the new series.

Also, the majority of people in the end supported either "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" or "IMSA SportsCar Championship", so clearly you could say there is at least a rough consensus. There certainly was not a consensus to keep "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Carfan568 ( talk) 05:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, neutral opinions do not inherently support changing the title. So to imply that there is "no consensus to keep it" equally implies there is no consensus to change it. Meaning the correct outcome is no change. There is no clear consensus here and the discussion was closed appropriately.

I'd also point out that IZOD IndyCar Series, Pirelli World Challenge, and Blancpain GT Series only changed their titles when their respective series changed titles and/or sponsorships, and that NHRA Camping World Drag Racing Series, NASCAR Xfinity Series, NASCAR Whelen Euro Series, and ARCA Menards Series all exist, so to claim that this is somehow a standard is silly. And it has already been proven that the use of WeatherTech in sources is just as common as sources forgoing the use of WeatherTech. To claim that the exact title of the series is not concise is also a falsehood. Dropping or adding the sponsor does absolutely nothing to make the title more or less concise, and in fact does a far better job of disambiguation which IMSA series is being referred to since our job is not simply to rely on sources but to allow common readers to understand the subject matter. But all of this has already been explained and you appear to just be settling on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The³5₉ ( Talk) 07:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

One neutral vote does not make the case any better for your preferred title, and neither does it for the other proposals, so there is no need to focus on it so much. Again, you were the only user who supported "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" over all the other titles, and you were the user who chose that title in the first place without support, so you could definitely say that there is a consensus to change the title since the majority supported either "IMSA SportsCar Championship" or "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" with valid reasons.

Your claim that "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is the "exact title of the series" is simply incorrect. The exact title is clearly "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", which can be verified by official documents like this.

Pirelli World Challenge, Blancpain GT Series and NASCAR Xfinity Series are poor examples to prove that sponsors are consistently part of motorsport article titles, since they literally need the sponsors as "World Challenge", "GT Series" or "NASCAR Series" are clearly not enough to identify them. And when two of them changed their official names to be more independent of sponsors, the sponsors were removed from the Wikipedia titles. IndyCar Series still has a title sponsor and it is not included in the Wikipedia title.

Lastly, you seem to be ignoring that the sources provided here which supposedly use "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" actually use "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", and that numerous reliable sources don't even mention the sponsor at all and pretty much everyone uses IMSA in some way to refer to the series. Your opinion that "IMSA SportsCar Championship" makes it unclear which IMSA series is being referred to is once again not backed by any sources, and could easily be fixed with a hatnote if you really think it is an issue. Carfan568 ( talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ The359: could you please explain what your argument for keeping this article at its current title is? Other editors have made arguments based off of actual Wikipedia policies, and even amongst other editors who favour keeping "Weathertech" in the title there seems to be consensus that "IMSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME and that the article should at least be moved to "IMSA Weathertech Sportscar Championship". Your arguments seem to just consist of "we should use WP:OFFICIAL because it's official, which is not actual Wikipedia policy. I know that I got overly heated arguing with you before and apologise for the fact that some of my comments were inappropriate for this discussion, but I'm still genuinely confused as to what your argument is. May I also remind everyone involved here that consensus is not a WP:VOTE. Since this thread has become unwieldy and includes numerous instances of people changing their minds it may be worth breaking up the discussion so that people can reiterate their opinions in a separate space that's clearer to navigate. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 13:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Let me just make it clear that "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is not the official title of the series. The official title is "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", which can be verified by official documents like this. Carfan568 ( talk) 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It's clear that there was no consensus to rename the article as "IMSA SportsCar Championship". There were other suggestions, mainly "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", and although it seems to have more in favour votes, this discussion is just a mess. This need to be re-listed and maybe put in a clear way: since, moving to "IMSA SC C", had no support, would you agree on moving to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" and just count the votes. If anyone does want to add comments to the discussion, that should be done in a sector below to not mess with the votes. And for the record I will repeat that I agree with the move to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship." Rpo.castro ( talk) 17:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It's not really fair to say that "IMSA SportsCar Championship" had "no support" since five users supported it. Consensus is not a vote, but if you want to count the amount of supporters and opposers: "IMSA SportsCar Championship" had five supporters and three opposers, "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" had four supporters and one opposer, "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" had one supporter and seven supporting either of the two rival titles, and one user was neutral. But again, this doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of the arguments. And I can agree with the move to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship". Carfan568 ( talk) 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

