Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

2020 W Series

With the 2019 W Series having concluded and the top 12 drivers being guaranteed a place in th 2020 W Series, an article should now be created. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mjroots, if you think so be bold and do it.
SSSB (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to complete the 1856 shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Too many unhelpful redirects

I've noticed that a lot of race car model articles are redirects to the article of the manufacturer, but in many cases these are very unhelpful, as the parent article doesn't even mention the model in question. Surely it would be better if these redirects were deleted, and only recreated if there is a section of the parent article discussing the model, or if someone wants to create a full article? I feel like having blue links for things that really don't exist is just going to discourage people from creating the articles, and would also be quite annoying for readers since they click the link and find no information about the model name they clicked on.

For example, looking at Brabham:

• Brabham BT2 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT6 - appears twice in a table
• Brabham BT9 - one mention: "The first Formula Three Brabham, the BT9, won only four major races in 1964" - potentially could be justifiably redirected to the Formula Three section.
• Brabham BT16 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT18 - discussed in reasonable detail in the Formula Two section - should redirect to that section
• Brabham BT21 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT22 - appears in one table
• Brabham BT23 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT30 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT31 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT33 - appears a few times in a table, and also as a caption to a photo, but not in the body text
• Brabham BT36 - not mentioned once
• Brabham BT41 - two mentions: "The last production customer Brabhams were the Formula Two BT40 and the Formula Three BT41 of 1973" and later in the Formula Three section, so could be justifiably redirected to the Formula Three section.
• Brabham BT51 - redirects to section "Controversy" and described in only one sentence.

I think the above is everything for Brabham, at least it should be for all the models mentioned in the Motor Racing Developments infobox unless I've missed one.

Brabham is not an isolated case, with many others, for example McLaren, Lola and Dallara having similar problems. A7V2 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Falcadore (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, they should be deleted if you don't tell about them in the main article. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:OVERLINK and WP:ASTONISH, I agree.Tvx1 17:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:EASTEREGG. SSSB (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Rather than "discourage people from creating the articles", they can "be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page" , as noted at WP:Piped link. GTHO (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning, and at least in the case of Brabham BT18 I don't have an issue if it redirects to the appropriate section (which I will do momentarily), since that section does give a reasonable amount of info, but in most of these examples there is no subtopic of the artcile to spin off. Redirects, in my understanding, are to be used when the article redirected to has information about the thing, but here that just isn't the case. A7V2 (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood guideline. It deals with pipes links, not redirects. Those are different thinks. The problem that we are discussing here is links, piped or not, being redirected to illlogical destinations. That's a different thing. Those are not an incentive to create new content or new articles. A link to a non-existent page, presenting as a redlink, is what would do the latter.Tvx1 12:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to you previously, prefered solutions "should" be [Brabham] BT18 or [Brabham|Brabham BT18]. The lack of a redlink can also discourage article creation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Falcadore, the second option you just gave isn't viable on the grounds of WP:EASTEREGG as the the reader would expect to be taken somewhere where they can get info on that car, which in most cases they can't. Really it should be Brabham BT18, [[Brabham BT18]] or [[Brabham]] BT18 depending on if an article would be viable on the topic and if the construcor has/hasn't already been mentioned. SSSB (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Make sense. Consider me amended. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The full wording of the help information to which I referred (above) is "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects: ......Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read. Furthermore, the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page, and such links would also continue to work correctly after the spin-off." All of which supports the use of redirects. In the case of the Brabham redirects above, I propose that, where there is no or little information on the model on the Brabham page, we repoint the redirect to List of Brabham race cars. I am happy to undertake this. GTHO (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to the list makes sense to me. In fact, using anchors we can even redirecting to the exact rows of the list.Tvx1 11:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly like this solution but it's better than what we've got. But I'm not going to argue the point as at least this is an improvement. I'll leave it to the significantly more experienced others to work out the details. A7V2 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Entries redirected to List of Brabham race cars where appropriate. GTHO (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

1960 Formula Two season

I've started a draft User:A7V2/1960 Formula Two season and would like to bring it to the attention of any interested editors. For those who don't know in 1960 there was an international championship for both drivers and constructors, in part since 1960 F2 became F1 in 1961. I'm planning to more or less follow the same layout as 1960 Formula One season. For references I'll mainly be using Autocourse 1960 pt 2 and formula2.net [1]. I've chosen the name because I needed to pick a name, if others have a better idea that's fine. Anyway, if you would like to help, or provide feedback or advice, that would be appreciated. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anthoine Hubert

The Anthoine Hubert article has been nominated for ITN, either as a blurb or RD. Complaints are being received that the results sections are completely unreferenced - an issue which is preventing the article's appearance on the Main Page and which seems to affect most, if not all, driver articles. Can we sort out the referencing issues please? Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What to do when a race is abandoned

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2019 Spa-Francorchamps FIA Formula 2 round about what to do with results tables in the event a race is abandoned before a result is cancelled that might be of relevance to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Racing Team Nederland and John Bosch Drafts

Maikelvangorkom has made two drafts, Draft:Racing Team Nederland and Draft:John Bosch but has had no contributions for the last 7 months and the articles have been in limbo. I believe they are notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports and with some rewriting and additional references can be promoted out of Drafts so I would like to bring them to the attention of any interested editors. Bobi.1 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Both articles look quite ready and notable enough to have place in the mainspace already. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Corvus tristis, According to reviewers they lack proper references, check the Racing Team Nederland talk page for example. I do not know more reliable sportscar racing media than Daily Sportscar, Sportscar 365, Autosport, and Motorsport.com, so I cannot contribute more to the article. If it moves forward, it has to be with contributions from someone else. Bobi.1 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Motorsport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Motorsport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Motorsport until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles

The consensus is that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the results section in all motorsport articles (championships, races, driver etc) is required to be fully referenced.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Re the above appeal, and the subsequent tagging of the Anthoine Hubert article with {{unreferenced section}}, combined with the lack of response which has kept the article off the Main Page under RD, the issue needs to be thrashed out. I'm placing the RFC here as the main parent project for motorsports.

Should the results section in all motorsport articles (championships, races, driver etc) be required to be fully referenced or not? Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, they probably should. But doing it is going to be a bloody big job. Having said that, I have worked on articles that achieved GA status—like Volkswagen Polo R WRC and McLaren MP4-30—but the lack of sources in the results section was not an issue in either case. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The lack of results has never been a problem. I am not particularlly fussed either way I am just confused as to why its a problem only now when this project and its various child projects have hundreds of articles which are either good articles or featured articles with lots of articles appearing on the main page without the results being as extensivly referenced as is apparently required for Hubert's article. I just don't get why this is a problem only now after all these years.
SSSB (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: It is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, WP:V is failed, which means that all GAs and FAs are at risk of demotion. I know how much work goes into getting a FA, so can appreciate the resistance to change. Secondly, in this instance, it has kept the article on Anthoine Hubert off the main page. Something I disagree with, but I'm not going to throw my admin's tools away over.

I appreciate that it seems to be "the way things are done here" for many years. But as the issue has been raised, it is only right that it is fully discussed. On the plus side, results should be easy enough to verify, either through the FIA website, or various online, journal and book sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I know that. I am just expressing frustration that this has only become an issue now.
SSSB (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I have found some editors at ITN difficult to deal with. Some of them do tend to jealously guard it a bit, or at least they did when I dabbled in it.

So long as the prose detailing a driver's career is well-sourced, I think the lack of sources in summary tables is less of an issue than if the article contained unsourced summary tables alone. If most of the article is the tables, I would suggest that notability is a bigger issue than verifiability. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

During the last few years I have sent a couple of F1 season articles through the GA and even FA process. During that the lack of sources for the results tables we had back then did came up as an issue. It was an easy enough fix and have tried to ensure that at the latest a source is attached to the table by the end of the championships.Tvx1 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe we should put the source below like in F1 season articles (calendar, entry list)? The tables are usually quite wide already. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that would work. What is wrong with each entry carrying a reference? Is it aesthetics? Otherwise, an extra column at the right could carry all references relevant to that line, but that is probably not the best way to do things. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem which each result carring its own reference is that it doesn't (usually) need to there are sources which document all the results for the entire season or a drivers entire career, therefore only one ref would be needed. As Corvus tristis points out the tables are already very wide. I would add an extra row for the source below the results for each year (like this), but that is a discussion for later.
      SSSB (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I would prefer to have the sources at the bottom of the entire table rather than having them intertwined for every year.Tvx1 14:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The problem with that is for larger table, like for Scuderia Ferrari there would 70+ refs to have to go through. It just isn't practical for someone who wants to look at the references for one particular year.
          SSSB (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
          • This RFC does not need to cover how the references are added, simply that they should be added per WP:V. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes they should be fully referenced. There's absolutely no good reason to allow them an exception from WP:V, articles should be standalone verifiable and that includes such results tables. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Wrong venue and yes. With all due respect to the good work done by members of this project, an individual WikiProject doesn't have the mandate to overturn Wikipedia's sitewide verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Clarification or amendment of the policy belongs at WT:V. I don't think there's any ambiguity at present, because the requirement for readers to be able to check the driver's results, as listed, is not met if the section is uncited.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: - Why is this the wrong venue? This is the parent WP for all other motor sport WPs. Seemed obvious to me. Nothing wrong with publicising the RFC elsewhere if you think it justified. Not allowed to use WP:CENT. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    I say it's the wrong venue because this looks like a policy question, not a matter for an individual WikiProject to determine on its own. Sure, it's an RFC, and could be viewed by those outside the motorsport project if people follow links from other venues, but it's likely to feature heavily the views of those on the project, which whole valuable are not reflective of the wider community consensus. Ultimately, verifiability is not a policy area which the project has the authority to overturn, and I don't think an RFC here would be sufficient to enable articles with unreferenced sections to appear on the main page. Just IMHO anyway, others may disagree. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    I added a pointer at WT:V. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes they should be referenced, but there is no need for each individual result to have its own citation. Season summary citations are perfectly reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and most NASCAR tables that have been added within the last five years or so should already have them. For older ones, they shouldn't be that difficult to add thanks to sites such as Racing-Reference. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per The Rambling Man and Bcschneider53. MWright96 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There's enough statistical documentation out there (websites and books) that it shouldn't be hard to follow WP:V. Not that every cell or even every row needs a ref - but either somewhere before, at the beginning of, at the end of, or after, there should be a reference. — Ched (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Grandes Épreuves start

Hello, can you give me sources that claim that the Grandes Épreuves were held since 1906 and not since 1923, as shown this page. If there are no sources, it must be changed. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of confusion regarding the term "Grandes Épreuves" in more modern literature as it was actually quite common (although I'm not sure if this was official or not) for the World Championship events to be called this into the 70s...

Anyway, in response to your question the confusion is probably that prior to 1923, the ACF (French) GP was by far the most prestigious race in Europe, so in [2] and [3] is given the same background colour as the Grandes Épreuves, but you are right that they weren't called that before 1923. At the time it was often called simply "The Grand Prix". Also I've no idea why, for example, in 1922 Grand Prix season the Italian GP is listed as being a GÉ as even in the source it isn't given the blue background. A7V2 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So shouldn't the articles be modified to what the link says? He is the only one I have found where he mentions some history of GE, when he mentions his creation. --Adriel 00 (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Certainly based on the source used for these articles, and based on what I've seen elsewhere, it would appear to be right. A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I await more opinions. Thank you. --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

European Championship drivers

Hello, I am about to create a category about European Championship drivers, as mentioned in the "Final Championship standings" section of the "Grand Prix season". Should I also include drivers from the unfinished seasons of 1933, 1934 and 1939? What should the category be called?. Thank you! --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of any 1933 or 1934 championships, but I'd say definitely include 1939 since there's no doubt that the four events which did run would have counted towards the championship had the War not intervened. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:European Championship drivers can it be the name? --Adriel 00 (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix Formula Three support race

I'd like to increase the scope of Monaco Grand Prix Formula Three support race and maybe move the article to something like Monaco Grand Prix support races. Currently the article discusses only the 1950,1964-97,2005 F3 and 1959-63 F Junior races, but I feel it would be more appropriate for the article to also discuss other major supporting races of the Grand Prix, namely the 1936 Coupes Prince Ranier (Voiturette), 1937 sports car race, 1952 under 2L sports car race (the year the Grand Prix was run for sports cars), 1998-2004 F3000, 2005-2016 GP2 and 2017-present F2. Potentially also could mention the GP3 race 2012 and the various Formula Renault races since 2003. I don't think it would be worth discussing much about the one-make sports car races for BMW M1s, Jag XJR-15s or Porsche Supercup. So long as no-one objects I will do it soon, but I wonder what others think about the article name, or what the exact scope should be. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this would be fine, however I think the 1952 race should not be included as it was the actual Grand Prix that year and not a support race. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify that the support event in 1950/52 was called the "Prix de Monte Carlo" (in French), and was run for F3 in 1950 (with the Monaco GP run for F1) and was run for under 2L sports cars in 1952 (with the Monaco GP run for over 2L sports cars). A7V2 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, I misinterpreted that sentence. Being a support race the under 2L sports cars should definitely be included. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made the move to Monaco Grand Prix support races and will start incorporating the other information into it. A7V2 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Chrological lists

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#By year sections in Grand Prix articles about if list of winners should be chronological or reverse chronological. Interested editors are welcome to contribute.
SSSB (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing ideas

I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#FAC reviewing of sports articles if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Fastest laps column in driver career summary tables

What's the preferred/standard heading for the "Fastest laps" column in driver "Career summary" tables? I thought the standard heading was "F/Laps" (see Mick Schumacher, Nicolas Hamilton, Sean Gelael), but I've noticed a few variations, e.g. "FLaps" (Lando Norris, Lance Stroll) and "F/laps" (Nicholas Latifi). Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My preference is F/laps closely followed by F/Laps with FLaps being a clear third in terms of preference. FLaps looks like Flaps with the accidental capitialisation of the L. Why do I prefer F/laps over F/Laps? Basic grammer. Only the first word should be capitilised. Of course it should look be like this F/laps (code is as follows:[[Fastest lap|{{abbr|F/laps|Fastest laps}}]]) so that people actually know what it stands for and what a fastest lap is but I'm getting off topic. It should be F/laps or F/Laps and it doesn't really matter if there is inconsistancy from article to article between the two.
SSSB (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Arrow McLaren SP

Should Arrow McLaren SP's results be credited to McLaren, e.g. under McLaren#American open-wheel racing results? The team itself is not owned by McLaren, it's a continuation of Schmidt-Peterson with McLaren branding, but McLaren have a significant hand in day-to-day operations. To be clear, I'm only asking if results should be listed on the McLaren article in addition to the Arrow McLaren SP article, not instead of. I'm leaning toward "yes" as I think the relationship is very similar to McLaren and Andretti in 2017, especially since it's a McLaren employee (Gil de Ferran) running the team. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, as without any ownership, the team is very much just a continuation of SPM. Very different to last year where McLaren built and crewed the car mostly by themselves. 2017 would also count as McLaren since it was a technical alliance using a combination of McLaren and Andretti crew and facilities. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 00:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Fred Opert

Draft:Fred Opert was rejected for notability reasons. As I wrote on the author's talk page:

I find it hard to believe that somebody who was a long-term owner of an F2 team whose drivers included a future F1 champion, who was (albeit for a short time) an F1 team principal, and who was himself a racing driver (including the world famous Daytona 24-hour) is not notable. I can only recommend that you improve your citations and look for more sources, and don't give up. Note that you do NOT have to meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT guideline if you can meet the General notability guideline; that said, Mr Opert may already meet the motorsport notability guideline if he did indeed participate in the Daytona 24.

Can anyone here help with the draft (in particular with sources and proving notability), or put me in my place and advise me that Mr Opert is not notable? [I have no connection with the subject and no prior knowledge; I feel like the name rings a vague bell if anything].

Also, was the Daytona 24 considered a world class professional event in the 1960s? --kingboyk (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PS I don't monitor this page. If anyone wants to help out (e.g. they have old magazines or books which can be referenced) please get stuck in, or if you want to contact me please ping me. Thanks in advance! --kingboyk (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: was the Daytona 24 considered a world class professional event in the 1960s?, yes it was. If he particpated in the Daytona 24 he would satisfy criterea #3 of WP:NMOTOR.
SSSB (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thought so. Thank you! --kingboyk (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 F4 Argentina Championship

2019 F4 Argentina Championship was cancelled. The articule of 2020 season say that will be the first season. I think that the article of 2019 season should be deleted, and clarify in the championship article that there were intentions to make the first in 2019 but it was canceled. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: Sounds like a good plan, but if you want it done you'll probably have to do it yourself. I'd start by copying any good references over from the 2019 article over to the 2020 article and writing a small section about how the first season was supposed to be in 2019 but it was cancelled; then ask for deletion of the 2019 article. To "soft delete" it you could try WP:PROD; to kill it with fire, try WP:AFD.

Never mind, it looks like the changes have already been made to the 2020 article and the 2019 article is a useless orphan. I'll nominate it for deletion myself. --kingboyk (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit article

Hello all, I've started a discussion at Talk:Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit regarding moving the article to either Albert Park Circuit or Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit and invite interested editors to participate there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Permanent driver number vs #1 for defending champion in the next season entry list

In a motorsport series where there are permanent driver numbers, but a defending champion can use no 1 (his personal choice). What number if any should be used in next season article? I personally think if we don't have a direct source that supports a specific number, we should write "TBA". Another user, Mclarenfan17 insists using the permanent driver number until proven otherwise. So it started an edit war with lots of anon users also involved.

• The article is 2020 World Rally Championship and we had some discussion here.
• The defending champion Ott Tänak used #8 so far. Last champion Sebastien Ogier did use #1.

Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This had never occurred to me. Given that it is certain that it will be either 1 or (in this case) 8, I think a reasonable thing to do would be to put 8 with a footnote that says something along the lines of as the defending champion driver X can chose to enter the season with the number 1, at least in Formula One (not sure about other series) this is the stance reliable sources take.
SSSB (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Formula 1, Supercars and MotoGP all use a "permanent numbers" system (or slight variation thereof). In each of those articles, editors assume that the reigning champion will continue to use their permanent number until a source emerges stating otherwise. I see no reason why WRC articles should not be the same. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: Well, I tried adding a footnote, but Mclarenfan17 still reverted it. Is it because in a totally different series Hamilton did not take no.1? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Strictly speaking WP:CRYSTAL would apply should you not mention that a driver can use 2 numbers. @Pelmeen10: but I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to raise WP:LETITGO either because who uses which number is minor and only really relevant if your watching/looking at pictures. Otherwise you simply don't need to know. Besides should a driver use 1 the article would be updated as soon as a season entry list comes out, long before the season actually starts. In short I'm indifferent.
SSSB (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Strictly speaking WP:CRYSTAL would apply should you not mention that a driver can use 2 numbers"

But that undermines the sources given in the article.

"Is it because in a totally different series Hamilton did not take no.1?"

No, it's because you didn't get a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But that undermines the sources given in the article, no it doesn't, the source states: #1 reserved for the World Rally champion (and that source talks the 2019 season, not 2020). And even if it didn't state that #1 is reserved you can find a source which does because we all know its true. To quote your own edit summary "Can" does not mean "will", Tanak can choose to use 8 next season, or he can choose to use 1.
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed undermine the source because it means he might not be #8 despite what the sources say. The source says he is #8, but the note says he might not be. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the simply truth though, as he might indeed choose to use number 1. That is a literal truth.Tvx1 09:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"he might indeed choose to use number 1"

I've highlighted the problem word for you. He might. You have no way of knowing if he will, which means you're speculating—which I find odd because you are usually deeply opposed to speculating. And, predictably, you only show up in a WRC-related discussion to oppose me. I thought you had learned your lesson there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, equally he might use number 8. You have no way of knowing if he will chose 1 or 8, therefore only stating 8 or only statting 1 is speculating, the only way to avoid speculating would be to mention that he could use either.
SSSB (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: the article contains a source that says #8 is his number for the duration of his career. While he can use #1 as the champion, the #8 will still be his. Your entire argument undoes the certainty of the source because of unsupported uncertainty. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But the uncertainty is supported, #1 reserved for the World Rally champion, Tanak is the World Rally Champion. that says #8 is his number for the duration of his career, no it doesn't. It states that drivers are allowed permenant numbers and it states that Tanak's number is 8. It doesn't state that Tanak isn't allowed to use the #1 reserved for the World Rally champion. Therefore the article states that Tanak (as reigning World Champion) is allowed to race with either 1 or his permenant number (8).
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet, we can also produce sources that he is allowed to choose using number 1 at present. No one is removing number 8 or suggesting doing so. Including the note just makes the situation factually correct as it is quite literally the blatant truth. It is NOT certain that he WILL use #8 in 2020. He HAS a choice, which we can prove.Tvx1 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you say on the subject of the WRC has any credibility given your history with the articles. You might as well save your breath. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Too bad it isn't your judgment to make. Attacking the contributors isn't going to help you in any way in this discussion. Seems like I have plenty of credibility with the other participants here.Tvx1 20:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You have a documented history of only participating in WRC discussions for the purpose of opposing me. It's no surprise that, after disappearing for a few weeks, you only re-surfaced in a WRC discussion when I posted in a Formula 1 discussion. You're very transparent. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: So you're rejecting someone's opinion because they disagree with you now and have also disagreed with you in the past? Whilst failing to argue against Tvx1's latest, perfectly valid, point. I think the reason that Tvx1 is taking part in this discussion is likely to be because they watch this page rather than because they're stalking you. The fact that this discussion has downturned into you handing out personal attacks would indicate to me that you have no rebuttal, is that the correct assumption to make?
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: no, I'm going to ignore him because his actions amount to wikihounding, a form of harassment:

"Hounding on Wikipedia [...] is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor."

