Talk:2020 World Rally Championship

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)

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developed or produced, do not get any manufacturer support, are only entered by obscure gentlemen drivers and are being superseded by R5 cars.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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)