While I think "IMSA SportsCar Championship" would conform better with WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE than "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship"; both conform significantly better with WP:COMMONNAME than the current title (as "IMSA" is the most commonly used name and by far the most recognisable), and I think there's a clear consensus for that. I would also note that some of those who initially opposed "IMSA SportsCar Championship" changed their minds after seeing more detailed arguments in favour of that title. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 05:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My argument for keeping the current title is that there is nothing wrong with the current title. It is not confusing with any other series, it is the concise name of the series (see also Michelin Pilot Challenge which leaves off IMSA), and there is zero policy requiring the removal of a sponsor. Yes, the common reference to the series is IMSA but, just like NASCAR you can't just title something NASCAR and have it mean what the majority of users think it means. IMSA itself is a large nebula of titles and series. Therefore each series should be named appropriately and not simplified down. Keep in mind this entire discussion started because the viewpoint was that the sponsor should not be included in the title. If that argument has no merit, then this discussion is moot and there is no reason to change the title as is. The³5₉ ( Talk) 18:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

But "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is also a "simplified down" title since it is not the actual name of the series. Why do you think that "WeatherTech" is a better disambiguator than "IMSA", when the common reference to the series is "IMSA"? And "IMSA" is quite clearly more concise than "WeatherTech". Carfan568 ( talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that WeatherTech SportsCar Championship be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. result: Moved. See consensus below to rename this article and no solid agreement on a new title other than it should begin with "IMSA". So in accordance with WP:OTHEROPTIONS this page moves to IMSA SportsCar Championship, which is closer's choice of available options. Any editor who opposes closer's choice can at any time open a fresh move request and attempt to garner consensus for sponsor usage within the title. Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! ( nac by  page mover) P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply Links: current log • target log This is template {{ subst:Requested move/end}}

WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → ? – Started new RM after several users here and in the section above suggested it. Carfan568 ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose: WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship This is not only the official name of the Series, but is the most PRECISE and recognizable in the absence of a true COMMONNAME. IMSA is furthermore a lasting disambiguator in the likely future event that a change in title sponsor occurs, as per NASCAR Cup Series, and NTT IndyCar Series having had multiple uncontested moves over the years as title sponsors come and go. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support. "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is much more common than just "WeatherTech SportsCar Championship", and since "IMSA" is the common reference to the series and many sources don't even mention the sponsor at all, the title is much more recognisable with "IMSA" included. Also agreed that "IMSA" is a lasting disambiguator and therefore is more important to have in the title than the sponsor. Carfan568 ( talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Support Despite it being longer, this is the best title. Using just "IMSA" is too ambiguous. "IMSA WeatherTech" is commonly used by most sources, and a WP:NATURAL disambiguator. 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 15:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• As before - The WP:COMMONNAME of the subject is "IMSA", but this article isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title, whose primary topic is most likely the International Motor Sports Association (although at present " IMSA" is a disambiguation page). "IMSA Championship" would be the ideal disambiguator, but is ambiguous with the former IMSA GT Championship that this series is the successor to. The current title is poor with regards to recognisability as it does not include the most commonly used name of the subject.

"IMSA SportsCar Championship" best meets the criteria of WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE while also being a commonly recognisable name.. As was established in the previous discussion, "IMSA SportsCar Championship" or functionally identical variations ("IMSA Sportscar Championship", "IMSA Sports Car Championship", "IMSA SportsCar championship", "IMSA sportscar championship", "IMSA sports car championship", etc.) are widely used by reliable, independent sources, showing that that title is a commonly used, recognisable name.

"IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" is also substantially preferable to the current title, but is less concise, and inaccurate in reference to the seasons where the WP:OFFICIAL name was "IMSA Tudor United SportsCar Championship". The word "WeatherTech" in the title carries very little descriptive value, and is only relevant in the sense that a company by that name is paying IMSA to put that word in the name of the series.

In summary, I believe "IMSA SportsCar Championship" (or "IMSA Sportscar Championship" or "IMSA Sports Car Championship") is the ideal title; but that regardless of what title we use it should begin with "IMSA" as that is the common name.

HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 11:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

...but that regardless of what title we use it should begin with "IMSA" as that is the common name. I strongly support this. We should be having the argument as to whether to include a title sponsor or not later; the sooner "IMSA" is added to the title, the better. I don't believe anybody was opposed to including this in the last discussion, either, and the entire derailment was based on having "WeatherTech" or not. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 12:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Agree - I would argue that the previous discussion already established consensus to add "IMSA" to the title, but that got buried in amongst everything else. Another discussion can be had on whether it should be "IMSA SportsCar Championship" or "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship"; but for now a move to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" seems completely uncontroversial. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I also strongly support the idea that the title should begin with "IMSA". I think it could be a good idea to move this page to "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" for now as that seems uncontroversial and then start a discussion if it should have the sponsor to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK situation and better see whether there is consensus to have or not have the sponsor. Carfan568 ( talk) 08:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Agree. Another discussion can be had about the sponsor, the "IMSA" part needs to be added first since there is consensus there. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 11:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

No, why would we bat this off for another RM? The purpose of this RM is to settle this issue, so let's settle it now. I oppose inserting IMSA without also removing WeatherTech.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 17:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Support the move WeatherTech SportsCar Championship → IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship as it is the most common and precise designation. Rpo.castro ( talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Not sure that a relist was necessary, seems like there is consensus. 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, and move to IMSA SportsCar Championship - we generally don't include sponsor names in sporting events, because the sponsor changes quite frequently. As we can see this has already been called the "United SportsCar Championship" and the "Tudor United SportsCar Championship" in the past. Hence why we have EFL Trophy and not Checkatrade Trophy. And we have Big Bash League and not KFC Big Bash League. Some people said above that the term "IMSA Sportscar Championship" is not widely used, but I can see plenty of usages. [8] [9] [10] The naming should be settled here, not batted off for yet another RM, and the name "IMSA SportsCar Championship" is the most compliant name while also being future-proof in case they decide to change the sponsor in the coming years.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

As an iRacing member, I can say without a doubt that their use of "IMSA SportsCar Championship" as cited in this paragraph has zilch to do with this subject, as that "IMSA SportsCar Championship" is an esports video game competition that would warrant it's own article at IMSA SportsCar Championship (iRacing Series) if it passed WP:GNG (which it doesn't, by far). I doubt it changes your point much, but I feel I need to point this out as using it as a source here is incorrect, in my opinion. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 18:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Ignoring the iRacing thing (which is tangential); I think it's necessary to say that while I do think "IMSA SportsCar Championship" is the better choice, "IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship" both has a fairly large degree of consensus and immediately resolves the recognisability problem that not including "IMSA" causes. The reason the original move request turned into a trainwreck is because it was essentially presented as a choice between only including the sanctioning body and only including the sponsor.

@ Amakuru:, I'm not sure if you familiarised yourself with the prior move request, but the reason people want to split this into two move requests is because there is largely a consensus that "IMSA" should be included, but there is not a consensus on whether "WeatherTech" should be removed.

HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Title should remain as is. Hansen Sebastian ^Talk 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Why? Why shouldn't "IMSA" be added to the title? GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply