This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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 mentioned before events. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Pelmeen10:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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:
It also says:
And finally:
With that in mind, this is what the lead of the 2019 article currently says:
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
To those anonymous users, see this entry. Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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 |
@ Mclarenfan17: Your thought? Unnamelessness ( talk) 05:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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 |
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 |
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—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.
Your examples are irrelevant because none of them addess this particular scenario.
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 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: 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)
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.
Except there is a source, but you're choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient.
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)
@ 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)
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)
To be used in the future
-- Pelmeen10 ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ford M-Sport will have Teemu Suninnen and one other entry [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.238.77 ( talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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?
@ Klõps:
Yes, I did. The three dot points you just outlined are addressing my reasons.
But there are also individual competitors.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
@ Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, and Klõps:
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: 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)
The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together.
I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change)
the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers"
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)
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)
Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar.
maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally?
@ 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)
@ 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)
Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Mclarenfan17: Why are you not providing any sources to back your claims? Pelmeen10 ( talk) 17:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
For visual reference, this is what some of the formats would look like:
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 |
Entrant | Car | No. | Driver name | Co-driver name | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-Sport Ford WRT | Ford Fiesta WRC | [a] | Deividas Jocius | Mindaugas Varža | 1–3 |
Entrant | Car | No. | Driver name | Co-driver name | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-Sport Ford WRT | Ford Fiesta WRC | 19 [b] | 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)
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 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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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 mentioned before events. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Pelmeen10:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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:
It also says:
And finally:
With that in mind, this is what the lead of the 2019 article currently says:
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
To those anonymous users, see this entry. Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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 |
@ Mclarenfan17: Your thought? Unnamelessness ( talk) 05:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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 |
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 |
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—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.
Your examples are irrelevant because none of them addess this particular scenario.
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 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: 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)
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.
Except there is a source, but you're choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient.
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)
@ 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)
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)
To be used in the future
-- Pelmeen10 ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ford M-Sport will have Teemu Suninnen and one other entry [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.238.77 ( talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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?
@ Klõps:
Yes, I did. The three dot points you just outlined are addressing my reasons.
But there are also individual competitors.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
@ Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, and Klõps:
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: 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)
The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together.
I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change)
the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers"
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)
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)
Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar.
maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally?
@ 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)
@ 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)
Scenario
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Mclarenfan17: Why are you not providing any sources to back your claims? Pelmeen10 ( talk) 17:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
For visual reference, this is what some of the formats would look like:
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 |
Entrant | Car | No. | Driver name | Co-driver name | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-Sport Ford WRT | Ford Fiesta WRC | [a] | Deividas Jocius | Mindaugas Varža | 1–3 |
Entrant | Car | No. | Driver name | Co-driver name | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M-Sport Ford WRT | Ford Fiesta WRC | 19 [b] | 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)
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 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)
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)