Talk:2020 World Rally Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Manufacturer column

I think @Pelmeen10 made the right call when he suggested that the "manufacturer" column be removed from the entry list. Look at the WCM results matrix—the results are credited to the entrant, not to the car marque; to "Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT", not "Hyundai". The manufacturer column serves no purpose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Entries before calendar

Could somebody please explain to me why it is so important that the calendar be listed before the entries? It makes absolutely zero sense to me. Who is competing should be detailed before where they are competing. This is literally the second thing the reader learns about the championship:

"Teams and crews are due to compete in fourteen rallies for the World Rally Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers and Manufacturers."

Teams and crews are mentioned before events. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Check the last year's discussion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really a consensus because it's just two editors—you and me—disagreeing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So your plan is to edit war every year? Yes, you did not get a consensus to change the order. Then why the heck are you still doing that?? Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:CONSENSUS more closely. We do not need a consensus for every single change. Sometimes a consensus emerges quite naturally, such as an WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Stop hiding behind the need for a consensus. Consensus is supposed to encourage discussion, but you are not discussing anything—you are just saying "no change without a consensus" and "there is already an existing consensus" (when there is not one). So how am I supposed to form a consensus when I can't discuss it? You have completely undermined the purpose of WP:CONSENSUS by making it impossible to achieve one and then demanding that a consensus is achieved.

So far, you arguments have been a) "there is an existing consensus", but no such discussion exists; b) "other articles use this format", but there is no Wikipedia policy demanding consistency across similar articles; and c) "it's a case of WP:ILIKEIT", even though I have made an argument that the rest of the article is clearly structured to set up entries before events. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Check wrc.com - the Championship section is listed as "1. Calendar 2. Standings 3. Drivers 4. Teams 5. WRC partners 6. About WRC." Then ewrc-results.com season is basically only built around the calendar. Now juwra.com season "1. WRC Calendar 2. Teams 3. Rule Changes 4. Championship Standings 5. Result Compilation 6. SEASON STATISTICS". While you claim "rest of the article is clearly structured to set up entries before events" (how?) - i still claim calendar is more logical build up after the introduction (all the websites think that too), when entries are too specific and constantly changing. I'm really sorry to hear that when you want something to be changed, first you start edit warring, then discussing. Still edit-warring while discussing. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. Be bold, but not rash. In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the page, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit. If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns. Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions. If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"Check wrc.com [...] Then ewrc-results.com season [...] Now juwra.com season"

We're not writing for wrc.com, wrc-results.com or juwra.com. Just because those websites organise their pages in a particular way, that does not mean that we are under any obligation to follow suit.

"While you claim "rest of the article is clearly structured to set up entries before events" (how?)"

I told you—it's in the article lead. Teams and crews are mentioned before events, and once the season starts the lead focuses on who the championship leaders are.

"i still claim calendar is more logical build up after the introduction"

Then why is it that the overwhelming majority of articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR (WP:WRC's parent WikiProject) do not use this "more logical" organisation? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"first you start edit warring, then discussing"

At least I am discussing it. You just said "there is an existing consensus" and expected that to be the end of it. That's not a discussion. That's using WP:CONSENSUS to avoid having a discussion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

At first you have to organise a rally, otherwise there can't be any entrants. So 1. Rally 2. Entrant. What's not logical here? Currently we do know the calendar, but we do not know the entrants. The entrant list is final only when the last event in the calendar has begun. There are about 30-100+ entrants every rally, which makes few hundred for the whole season (some drivers have different teams/cars/co-drivers in a season), and the entry list is due to change throughout the season, and is in a constant change. It's not so good for a backround. Also, we do list only very small % of the overall entrants. So entry list table also needs backround or explanation why have we done such a choice. So, entrants are specific (some only take part of 1 event), it's not backround of the championship. Backround can be the results of the last season results (but not listing the entrants).

Teams and crews are mentioned before events

You mean the sentence "Teams and crews are due to compete in fourteen rallies for the World Rally Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers and Manufacturers."? Few years back we wrote "The season was run over 13 rallies, starting with the Rallye Monte Carlo on 16 January,[1] and finishing with the Wales Rally of Great Britain on 17 November.[2]" This one sentence can be written many different ways, and is not dictating how the rest of the article is structured.

once the season starts the lead focuses on who the championship leaders are.

Championship leaders are a different thing, it's part of the results.

Then why is it that the overwhelming majority of articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR (WP:WRC's parent WikiProject) do not use this "more logical" organisation?

They are other series and have their own consensus, I'm not interested to go off-topic and discuss it here. Those 3 most popular WRC related websites that I mentioned are much more relevant here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please show me the Wikipedia policy that says we must recreate the structure of external websites. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that we should rely on any other website structure. But schedule before entry list seems from my point of view more logical. Entry table refers to the schedule in the rounds column, not the otherwise, so the schedule should be placed first. If we really have consensus at WP:MOTOR that entry goes first, then I will be thankful for link to it, because I see that some articles within WP:MOTOR scope place schedule first. As a creator of many articles with entry section before calendar section, I would explain that it was just a matter of habit, because originally I relied on F1 style. But I never thought enough about different article structure. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: how about you get a consensus before making changes? I'm sure you appreciate the irony of participating in a discussion about getting a consensus, only to go ahead and make (unrelated) changes without getting a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there wasn't any consensus for your change in the first place, you just implemented it. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's called an edit-consensus, which says:

"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

That system of a separate column for notes has been used for years without dispute. Furthermore, your comment implies that you don't need to get a consensus, which is not true. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure that there wasn't any consensus for your change in the first place, you just implemented it."

@Corvus tristis: Nope. This version of the 2017 article, dated one year ago, uses the separate column, so it was not "just implemented". Would you like me to go back further? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Boils down to personal preference, for mine retain the satus quo, i.e. Calendar →Entries, not Entries → Calendar. Fecotank (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to WP:LEAD, which states the following:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

It also says:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

And finally:

"As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

With that in mind, this is what the lead of the 2019 article currently says:

"The 2019 FIA World Rally Championship is the forty-seventh season of the World Rally Championship, an auto racing championship recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) as the highest class of international rallying. Teams and crews will compete in fourteen events for the World Rally Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers and Manufacturers. Crews are free to compete in cars complying with World Rally Car and Group R regulations; however, only Manufacturers competing with World Rally Cars homologated under regulations introduced in 2017 are eligible to score points in the Manufacturers' championship. The series will once again be supported by the World Rally Championship-2 category at every round and by the Junior World Rally Championship at selected events. The World Rally Championship-3 was discontinued.

"With three more rounds to go, Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja lead the drivers' and co-drivers' championships by seventeen points ahead of defending champions Sébastien Ogier and Julien Ingrassia. Thierry Neuville and Nicolas Gilsoul are third, a further thirteen points behind. In the manufacturers' championship, Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT holds a nineteen-point lead over Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT.

There are only two mentions of events: one to establish how many are contested in the year, and one to state how many remain. On the other hand, the teams and crews are mentioned throughout the lead. The lead makes it quite clear that the focus of the article is who wins the championships, so the article should be structured to state who is eligible to compete/win first. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry your statement makes no sense. You basically express that you want to see "results" first. Win is a result. First we need to know what they can win, what is 2020 WRC season all about. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes for calendar

I support Corvus tristis here. There is no need for a new column for just a one note. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What about multiple notes for the same event? Or multiple events that require their own notes? Or notes that apply to multiple events?

Corvus tristis has no idea what he is doing. He crash-landed in the article and started shooting from the hip. He has claimed that I only just added the column in, even though I can prove it has been used for over a year, and his suggestion that he doesn't need to get a consensus because there was no formal consensus discussion in the first place is a joke. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, that I was wrong about edit consensus. But are your questions now adds any additional weight to be reason for an additional column? When a note placed in the exact column (i.e. Surface) it is much more precise than when it is in the special note column. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

But still you should not attack "new" editors. I have never seen anywhere else a special column for notes. I haven't supported it from the beginning, even though I did not make a big number from it (because it's a small thing). Note should be added like Corvus tristis mentioned, it's not about the whole row. Btw I did not support two columns for dates either (which you implemented without a consensus - we had a discussion). I don't get why you want to ban tooltips from all WRC articles. There is no guideline for that (otherwise this template would not exist). Yes, I know about mobile view. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"I have never seen anywhere else a special column for notes."

What's your point? Editors of individual articles are free to write those articles how see fit. We are under no obligation to do or not do something just because another articles does or does not do it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WRC-2 Pro in 2020

@Pelmeen10: do you have any evidence to suggest the WRC-2 Pro will not run in 2020? Removing it from the article suggests that it will not happen, so you need evidence. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that it runs, not the other way around. But I did see one - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGDprWwXkAEaQPU?format=jpg&name=small shortly WRC2 Pro will become WRC2, and privateer-WRC2 is now becoming WRC3. Penalty for Rally2 is 10min per stage instead of 7. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: that image totally fails WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. We have no idea where it came from (the URL is of a Twitter image), and while it might have "Source: FIA" stamped on it, we cannot go and confirm that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's why I'm not using this. But, you don't have any source to claim WRC2Pro championship stays put. What kind of reliable and verified source do you have? We've seen before that the championships change (like when WRC3 dissapeared, but still you had already written in the new season article WRC3 is running without a source). So learn, and stop adding unsourced content. You can read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"you don't have any source to claim WRC2Pro championship stays put"

There are no reliable, verifiable sources to cast doubt on the 2020 Pro championship. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the championship will take place. Removing it from the article is a bigger change (especially since you have left the rest of the article untouched), so the burden rests with you. What evidence do you have that the Pro class will not run? Either present the evidence or revert your edit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the championship will take place.

That's crystal balling and not allowed. No source=no content. Encyclopaedia can't have any assumptions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: you are in violation of CRYSTAL yourself. You are speculating that the Pro class will not run in 2020 and you have not provided a source of your own. Note that WP:CRYSTAL says "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The championship is notable and almost certain to take place because there is no evidence that it will not. Perhaps you should try reading the policies that you are trying to enforce before you try to enforce them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I found these sources (google.com!). French: [1] Spanish: [2] [3] Italian: [4] English one, but I cant access it, I'm not a subscriber there: https://rallysportmag.com/fia-announce-minor-changes-ahead-of-2020-wrc-season/ Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@@Pelmeen10: in the future, please get the sources BEFORE you make changes to the article. If you are removing something from an article, either post the source in your edit summary or post it to the talk pages. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, having looked at the articles—albeit translated versions—I cannot find any confirmation in them. They don't quote sources. The FIA apparently approved of the changes around the time of Rally Germany, but I cannot actually find anything from the FIA themselves to confirm it. Nor is there anything on wrc.com, Autosport or any of the other regular sources that we use. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In the future do not assume without sources. You have to have everything sourced. It's perfectly fine to remove any unsourced content. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: as I pointed out to you, it's not a problem because WP:CRYSTAL says "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Until the emergence of that FIA source, the event was almost certain to take place and thus including it was completely justified. Read the policies you are trying to enforce before you try to enforce them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: the greater burden rests with you. You removed the WRC-2 Pro, but left the WRC-2 and J-WRC in place. The net effect was that your edit implied that the WRC-2 Pro would not be run in 2020, but that the WRC-2 and J-WRC would be run. That suggested that something had changed, but you provided no evidence to support it. Per WP:CRYSTAL (and as I have already pointed out), "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". With no evidence that the FIA had made a regulatory change and by virtue of taking place in 2020, the WRC-2 Pro fit that allowance made by WP:CRYSTAL. It is also common practice for this sort of article—really anything within the scope of WP:MOTOR—to establish links to future championships like this.

And you're not really in any position to go quoting WP:VERIFY, considering that the image you linked to to justify the removal failed both WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dudes, you just need to get Mclarenfan17 banned if you want anything done right. He will never grow up. 118.2.114.105 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: The problem started from you creating the article too early (with unknown content), based on your assumptions. You have done it EVERY year, so pleaso do learn from your mistakes. Stop justifying and blaming others. Can you promise you'll not do it again for 2021? Competence (like understanding the rules) is another question, you seem to refer to policies alot, but not actually understanding them. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I didn't actually create that article until the Autosport report emerged because it is reliable and verifiable. A red wikilink is a link to a page that has not been created yet. I have not done anything wrong because this is a standard practice across Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that you removed the WRC-2 Pro from the article on the grounds that there was no evidence that it would happen, but you left the WRC-2 and J-WRC there even though you should have removed them as per your own argument. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2020 drivers lineup

• Ott Tänak to Hyundai. source
• Kalle Rovanperä promoted by Toyota. source

Just store these speculative sources in case we need.

By the way, 2020 J-WRC canlendar has revealed in WRC+. — 1.Sweden 2.Chile 3.Sardinia 4.Finland 5.Germany — Now waiting for sources. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: if the sources are speculative, they're useless. We need confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time a driver's manager leaked a story (ie Tanak to Hyundai) to pressure a team (in this case Toyota) into making or committing to an offer. In the case of the Rovanperä story, Autosport have a habit of running stories prematurely to get page views up. They started doing it once they put a paywall in place and other sites were getting exclusives first (F1 Fanatic got pictures of a Ferrari launch hours before anyone else). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not Tänak/Märtin style, other reasons include 1) reporters get money for clicks 2) somebody making fun 3) a competitor wants Tänak to lose focus in this event. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: the reasons don't matter, whatever the driver's "style". What matters is that the source does not confirm the move, and so is useless to us. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

To those anonymous users, see this entry. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Tänak to Hyundai confirmed

https://www.wrc.com/en/wrc/news/october-2019/tanak-hyundai/page/6797--12-12-.html

--Lead holder (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding Power Stage to the season summary section

@Mclarenfan17: How would you fill in your version? Like this?

Round	Event	Winning driver	Winning co-driver	Winning entrant	Winning time	Power Stage winners	Report	Ref.
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Citroën Total WRT	23:59:59.9	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Report

Unnamelessness (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Too much clutter for me. Also the layout is questionable as it uses two different formats (horizontal separate cells for event winner. Stacked same cell for PS winner. -Klõps (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, whcih is why I made some modifictions to the table.

Round	Event	Winning crew		Winning entrant	Winning time	Power Stage winners		Report	Ref.
		Driver	Co-driver			Driver	Co-driver
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Citroën Total WRT	23:59:59.9	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Report

Unnamelessness (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I opposed adding Power Stage winner already last year. Just 5 points, while second-third overall places give 18-15 points. Undue weight. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a Wolf Power Stage standing which specifically counts the PS points only (actually, from this year, 2019). So, we have to re-consider it. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Its promotional thing. Every year there are these kind of prices presented by series official partners. Ogier won the 2018 power stage award [5] they also had Michelin Magic Moment Award, ANONIMO Timing Feat Award, Asahi Kasei Spirit of the Season, OneBet Jump of the Year etc.

If anything maybe separate table or try both event winners and PS winners stacked? -Klõps (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, these awards are presented in the Gala after the Rally Australia. We could mention it elsewhere, but not in summary table. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wolf Power Stage standing is a standing and Power Stage do give drivers/co-drivers great points — Ogier 41; Neuville 40; Tänak 39 — That is a lot in terms of the drivers' standing.

The problem of stacking event winners and PS winners is that it cannot well reflect both drivers' and co-drivers' standings. It might be over-emphasizing that event winners compete as a crew. But for me, that problem is acceptable. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with having these Power Stage statistics somewhere in the article though. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Your thought? Unnamelessness (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the Power Stage winners need to be included. The Power Stage offers up to 70 points—the equivalent of almost three rally wins—over a year (assuming one driver wins all of them), so it can definitely influence the outcome of a championship.

My main concern is the width of the table. It's reasonably big to begin with, and adding two columns is possibly messy. I see no reason why we cannot use the short form here, like in rally report articles:

Round	Event	Winning driver	Winning co-driver	Winning entrant	Power Stage winners	Report	Ref.
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Citroën Total WRT	Ogier / Ingrassia	Report

We can also cut the time column because every rally is a different length. The time adds nothing and is a detail better-used in report articles.

As for the Wolf Power Stage award, it's worth including, especially since there are championship points on the line (which makes it far more significant or notable than the likes of the Jump of the Year award). Formula 1 has the DHL/Pirelli Pole Trophy for whoever takes the most pole positions. In season articles, this is just referred to as the Pole Trophy. We can do something similar. It might be worth having a separate table or matrix like the Pirtek Enduro Cup table in Supercars articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Using full name for rally winners while using surname for PS winners is not what MOS:ARTCON advocates. Both columns should use full name. If it is too wide, then:

Round	Event	Rally winners	Winning entrant	Power Stage winners	Report	Ref.
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Citroën Total WRT	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Report

Of course, I have no problem with cutting times. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought we had already chosen against including these in that table last season. I can't see what has changed in the sport that would justify including this all of sudden. As we established last season already, we already include the power stage results where they actually matter in the championships' matrices.Tvx1 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tänak's car number

Why on earth should we write #8, when he actually drives #1 ?? He most likely takes the nr 1. But unless we know for sure, we can't write it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: because when the drivers nominated their numbers, they nominated numbers that they would use for their entire careers. Tänak chose #8 and we can prove that is his number unless he chooses #1 as is his right. Your argument amounts to "we don't have a reliable source to say he might be #1, so we have to ignore a reliable source that says he will be #8" and that makes no sense. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What kind of source says he chose #8 for 2020?? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: the sources from 2018/19 say that he chose #8 for his career. As long as he is competing, #8 is his number (and the same goes for every other driver who chose a number). If he becomes World Champion, then he has the right to use #1, but #8 is still considered his number; it's just not in use. Any driver joining the championship in 2020 can choose their number, but they cannot choose #8 because it's still Tänak's number even if he uses #1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked you a source. You did not provide it. We write the number under which they actually compete. If there are 2 different possibilities, then writing either one without a source is crystal balling. You can write "1 or 8" or neither.

but #8 is still considered his number; it's just not in use

Then why Craig Breen has 2 different numbers in 2019? and why write something that would not be used? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"Then why Craig Breen has 2 different numbers in 2019?"

This is a prime example of a straw man argument. You haven't refuted my point at all, just raised a distraction.

Worse, you are basing you revision on WP:BURDEN. By bringing up Breen's two numbers you are implying that a driver can change their career number, which invalidates the sources used in previous articles. Do you have a source to support this? Don't point to the two entry lists featuring Breen; that's an example of WP:SYNTH.

Once again, we find ourselves at loggerheads because you haven't read the policies you are trying to enforce. I can demonstrate that Tänak chose #8 for the duration of his career. You are claiming that a driver's number can change; that while Tänak might be #8 now, he could be #18 in future. Do you have a source to support this claim? You're the one making the bigger claim, so the burden rests with you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You know that there are two possibilities here. That is what you wrote in your second comment here. Breen chose #42, but what do you say when Benito Guerra drives #42 in Australia? Greensmith has also used Evans' #33. This says the rules are not set in stone. Is it impossible that somebody drives #8, while Tänak drives #1 in 2020? Where is that source? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"Breen chose #42, but what do you say when Benito Guerra drives #42 in Australia? Greensmith has also used Evans' #33."

Because—obviously—those cars were already entered. Mikkelsen was due to drive, but then Breen was entered in his place and Guerra already had #42. As for Greensmith, Evans' car had already been entered in Finland. You'll notice that he drove #33 in Finland and #44 in Germany because M-Sport could enter him on his own rather than draft him in.

"This says the rules are not set in stone."

Your examples are irrelevant because none of them addess this particular scenario.

"Is it impossible that somebody drives #8, while Tänak drives #1 in 2020?"

Under the rules, yes, because that number is put aside for Tänak. The only conceivable scenario in which someone else drives #8 is if Tänak is entered, but unable to compete, and so someone else is entered instead. Do you have any reason to believe that this is a likely scenario? Because to me, that's WP:CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL isn't just about adding content that is speculative; it is about removing or omitting content based on speculation.

Let me solve this problem with a simple question: do you have a reliable, verifiable source that says Tänak will use any number other than #8? Because the FIA says this (emphasis mine):

"In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion."

In other words, the number choice is permanent unless the driver becomes world champion, in which case they may use (but are not required to) the number 1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 and Pelmeen10: This source says Tänak would use #1, but it is not English. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: per WP:SOURCEACCESS, foreign-language sources are fine provided that they still meet WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. As I do not speak Spanish, I cannot read the source you have provided, so someone else (and that can be you) needs to verify it.

@Pelmeen10: did you read the source provided by Unnamelessness, or did you just see it and assume that it was valid? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, that juwra.com source has nothing to do with Tänak. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The source's title can be roughly translated as Tanak takes #1 to Hyundai. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: okay, but what about the content of the article? Does it name and quote anyone in a position to know (eg Tänak, Järveoja, Adamo, Tänak's manager, etc.) about it? What are they basing the claim on? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said "the source says..." (maybe it's better to use the word "claim") Unnamelessness (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: but who is the source for the article? Who or what is the author of that article basing the claim on? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't mention. By the way, Everything will be settled two months later, so I think it's meaningless to tangle the car number now. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: if it doesn't name or quote the source and if it's not clear what they are basing the article on, then it fails WP:VERIFY. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: can you please stop moving the goalposts? You wanted a source that said Tänak would be #8. I gave it to you, but suddenly that wasn't good enough; you introduced a speculative argument that was a straw man and demanded a better source. At the same time, you made no attempt to provide a source to support your claim.

Get a source, get a consensus or leave the article alone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The source provided by Unnamelessness doesn't really say that Tänak decided to choose #1 for the next season. "Tanak takes "1" to Hyundai" is just a made-up title for an article. The source provided by Mclarenfan17 doesn't fit as we haven't any reference to what Tänak will do with the number selection after taking the title. So because we making an Encyclopedia not a storage for speculations or presumptions it will be more correct to place TBA until the entry list or confirmation of the number. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The source I provided makes it clear that a driver's number is their own until they retire or become world champion. If they become world champion, they have the option of using #1 but still keep their permanent number. Standard practice in Formula 1, MotoGP and Supercars articles is to keep a driver's/rider's number until they change to #1. This system is no different. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to use permanent driver numbers for champions? We don't have it. Corvus tristis ir right, TBA makes the most sense, because there is no direct source that says Tänak will use number 8 in 2020. It's currently your choice, so WP:ILIKEIT. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Where is the consensus to use permanent driver numbers for champions?"

It's called common sense. Unless or until such time as the champion announces that they will use #1, we can use their permanent number because we already have a source.

"there is no direct source that says Tänak will use number 8 in 2020"

You need to stop moving the goalposts. Every time I have provided what you have asked for, you have changed what you wanted. We have a source that says Tänak will use #8 for his career. That's good enough. I also think you're way too close to this. I get it: you're Estonian and they're Estonian and you naturally want them to use #1, but comments like this where you claimed they wouldn't plant a story to put pressure on Toyota suggest you're too close to the subject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Now you're talking nonsense. You haven't answered any of my question, I did not have any. We both know that for defending champions there are 2 choices. Choosing either of them is ignoring the policies of Wikipedia. No source=no content. This is what I have told you in atleast 4 discussions before. Don't drive this discussion to some random accusations based on an answer to a speculation/rumour. Ogier chose #1, why wouldn't Tänak do it. Even with your logic, that sources are needed only if something changes, then defending champion using #1 is not a change. I personally don't care about those numbers, but support only directly sourced content. So TBA is the only option. Seems that discussion has reached a dead end, I'm gonna ask WP:MOTOR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop. You asked for a source that said Tänak would be #8. I provided it. So then you changed to asking for a source that said Tänak would be #8 in 2020 (even though the source I provided was equally valid for this). This is called moving the goalposts.

"No source=no content."

Except there is a source, but you're choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient.

"Ogier chose #1, why wouldn't Tänak do it."

What Ogier did has no bearing here. Bringing him up is another example of a straw man argument. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to put Tänak's number as #8 presently. After all, that quite simply is his number until such time he explicitly chooses to use the number #1.Tvx1 13:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is 2020 we're talking here, we have no info about that, as it's in quite far future. "Entries" mean they are entered somewhere, but we have no info about any actual entry list. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite far future? The first rally of 2020 takes place in about two months time. Entries for it are expected to be finalized in just about four weeks from now. As it stand presently, Tänak's number is #8.Tvx1 18:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: do you want to have this discussion here or at WT:MOTOR? Because you can't do both as it might be seen as forum-shopping. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:MOTOR. I don't know why did you and Tvx1 both continue here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pre-2017 cars

By the time the 2020 championship comes around, the pre-2017 cars (like the Ford Fiesta RS WRC) will have been out of service for three years. There is no active development of these cars, the WRC Trophy that was intended for gentlemen drivers has been abandoned, they only appear sporadically, and more 2017-specification cars are becoming available. While they are still technically classified as WRC cars, I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that we limit the entries in the 2020 article to 2017-specification cars. After all, we already present selected entries and this is s common practice across rallying articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because they are 3+ years old? Makes no sense. Our current selection criteria is World Rally Cars, because they are not part of any other championship, they are notable, most likely to get points etc. It's possible that no such WRC cars would even enter, so too early to suggest similar limitations. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Just because they are 3+ years old?"

No, because they are 3+ years old, are no longer being developed or produced, do not get any manufacturer support, are only entered by obscure gentlemen drivers and are being superseded by R5 cars. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Some news (2021 & 2022)

To be used in the future

• @Rally_d_Italia Italian round of the @OfficialWRC doubles its location in 2020 and will kick-off from Olbia with the opening ceremony and the initial part. The rest will stay in the classic location of Alghero. (rally's official twitter)
• No Rally Germany in 2021 [6]
• Rally France should return in 2021 +2022, so as Spain and Australia. [7] [8]
• Sardegna and Sweden have contract for 2021 & 2022 [9] [10]

--Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to be talking 2021 or 2022 yet, even if the January date for the Monte means we tend to create future articles sooner than other world championships. However, the 2022 regulations are due soon because of the move to hybrid powertrains (I suspect it will be R5 hybrids with extra downforce), so I would say we can create the 2022 article sooner than we normally would (and would probably need to make the 2021 article to stop 2022 being an orphan). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Entries table

Ford M-Sport will have Teemu Suninnen and one other entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.238.77 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Mclarenfan17, discuss Your changes before. It's team based championship. So Teams are nr 1. Also other series such as Formula 1 (2020 Formula One World Championship) list drivers by team, not teams by drivers. Klõps (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps: if you want to discuss how F1 articles arrange their tables, go to an F1 article. What F1 editors do has no bearing on this article. The compact table has been in this article for months without issue and this format serves us well in individual rally report articles. It has also made the article more accessible to new editors since we have had more IP editors make changes than we usually do.

If the best argument you have is "other articles do it this way", then that's a reason to make a change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not take my words out of context. It's team based championship (as is F1 hence the comparison) not individual drivers driving privately as you suggest. For Months there were only few drivers, now we have two teams that have announced their lineups. There is no accessibility issue with the normal table. -Klõps (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Do not take my words out of context."

How am I taking your words out of context? This is what you said:

"Also other series such as Formula 1 (2020 Formula One World Championship) list drivers by team, not teams by drivers."

You make it quite clear that because the subjects bear some similarities to one another, the articles should be structured the same way.

"There is no accessibility issue with the normal table"

What are you basing this on? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnamelessness , Pelmeen10, Tvx1 which is your preference – 1. table based on teams (as previous seasons) or 2. table listing drivers first as Mclarenfan17 has done?

Nothing Tvx1 has to say on this subject has any value. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you stop insulting people? My preffered option is Klõps' version - by team, not by unproven (seasonal) number. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"My preffered option is Klõps' version"

Is there a reason for that?

"by team, not by unproven (seasonal) number."

I don't know where you got this idea of a "seasonal" number from. There is absolutely no evidence that drivers have to re-apply for their numbers each year. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the WRC sporting regulations at fia.com. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I did. I also looked at Autosport, Speedcafe and the news section of wrc.com. I cannot find any third-party sources that confirm drivers must re-apply for their numbers each year. Do you have any? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I sm not insulting people. It is a simple statement of fact: Tvx1's only interest in these discussions is hounding me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Everybody's voice is equal. Respect the opinions of other people. Can you give any reasoning for Your preferred format of the table beside that you like it? I have given my arguments

1. It is a team based series. Teams are contracting drivers, so it is logical to list drivers by the teams. Your way is to present unstructured table. For the reader structured table is easier to understand.

2. We should use the format that is used in the previous seasons. Also listing teams first is common in all motorsports season articles so it logical to think that it is easier for the reader.

3. There are no accessibility issues. And the article is locked for IP editors anyway. --Klõps (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps:

"Can you give any reasoning for Your preferred format of the table beside that you like it?"

Yes, I did. The three dot points you just outlined are addressing my reasons.

"It is a team based series."

But there are also individual competitors.

"We should use the format that is used in the previous seasons."

There is no Wikipedia policy thst says we have to. And if we find a better way of doing it, we can always go back and change other articles.

"listing teams first is common in all motorsports season articles"

Not all motorsports are the same. There are two people in a rally car compared to one person in a Formula 1 car. We naturally need a different structure here.

And again, there is no rule that says "Article X does this, so Article Y has to do it that way, too". We should put the needs of this srticle first. Besides, we use a single-line format in rally reports, which have much more relevance to this article than a different championship. If we must use a system that recreates the style of another article, then surely we should recreate the style of an article whose subject is most relevant.

"There are no accessibility issues."

A simple table is easier for inexperienced editors to work with than a complex one. It's also much easier to read on the tablet/mobile site.

"And the article is locked for IP editors anyway"

That has nothing to do with this discussion. It was locked because editors were adding Ogier and Evans without a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Only doomsday can let us get consensus, so I would rather pull myself out to enjoy the fresh air at the moment, instead of joining these pointless, meaningless, endless discussions. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the single-line format for the time being because Toyota will enter two more cars, but have not decided on the final structure of the team(s). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: can you please pay attention to your edits? In your haste to revert the article, you missed that fact that Latvala and Katsuta had been added to the table. Given that Toyota have not finalised the structure if the team—whether Latvala and Katsuta will be independent of the team, rotate as the nominated points-scorers or form a second team—a change was appropriate. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, and Klõps:

"Only doomsday can let us get consensus."

I have an idea as to how we can solve this: we go to RFC, but this time we decide in advance as to what we want to say and we agree to leave the conversation alone once the RFC has been posted. The problem in the past has been that once the RFC has been posted, we all start responding to one another, continuing the conversation that we started here or at WP:WRC or wherever. The effect is that by the time an RFC volunteer gets around to looking at it, it's a bloated and convoluted mess which makes it hard for anyone else to contribute. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: could you please stop for a moment and think before rushing in to make edits? Hyundai have announced their team structure: three full-time entries, with one entry shared by two crews. However, Toyota have not. They have not decided whether Latvala and Katsuta will be run separately from Ogier, Evans and Rovanperä (and, if so, whether they will be able to score WCM points), or if they will rotate for points-scoring purposes. Having a table where all entries are grouped together by entrant implies that both Hyundai and Toyota have settled on their team structures when the sources make it clear that they have not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, my comments point out that grouping all entries together by manufacturer contradicts the sources. The sources make it clear that Toyota have not finalised their team structure. The article cannot say that they are all being entered as one team. Having a consensus does not give you the ability to override, ignore or misrepresent sources.

And if you want to change Loeb's number, you need a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is explained to you why the numbers currently shown in the article should wait for an actual entry list. They are not directly sourced nor official. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the "seasonal numbers" argument. The claim that drivers have to renew their number every year because section 17 of the regulations is called "seasonsl numbers", even though there is nothing in the regulations that says they have to do this. I couldn't find any third-party sources that supported this claim and when I asked you to support the claim, you said that you didn't need to prove it because the burden was on me to disprove it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: you know what? I'm feeling generous. I'll happily disprove you. Let's see what the FIA has to say about it:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

And it's not just the FIA—it's also on wrc.com, which says:

Factory-entered drivers can choose their own permanent car number, except for the reigning world champion who will always carry No 1.

