Talk:2020 World Rally Championship: Difference between revisions

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)

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)

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 speculate 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)