Tvx1's only contributions to WRC articles have either been to oppose me or to suggests edits that he knows I disagree with. He never actually adds anything to the articles. Just look at his edit history—despite WP:MOTOR covering the full scope of motorsport articles and Tvx1's insistence on including the note, he has only bothered to add it to a WRC article, even though he knows multiple other series use this numbering system. This happens quite frequently. We recently had something of an unspoken truce going, but once I became active in a Formula 1 discussion, he decided to make like difficult on WRC articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: These allegations still look ludicrous to me but this is not the venue to discuss this. If you belive this then report him to the admins and push for a warning/block. Until such a time when uninvolved admins decided wikihounding applies I am afraid that I (and everyone else) will and should give Tvx1's opinion the same weight as yours.
SSSB (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"These allegations still look ludicrous to me"

If you were following other WRC discussions, you would see it. It's not one single instance, but something that unfolds across his posting history. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SSSB, that has already been tried. And no one in that ANI report agreed that Mclaren is nothing but an innocent victim. You hit the money with your earlier comment. They have no rebuttal but will never admit that and thus resort to try to bring one of the participants into disrepute. I’m by far not the only one who has been at the receiving end of this.Tvx1 12:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"And no one in that ANI report agreed that Mclaren is nothing but an innocent victim."

I remember proposing a TBAN where you would agree to stay out of WRC articles and I would agree to stay out of a set of articles that you suggested. You then suggested that I stay out of all Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3 articles, which was completely punitive given that you don't edit Formula 2 or Formula 3 articles.

"thus resort to try to bring one of the participants into disrepute"

What do you mean "try"? You bring yourself into disrepute all on your own. After all, you're the one who got a long-term block for wikilawyering (and then somehow talked his way out of it) and is on his final warning.

Your edit history speaks volumes: like all editors, you have a range of subjects that you like to edit articles about. And like all editors, there are a range of articles within those topics that you edit—but not the WRC. The only rallying articles you edit are talk pages of current season articles and you only edit for the purpose of opposing me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, why did you only apply this change to one article? As has been pointed out, this system of numbering is used by at least four major championships (Formula 1, MotoGP, WRC and Supercars), and no doubt countless others. Yet despite this, you have only sought to apply it to a single article—the WRC article. Sure, we have only specifically discussed the WRC here, but this discussion was brought to WT:MOTOR, not WT:WRC. If the concept is as sound as you make it out to be, then it should be applied to every relevant article. Of course, you didn't think to do that because you're only interested in inhibiting my work. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If I bring myself into disrepute, like you claim, why I'm able to collaborate so constructively with some many other editors even in this project? And then why is it that you keep clashing heads with editors even without my even being around at all? And then why do multiple editors call your accusations ludicrous? This crazy obsession of yours that I'm only interested in opposing you has to stop. It's not true at all. Only last week I agreed with you in a F1 discussion. I look at the arguments, never at the contributors. No one has to single you either to get involved with you in a WRC discussion simply because you take part in nearly EVERY WRC discussion. One simply can't avoid you while contributing to WRC articles. Nevertheless you edit in plenty of subjects I have no or little interest in (even in motorsports), while likewise I edit many subjects where you aren't present at all. I'm not even remotely following you around. And even if you disregard my contributions to this discussion, there still isn't anyone agreeing with you. And that's why you really have all your opposition: simply because your arguments don't make sense. And seeing no chance in agreement you're now just using me as a scapegoat for your frustration about that.Tvx1 16:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I actually feel the same. Mclarenfan17 goes personal way too many times. When he has no arguements to respond, he will use my unrelated previous edits he does not like, just to undermine my arguements. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10, Tvx1, and Mclarenfan17: I'm going to be blunt here. The behaviour of individual editors is irrelevant here and all due respect I don't care what you think of each of other. Critisism should be directed at user talk pages and if you think that another editor's behaviour is unacceptable flag it on their talk page or start a thread at WP:ANI. I also don't care about previous discussions at ANI nor do I care about the accusations of stalking nor do I care about accusations of bias against individual editors nor any other accusation. The three of you have posted personal attacks discussing editors rather than arguments (and I don't care who started it, and I acknowledge that Pelmeen10 only did it once). If one person starts with a persoanl attack then ignore, don't retaliate. Can we please discuss the issue at hand rather than throw accusations at each other. Mclarenfan17: do you responses to Yet, we can also produce sources that he is allowed to choose using number 1 at present. No one is removing number 8 or suggesting doing so. Including the note just makes the situation factually correct as it is quite literally the blatant truth. It is NOT certain that he WILL use #8 in 2020. He HAS a choice, which we can prove. which Tvx1 posted above or the comments currently at the bottom of this thread. It has recently occured to me that we should advertise at the child projects and after a few days we might be able to find a consensus (assuming no additional comments of substance, i.e. not personal attacks) which we can apply to all relevant articles. I will advertise this discussion tomorrow morning at some point because you two (Tvx1 and Mclarenfan17) have successfully driven me to the edge of sanity with you accusations.
SSSB (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We should only deal with the content here. Which is the only reason I joined this discussion in the first place. I really think this issue isn’t that big and shouldn’t caused such a drama at all.Tvx1 22:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

At worst the source contradicts itsself stating that #1 reserved for the World Rally champion and that Tanak will use 8. As Tvx1 just pointed out its the truth so if it bothers you that much find a source, or don't becuase none of the other driver numbers are sourced.
SSSB (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that.Tvx1 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that."

Have you got a source to support this theory? I'll save us all: of course you don't.

"It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season."

And that's synthesis because you're interpreting a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

”Have you got a source to support this theory? I'll save us all: of course you don't.”

Did you even bother to read my comment properly? Of course I don’t. Hence why ended my sentence with “we can’t really be sure about that.”

”And that's synthesis because you're interpreting a source.”

How on earth is that synthesis?? The sources literally state they are seasonal number. Your claim that they are career numbers is what actually is synthesis because NO source actually states that they are career numbers.Tvx1 09:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Tvx1 here. The sporting regs state the following:

17. SEASONALLY ALLOCATED COMPETITION NUMBERS

17.1 MANUFACTURERS P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.

Therefore Tanak could race with 1, 8 or another number between 1-99 this year. Equally Loeb could race with anynumber 2-99 including 8. The rules don't state that drivers are required to have the same number for the entire career. So unless there are a different set of rules which we are unaware of it would be WP:SYNTH to assume the race numbers of any of the drivers.
SSSB (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"How on earth is that synthesis??"

You said it yourself:

"we can’t really be sure about that"

You said that you cannot be sure as to what the intention of the regulation is. Therefore, you have had to interpret it. That is a form of synthesis. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No. You clearly are not reading my comments. My comment that we can’t be sure deals with the crews retaining their over different seasons. Not over the purpose of the rules. The purpose of the rules is spelled out crystal clear. Numbers are reserved for one season at time. No matter how you turn it, claiming that these numbers are for their entire careers is what actually is synthesis. No source actually supports that last claim.Tvx1 12:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:

"Mclarenfan17: do you responses to Yet, we can also produce sources that he is allowed to choose using number 1 at present. No one is removing number 8 or suggesting doing so. Including the note just makes the situation factually correct as it is quite literally the blatant truth. It is NOT certain that he WILL use #8 in 2020. He HAS a choice, which we can prove. which Tvx1 posted above or the comments currently at the bottom of this thread."

I feel that highlighting the choice is somewhat short-sighted. It proritises right now at the expense of a long-term view. The Monte is two months away and the entry list will probably be published in six weeks at the most. Tänak's choice has no tangible effect on the championship; it won't affect his position in the running order the way it used to. The personalised numbers are purely for identification purposes and right now Tänak is most associated with #8.

Furthermore, Tvx1's argument is that these are "seasonal" numbers and so drivers may have to go through this process of nominating a new number each year. This might be as it appears in the regulations, and while regulations are definitive, they may also be too close to a self-published source. I cannot find any third-party or supplementary sources (eg Autosport, Speedcafe, etc.) that support this claim. It's not unheard of for competitors to change numbers—Maverick Viñales did it in MotoGP and Supercars teams can do it, too—but there is usually a specific mechanism in place to make it happen (such as Racing Entitlement Contracts in Supercars), and I can find no evidence of that being the case in the WRC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

right now Tänak is most associated with #8

Can you prove it? Though it's 2020 season, we're talking about. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"Can you prove it?"

He has only ever used the #8 since the introduction of personalised numbers. What other number could he be associated with? It cannot be #1 because he has never used it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and Pelmeen10: I'm still waiting on those sources that prove your "seasonal numbers" theory. Because the regulations do not specifically state that a driver must re-apply for a number each year, and I cannot find any other sources to support the idea. If you do not have these sources or cannot find them, that's fine, but it would be nice if you acknowledged it so that the discussion can move on. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, Because the regulations do not specifically state that a driver must re-apply for a number each year - nor do they say they can keep the same number year on year. I cannot find any other sources to support the idea. - But I can find sources which state that he can choose 1 or his personal number as the defending champion (which is the subject of this discussion) ([4] and [5] are two example) therefore it would be inaccurate to only state that he could use 8 regardless as to whether he can/can't use a number besides 1 and 8. TBC should really be used.
SSSB (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: other sources directly compare the WRC numbering system to the likes of F1. If Tvx1's theory of "seasonal numbers" is true, it means we need to re-think how the article is written. What he is suggesting is an unusual idea to say the least, so I think supplementary sources are needed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

In the sporting regulations (see the copied text above), they are literally called "seasonal numbers", plus 2019 COMPETITION NUMBERS. With the (potentially high) number of competitors over a couple of seasons, or lets say 20 years, they would just run out of numbers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: that's not what I asked for. I'm aware of what the sporting regulations state, but they are a primary source. What I would like to see is a secondary source (think am Autosport article, for example) that supports this claim.

Also, the phrase "seasonal numbers" is not used in the source you supplied. It is also only used in the title of section 17 of the quoted regulations. Which part of the regulations states that drivers must re-apply for their numbers every year? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it expects some logic. Season lasts 1 year. Which part of the regulations states that the numbers chosen in 2019 will carry on to 2020? Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: a lot of the secondary sources point to the Formula 1 system as an example of how the WRC system works. Formula 1 drivers do not need to reapply for numbers each year.

"Which part of the regulations states that the numbers chosen in 2019 will carry on to 2020?"

At this point, it's pretty obvious that you cannot answer the question which tells me that you don't have the sources I asked for. What you're saying is "you should answer the question, not me, and if you won't then I don't have to". This is called shifting the burden of proof. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet, you have no source at all the states the drivers chose those numbers for their entire careers. On Wikipedia we can only go with what we can prove. And at present we can only prove that they chose these numbers for a season. Also, it appears you don't understand the difference between a secondary source and an independent source. Those are not synonyms. The sport's regulations is not a primary source, it's just not an independent one. But that really isn't a problem. It remains perfectly usable nevertheless. And even if it were a primary, we could still use it. As long as we just present it literally and do not synthesize it ourselves. Lastly, the contents of the F1 regulations are very different to the WRC ones. I really don't think anyone can assume that WRC uses the exact system as F1.Tvx1 17:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, we can prove that the FIA refers to them as "seasonal numbers". The term only appears in the title of section 17 and is never defined in the regulations. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither does it state that the numbers carry on to 2020. We basically don't know how it works. Which means you have included unsourced (not directly sourced for sure) content. But it seems you don't want to understand it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You and Tvx1 made the claim first, so the burden to prove it rests with you. Your response of "I don't need to prove my claim; you need to prove yours" is not an argument, but a fallacy. And given that you have repeatedly invoked it and have made no effort to provide a source to support your claim, I'm going to take that to mean that you don't have a source. You need to drop the stick. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, you are yet to prove that Tanak will take #8 instead of #1. As I said above if we can't prove what number he is going to use it should be TBA or TBC.
SSSB (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: we regularly distinguish between the "reigning" champion and the "defending" champion. The reigning champion is the person who wins the championship, but has not yet started their defence of said championship. If Tänak chooses #1, he cannot and will not use it until 2020. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, If Tänak chooses #1, he cannot and will not use it until 2020. - the article in question is about what happens in 2020 not what is ahppeneing now. And we know they will be defending their championship. Therefore Tanak is entitled to use #1 and to state he is using #8 is WP:OR, to state that he is using #8 with a footnote stating he could choose #1 is misleading (it implies that he has stated he will use #8 but might change his mind before the entry list is released). In my mind the only way to avoid being miisleading is to place TBA or TBC with a footnote stating that he can choose as defending champion.
SSSB (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"And we know they will be defending their championship."