It's also being published by third-party sources, including Autosport:

The FIA confirmed the WRC would follow Formula 1's lead and allow drivers to carry permanent numbers at the October meeting of the World Motor Sport Council.

And also on Speedcafe:

Another change to the sporting regulations concerns car numbering, with factory World Rally Car drivers now allowed to choose their own permanent numbers akin to the system which Formula 1 has employed for the past five years.

Notice how the keep referring to "permanent" numbers and that there is no mention of drivers needing to renew or reapply for numbers every year. I will also add that these sources are source #1, #62, #63 and #64 in the 2019 WRC article and are used to detail the introduction of the number system. On the other hand, the sporting regulations only refer to "seasonal" numbers in the title of a section of the regulation, and there is only one place—that conversation at WT:MOTOR—where I can find any claim that the numbers are only used for one year.

So, if you have some sources that prove drivers must renew or reapply for their numbers each year, now would be the time to show them, or else I think it is safe to say that your theory had been thoroughly disproven. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about the new format of the table, that you personally insisted we should use. The one which you did not get a consensus. The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together. You said your version should be used just until the full Monte entry list comes up (which means Rfc wouldn't help). Now, car numbers - nobody has removed them from the article, but we had a discussion in WT:MOTOR. The 2018/2019 news (autosport.com etc) referring to "career numbers" and the comparison to F1 came out before the 2020 sporting regulations - the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers". My understanding of the Wiki citing policies is clearly different from yours. I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change), while you are satisfied with older ones (expecting everything to stay the same until proven otherwise - which potentially could leave the articles with false statements, and have done so several times). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together.

You brought it up in the first place, but now you don't want to discuss it?

I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change)

While the rules can change year on year, there is no requirement for direct sources year on year. The section 17 regulations on car numbers were introduced in 2019 and have not changed for 2020, so the source from 2019 is still valid. Especially since they refer to "permanent" numbers.

the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers"

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the regulations only refer to "seasonal numbers" in the title of section 17. The word "seasonal" does not appear in the body of the regulations and there are no sources available to support your claim that this means drivers must reapply for numbers every year. You have consistently failed to produce these sources when asked for them. What you are doing is called original research, and it needs to stop. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can continue this discussion with car numbers under WT:MOTOR where it started, no need to discuss it in 2 different places. Original research for wanting direct sources? I think not. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, it's original research when you say "'seasonal numbers' means drivers need to apply for a new number each year" when there is no evidence to support the claim. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the numbers, no need to fork this discussion. It's about your edits not receiving consensus. You should self-revert. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I cannot self-revert without violating WP:RS and WP:VER. If you can find a way to rewrite the table in such a way that the consensus is restored but without contradicting the sources, I am happy to discuss it. When I first made those edits, I tried to incorporate both the consensus and the source, but could not make it work. I also believe that had the 29 November article been available when the consensus was being discussed, then the consensus would not have been formed the way it was. You need to remember that a consensus can change, and the content of the 29 November article is compelling enough to bring that change about.

If you are going to try and change the table, remember that you cannot group the five Toyota entries together as if they were one team because the 29 November article makes it clear that the team have not decided the structure of the team. Doing so would violate WP:RS and WP:VER because the presentation of the table would contradict the content of the source.

I think there are two viable ways forward here:

1. Keep the single-line format for now and wait until the publication of the Rally Monte Carlo entry list to implement the consensus. Takamoto Katsuta will contest the event, so Toyota will have to disclose their team structure.
2. Form a new consensus where we move away from the split-table format in favour of a single table that lists all entries and use prose to detail the structure of the teams (I should point out that the article already does this for Citroën). This has the added advantage of totally solving the problem we are faced with because the consensus will not be able to contradict the sources and vice versa.

It might be worth taking this to RfC. I know that's failed miserably before, but it's already on the radar of the admins because of the ANI and I have already outlined an approach we can take (see my post from 2 December) to give the RfC a better chance of succeeding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, it seems pointless to have an RfC on this specific issue since by the time the 30 days are up the championship will have started and I assume any uncertainty over precisely which team any driver will be racing for will be resolved, unless this won't happen until the driver actually races.

Even if it is the latter, it would IMO still be more productive for a more general RfC focusing on how to deal with the issue in the future, especially in relation uncertainty before details are confirmed. To avoid it getting bogged down in minutiae, I would also suggest it's better to wait for this issue to be resolved.

In the meantime, Mclarenfan17 doesn't seem to have explained why uncertainty over which team one driver will be racing for requires changes to the table structure. So I've changed it back to the older format which seems to have more support, and also seems likely to be how it will be structured once the championship has started.

I don't quite understand why it's only one driver, since the source seems to suggest Katsuta may also be racing for a Toyota team B. But I went by what Mclarenfan17 did. If people feel that Katsuta should also be part of the TBA entrant row, then go ahead and change it. But this old version [11] did not indicate any uncertainty that Katsuta would be racing for Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT or the structure of the Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT team with those 4 drivers.

If people feel that currently the info suggests Katsuta will be racing for Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT, but that this could change, I suggest a footnote is used to clarify this while preserving the current structure. As I said, the version that Mclarenfan17 did not indicate any uncertainty whom Katsuta will be racing for, or that he would be part of the Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT entrant.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A final comment. If anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne. I actually think we should write TBA to Katsuta aswell. Those 3 other drivers are "full-time factory drivers" (and 3 drivers is the maximum a team can nominate to collect manufacturer points). Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar. Here is the original announcement [12], entrant is not mentioned. Mclarenfan17, maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I think that would be a little too close to speculating. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: this is speculating:

Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar.

Right now, all we know is that Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT are entering Katsuta's car. We can't speculate about the possibility of a "Gazoo Racing 2" and use that justify listing Katsuta as TBA.

maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally?

Hope springs eternal, but I'm doubtful. There's really only five regular editors of these articles: you, Unnamelessness and I work on the articles and talk pages, while ToniGlu92 and Kovpastish work on the articles, but not the talk pages. Then there's a handful of editors who make intermittent contributions, but I would not call them regulars.