No, we don't. That's why we use language like "under contract to compete" rather than "will compete". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In that case let me rephrase If he competes we know he will be the defending champion. My argument still stands.
SSSB (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I know we're editing articles about racing, but Wikipedia itself is not a race, we could just remove the numbers until the first official entry list is released. Last year the Monte Carlo Rally entry list came out January 15th, so it's not like we'd even be waiting that long. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the WRC, I have found several sources. First, the FIA:

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.

This is 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 section 17 of the regulations. There is nothing in the body of the regulations that uses the word. I have tried searching for sources that support this interpretation, but the only results I get are related to this discussion. Therefore, I find this claim to be original research (or at least as close as you can get to it):

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

I'm not really sure how you can come to the conclusion that "permanent numbers" means "a number that a driver only uses for one season". If you have some source that supports the claim, please share or, or else I think it is fair to say that the subject—at least in the case of the WRC—is closed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Because in the case of WRC, in the past crews would often use different numbers at different rallies. Now the numbers are fixed for the entire season. The rules make it very clear that they are seasonal numbers. They tell is clearly what "permanent" means in this case.Tvx1 19:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:

Because in the case of WRC, in the past crews would often use different numbers at different rallies. Now the numbers are fixed for the entire season.

Incorrect. Prior to 2019, numbers were assigned based on the previous year's WCM standings and drivers used them for an entire season. It was the same system that Formula 1 used prior to 2014 and was used in the WRC from 1995. There was a time when they changed numbers round by round, but it was decades ago.

Also, you're deflecting. Do you have a source that says drivers must reapply for their numbers each year? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I just downloaded the most-recent set of regulations (published 18 December) from the FIA website. The most relevant section is Article 26 (it was Article 17, but the regulations were re-ordered to make more logical sense). This is what they say:

26. SEASONALLY ALLOCATED COMPETITION NUMBERS

26.1 MANUFACTURERS

P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.

26.2 OTHER DRIVERS

Competition numbers shall be allocated rally by rally, according to the provisional classification of the Championships concerned.

And that's it. The regulations then go on to detail Article 27, "Competition Numbers", which outline where numbers are to be physically placed on the car, their size and colour and so on. There is no evidence to suggest that a driver only has a number for one year. Nor do the regulations contradict the sources published in 2018-19—including the FIA website, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe—which describe "permanent numbers". So, again, if you have any sources to support your interpretation, please share them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and Pelmeen10: it has now been ten days since I posted the above, debunking the claim of "seasonal numbers". Since you have not bothered to respond to my request for sources to prove your theory, I am going to assume that you have none. I think it is fair to say that the matter is now resolved, but I have bookmarked this discussion for future reference. Should you make the claim again in the future, I'll be more than happy to direct you back here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We need evidence that the numbers stay the same year to year, which none of your comment above proves. Nothing is dubunked. If the numbers are not set in stone, we should not present them as such. The living proof to my claim ist that Sebastien Loeb has #9 now... https://www.ewrc-results.com/entries/60140-rally-sweden-2020/ --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

We need evidence that the numbers stay the same year to year, which none of your comment above proves.

You obviously missed the word "permanent".

The living proof to my claim ist that Sebastien Loeb has #9 now

I'm sceptical given that ewrc-results.com claims to have a Monte Carlo entry list when ACM hasn't published it yet. I'd rather see something from Rally Sweden.

Furthermore, if Loeb has changed his number, this source gives no context as to how the number change came about. How does this prove that every driver needs to reapply for a new number each season? It doesn't. For all you know, Loeb requested a number change of his own volition (like Maverick Viñales changing from #25 to #12). For all you know, the website made an error. There is no way to verify your claim.

Nothing is dubunked.

It has been completely debunked. There's no shame in admitting you were wrong in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, you haven't even tried to address the fact that there is nothing in the regulations to say drivers must reapply for numbers each year. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support your claim and you have either refused to request, ignored it or changed the subject every single time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It has not been debunked (or at least not completly) but unfortuantly I do not think that enough evidence has been provided to suggest that drivers need to re apply for numbers every year. However if Loeb (or anyone else who isn't using 1) participates with a number different from the one they used previously this is sufficent evidence to suggest they are not set in stone (even if they don't have to re-apply) and therefore assuming they would remain the same would be WP:CRYSTAL. But like I said, at this point there is insufficent evidence to suggest this is the case.
SSSB (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:

I do not think that enough evidence has been provided to suggest that drivers need to re apply for numbers every year