Nil Einne is right when he says that an RfC needs to be free of the back-and-forth to succeed. But I also think—and this is a trend that I have observed across multiple motorsport projects—is that editors are unwilling to compromise or be open to changing their minds. The "we've always done it that way" and "the articles need to be consistent in their presentation" arguments come up pretty regularly. I find that to be troubling because it assumes the current way of doing something is and always will be the best way of doing it, rejecting alternatives before they are even discussed. The end result is that everyone has made up their minds before discussion begins, and so discussions amount to everyone hammering away and refusing to back down until someone gets tired. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it also speculating that Katsusta will be entered in the main team under "Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT"? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, because the source makes it clear that Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT is entering the car. The source also makes it clear that they have not decided what name they will use. We cannot contradict the sources, even if we have some other knowledge. This table is not trying to distinguish between points-scoring entries and non-scoring entries. If the entry list is published and Katsuta is a non-scoring entry competing under the Toyota Gazoo Racing name, then this table has never actually been wrong.

That's the advantage of this type of table—it's simple and it's flexible. Details of who was eligible to score points and when can be covered in the prose. I have seen a worrying trend across WP:MOTOR and associated projects where tables become increasingly complicated. They start taking on additional functions and end up replacing prose when they really should be there to support prose. WP:WRC has been a little guilty of that because complex rules required complex tables, and that complexity has lingered. I for one think that less is more—a table should be in its simplest form and pass on the most relevant information. Everything else can be addressed in prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed

@Subaruking21: please include reliable and verifiable sources to support the content that you add to the article. In this edit, you updated the entry table to list Latvala as competing under the name "Latvala Motorsport OY". How do you know this? You need to add sources to the article to demonstrate that this is true. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Can you open ewrc-results.com or rallysweden.com ?? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: that's not the point. If you are adding content to an article, you need to provide a source to support the addition of that content. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it needs to be verifiable. If ewrc-results.com are posting what they claims is an entry list, then we need to be able to see what that entry list says. That was the problem with Monte Carlo—they claimed to have the entry list, but ACM were late in posting it, so we couldn't be sure that ewrc-results.com had it right. Sure, they have been right in the past, but that doesn't mean we should just blindly accept it. After all, Autosport are very well informed, but in the past six months they have run stories without confirmation that Tänak's negotiations with Hyundai had broken down and that he had re-signed with Toyota ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New referencing method

@Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, Kovpastish, and ToniGlu92: I'm pinging you to let you know that I want to try a new system of referencing in this article. The summative references under the table is okay, but I think it's a bit messy when crews are only contesting some events. I've found a way of using markup so that we can have multiple sources under the one reference. I still need to figure out exactly how to write the markup, but I know it works. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems quite redundant to me. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: look at reference #3 in the 2019 Formula 1 article. It consolidates all of the entry lists under one reference. That (or something quite like it) is what I want to add here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's okay. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: my plan is to have one reference containing each relevant entry list for each crew. I'm just trying to figure out how to cut down on redundancies? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried in my sandbox, but it seems if we choose the 2019 Formula 1 article style, we cannot name those sources. As a result, maybe just simply cutting off the redundant sources is the only choice left. But that is going to be shockingly redundant in the references section like this:

Scenario
World Rally Car entries eligible to score manufacturer points Manufacturer Entrant Car Tyre Crew details Refs No. Driver name Co-driver name Rounds Citroën Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1 Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia All 4 Esapekka Lappi Janne Ferm All Ford M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 3 Teemu Suninen Marko Salminen 1–7 Jarmo Lehtinen 8–14 References

Unnamelessness (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: that's what I was afraid of. Maybe I should ask over at WP:VPT; if anyone can solve the issue, it's them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For now, I remain the method we used before. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too. It's not better currently. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there really a need to repeat the citation to the entry lists for every crew? Surely these can just be put at the bottom of the table once and the references for the crews can be limited to sources that only apply to them?Tvx1 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Chile

Should we include Chile in the calendar and points table? I think not because it was already cancelled in 2019, before the season even started. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see whether the official site includes Chile. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would wait and see as to whether the FIA will issue a revised calendar. They're looking at replacements so that they can have 14 rounds, so I wouldn't do anything too soon. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems contradictory to keep Australia in the 2019 calendar despite the cancellation, but then remove Chile from the 2020 calendar because of its cancellation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the same. Check https://www.wrc.com/en/championship/calendar/wrc/ - 13 rounds https://www.fia.com/events/world-rally-championship/season-2020/2020-world-rally-championship - 13 rounds. The rally was removed, while Australia was cancelled. https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/01/21/wrc-drops-rally-chile-from-calendar/ Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be much difference to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the difference between the cancellations of Rally Australia and Rally Chile is purely procedural. Both were formally cancelled by organisers and the FIA, and the reasons behind that cancellation are detailed in the article. It would not be apparent to the reader why one remains in its article and the other is removed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What? I just provided all the sources needed. wrc.com and fia.com has both removed it from the calendar. What else is needed?? All the motorsport websites including autosport.com has reports that it was removed. They will not go to Chile this year. Australia was cancelled while all the teams and crews were already there. I see no similarities at all. Why would you even compare them? I'm not seeing you providing any sources. The latest source in the calendar is https://www.wrc.com/en/editor-tree/news-archive/wrc/calendar-changes-confirmed/ have you seen it? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can actually see both sides of the argument. Why not remove Chile from the actual calendar and update the prose underneath to state that Chile was included on the provisional calendar but omitted from the final one? This appears to be the general practice of WP:MOTOR in such cases.Tvx1 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problem, though. The circumstances behind the cancellation of both Australia '19 and Chile '20 are detailed in their respective championship articles. We'd still have a situation where one appears in its calendar despite its cancellation, and the other was removed from its calendar because of its cancellation. Like I said, the difference is largely procedural. The effect is the same. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Chile was not on the provisional calendar—it was on a final calendar signed off on by the WMSC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The calendar released by the WMSC in December has a *subjection to confirmation asterisk for Chile. That makes it provisional.Tvx1 00:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The round, not the calendar. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you still include Chile if it would have been replaced? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't answer that because it hasn't been replace, and I cannot recall the last time it happened. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Why are you not providing any sources to back your claims? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: huh?

I didn't make a claim. You asked if I would keep Chile in the calendar if the event had been replaced. I said that I couldn't answer because the rally hasn't been replaced. You were asking a question based on a hypothetical situation and I offered an opinion. It does not require a source because it is not a claim.

I also stated that I could not recall the last time an event had been replaced once the season began. I never said that it had happened before, and nor did I say that it had not happened—only that, based on my own knowledge, I was not aware of it having happened. If it had happened and someone pointed it out to me, I could then reconsider my position based on a precedent established in another article. Again, this is an opinion and does not require a source.

The fact that you think I require sources to support what are clearly my own personal opinions is extremely troubling. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

While Chile is not even in the calendar nor in the results on our sources - why are you still adding it here? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are you demanding sources for a personal opinion? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So it seems this discussion is over. Only sourced content in the future please. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And now you're avoiding the question. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jocius numbers

This edit is intended to avoid a repeat of 2017, where the entry table grew to be bloated because Valeriy Gorban and Jourdan Serderidis competed with five different numbers over the course of the season and little other in the way of changes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My idea is to wait until there truly is quite a chunk of numbers used by the same driver. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: that just raises two questions:

1. How many numbers should a driver need in order to require a footnote?
2. What do you intend to do if Driver A uses multiple numbers, but not enough to need a footnote, but Driver B uses multiple numbers and does require a footnote?

I suppose that part of the problem here is that nobody seems to know who Jocius is. He seems to be a "gentleman driver" (read: pay driver) in the mold of Bertelli or Serderidis—but that does not explain the number change. Despite the new numbering system, there is a method to the way numbers are allocated—WRC-2 entries start from #20, WRC-3 entries start from #30, and J-WRC entries start from #60 or #70. Entries like Jocius', which is to say additional WRC-1 entries, tend to start from #40. That does not explain why Jocius is now #19. Is he doing a full season? Is he one of the new "WRC Teams" entries? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1. At least three, I think.
2. Then use footnotes for both A and B.

Not sure if Jocius will compete a full season campaign, but according to this, more than two rounds is expected. So, if he uses three different numbers or more, using footnotes. If not, even better. But for now, it is just not the time. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If he ends up doing several rallies and uses one number for most of them, we could even consider doing what Supercars articles do when a driver temporarily changes their number (such as here). I just think that having an entirely new row for a number is the wrong way of going about it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of reducing the number of rows solely for differences in numbers. It would also improve the MOS:ACCESS compliance of our tables, especially for visually impaired readers visiting the article. And I consider more than two numbers a good benchmark.Tvx1 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For visual reference, this is what some of the formats would look like:

Current version

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	19	Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	2–3
		40			1

No numbers, note

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC		Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	1–3

Supercars style—number with note

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	19	Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	1–3

For what it's worth, I prefer the Supercars style. It works well in those articles where one-off number changes are fairly common (eg a driver using #200 to celebrate their two hundredth start). However, it does come with the assumption that one number is used more frequently with others; it would not work if Jocius only contests Monte Carlo (#40) and Sweden (#19). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also my concern. I can't see the Supercars system working here because it deals with situations where a driver used a different number for one race than the one they used for the rest of the season. The cases you would like to tackle here however, like Gorban and Serderidis deal with crews that used a different number for every race they entered. So there really is no priority number in these cases. I can't really see an other way than the no number version to effectively deal with that.Tvx1 22:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That's why I put forward the "no numbers, note" style. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

We definitely need to do something about Jocius. He's entered three rallies and has been assigned three different numbers—#19, #34 and #40—but there are no other changes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I would go with the second option that was proposed here.Tvx1 23:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

I think we need to have a plan in mind to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Just about every major championship has been affected—Formula 1, IndyCar, the WEC, Formula E and MotoGP, not to name various championships, like Supercars and the Super Formula championship.

If an event is cancelled, the solution is pretty obvious: we do what we did for the 2019 Rally Australia. The problem is that we already have a cancellation in the form of Rally Chile and that has not been handled in this article the way Rally Australia was handled in the 2019 article. This difference was justified at the time as being a result of Rally Chile being cancelled before the championship started, but Rally Australia was cancelled once the championship had started.

In the event that a rally is cancelled because of the pandemic, I think we need to handle both it and Rally Chile in the same way in this article—the question is how we do that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference between Australia 2019 and Chile 2020 was not so much that the championship had started for the former. The difference was that the Australian Rally weekend itself had started, the competitors had been entered and the crews were there. The Chile rally was cancelled considerably beforehand and removed from the calendar altogether. What we do with other rallies that could be cancelled in 2020 depends on when they are cancelled. Things like adding "C"'s to the result matrices should only happen when competitors were actually entered and the rally wasn't actually removed from the calendar.Tvx1 01:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that falls under the heading of "splitting hairs". The net effect of both cancellations is that the rallies did not go ahead. The only real difference is the procedure that led to the cancellation, and that does not justify handling things differently in-article without detailing the circumstances (and going into detail will take a lot of explaining that is not worth it). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Chile 2020 was cancelled before the season heads off, which means they were removed from the calendar. Australia 2019 was cancelled just before the rally starts — They were still a part of the 2019 calendar. This is also the way how Aus GP works this year. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: I understand that. I even pointed it out above. What I'm concerned about is a reader who sees two rallies that have been cancelled in one year—Chile, and for the sake of argument, let's say Italy—that are being presented differently in the article for no apparent reason. The difference between them is procedural and not immediately apparent to the reader. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. Chile 2020 is no longer a part of the 2020 championship, so it will not receive an article. Similarly, China 2016 (Though I still have some problem with those Cs in the 2016 championship table). But Australia 2019 is still a part of the 2019 championship, so it still needs an article. So, I believe the logic is quite clear — If Italy is removed from the calendar, some proses in the season article like what we did to Chile would be fine. Otherwise, it needs an article. But whatever the case, it has nothing to with the reason that leads to the cancellation like corona or whatsoever. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it.

Really?

We would have two rallies that have been cancelled, but are being presented in a different way to one another in the same article. It is not immediately apparent to the reader why there is this difference and when that difference is explained, it is little more than a technicality. Such an explanation would distract from the point of the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is cleary apparent to the reader. One has an entry in the rounds column of the entry list, remains on the calendar and has "C"'s in the results tables, the other has not. Couldn't be any less clear.Tvx1 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you just being wilfully misunderstanding? The reason why one is in the calendar, rounds column and results table and the other is not there is unclear. And if a rally is cancelled due to COVID-19, we will have a contradiction in the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why we have prose and footnotes. Those allow us to provide the required context.Tvx1 14:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

wrc.com & fia.com removed Chile from calendar and results table. If you want to do that (remove Chile from calendar wikitable), I'll support you. They did release a new calendar. Removing ≠ cancelling. Who's to say that the "first calendar" is the one we should present. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)