No evidence has been provided at this point. Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 have either refused to provide sources when asked, flat-out ignored requests for sources, or have changed the subject. All they have is a single use of ghe word "seasonal" in the title of Article 26 of the sporting regulations (the word "seasonal" does not even appear in the body of Articke 26) and a link to a purported Rally Sweden entry list (which has not been published yet by Rally Sweden) that provides to context as to how a number has changed. If you Google wrc "seasonal numbers", the only hit you get related to the subject is a link to this page. Meanwhile, I have provided four sources—from the FIA, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe—that all clearly use the phrase "permanent numbers". In my view, Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 are bordering on original research with this claim of seasonal numbers. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why your having a go at me, I just agreed with you. But you yourself acknowledge that there is some evidence All they have is a single use of ghe word "seasonal" in the title of Article 26 of the sporting regulations - that is evidence, but as I implied above and you have said explicitly they are using WP:SYNTH to argue what they think it means (or at least thats my analysis).
SSSB (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not only Loeb with different number. Katsuta is listed with #17 in our article, but that number is given to Ogier [6]. That source also gives #69 to Kalle Rovanperä, but the number was Juho Hänninen's last year. In 2019, Craig Breen used #18 and #42, while the #33 was used by both Greensmith (who also used #44) and Evans. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeem10:

Katsuta is listed with #17 in our article, but that number is given to Ogier [7].

Rally Sweden have not published their entry list, so we cannot verify ewrc-results.com's claim.

That source also gives #69 to Kalle Rovanperä, but the number was Juho Hänninen's last year.

Hänninen is not competing this year, so this is not a problem.

In 2019, Craig Breen used #18 and #42, while the #33 was used by both Greensmith (who also used #44) and Evans.

None of which proves your claim that drivers must reapply for their numbers every year.

To be clear, this is what I am asking for: a source that says drivers are only assigned a number for one year and so must reapply to have that number for the next year as those numbers do not automatically carry over. So far, all you have is a combination of speculation, original research and synthesis. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Both Loeb and Katsuta entered Monte-Carlo (not Sweden) with a different number than the one they used last season. That's more than enough that evidence that these numbers of the Priority 1 crews are not automatically carried over to the next season and thus clearly not career numbers. It's time now for you to admit (firstly to yourself) that you were wrong. We should now list any number that's not sourced to a 2020 entry list or other source that deals with 2020 as TBA. By the way Hänninen is expected to compete this season. As a co-driver.Tvx1 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's more than enough that evidence that these numbers of the Priority 1 crews are not automatically carried over to the next season and thus clearly not career numbers.

Actually, it's not. The regulations still use the phrase "career numbers", every other crew is continuing to use the same number they did in 2019, and we have no context as to how those number changes came about. It's certainly not proof of your absurd "seasonal numbers" theory, which you are yet to provide any evidence in support of.

It's time now for you to admit (firstly to yourself) that you were wrong.

That's a bit rich coming from you given that you have blatantly ignored multiple policies—including WP:BURDEN, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CHERRY and WP:BATTLEGROUND—in pursuit of this theory.

By the way Hänninen is expected to compete this season. As a co-driver.

What's your point? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tvx1's conclusion. Whilst these number changes don't prove that drivers have to reapply - they do prove that the numbers don't stay with a driver for their entire career. Therefore in future seasons it would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume that all the driver numbers would remain the same.
SSSB (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Tvx1 has been unable to prove his claim. All he has demonstrated is that numbers can change, but has not shed any light on the circumstances of how they changed. For all we know, those drivers would have continued to carry their permanent numbers, but specifically applied to change them. For example, Maverick Viñales carried #25 in his MotoGP career and would have continued to do so had he not applied for a new number, #12. There is evidently some mechanism in the WRC that we don't know about, and until such time as we do, we cannot assume anything. We have four sources that state numbers are permanent. Thus, Tvx1's claim is the speculative one since he hasn't got any evidence to back up any of his claims. That's all he needs to do. It's all he has ever needed to do: he needs to prove his claim. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How they changed their numbers or why they changed is irrelevant. The Monaco entry list clearly shows that numbers can change, something you acknowledged. Therefore it would be at best WP:OR to assume that all of next years numbers will be the same as this year. Those 4 sources are clearly wrong and the Monaco entry list proves that. You yourself say we cannot assume anything - but the only person assuming anything is you, you are assuming the numbers will remain the same when clearly they've changed. I will repeat myself Tvx1 has not proved that drivers need to reapply, but he has proved they can change, therefore WRC article must have TBA for driver numbers until a source comes out which confirms the driver number for that specific year (not the source which confirms a previous years number).
SSSB (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WRC article must have TBA for driver numbers until a source comes out which confirms the driver number for that specific year (not the source which confirms a previous years number)

All that does is contradict existing sources.

The source showing Loeb and Katsuta using different numbers also shows Neuville, Tanak, Lappi, Suninen, Evans and Greensmith using the same numbers. Ignoring that and concentrating on Loeb and Katsuta is cherry-picking.

The obvious solution to this problem is to do what Supercars Championship articles do and assume that the numbers remain the same (as per the sources) until such time as evidence of a change emerges. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

All that does is contradict existing sources. - it contradicts secondry sources but it is directly supported by Primary sources (i.e. FIA entry lists). The FIA entry lists are significantly more reliable than secondry sources which have been wrong in the past (like here) and are clearly wrong now. Ignoring that and concentrating on Loeb and Katsuta is cherry-picking - you misunderstand what WP:CHERRY says, this being evident from the fact that from your interpretation of WP:CHERRY implies you are also cherry picking - by ignoring Loeb and Katsuta. We are ignoring everyone else because there numbers are irrelevant. The fact is numbers can change and the FIA entry list proves this. Therefore doing what they do in Supercars Championship and what you propose to do in WRC (assuming the numbers stay the same) is WP:OR at best.
SSSB (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

it contradicts secondry sources but it is directly supported by Primary sources (i.e. FIA entry lists). The FIA entry lists are significantly more reliable than secondry sources which have been wrong in the past

You're forgetting about the Sporting Regulations, which is a) a primary source and b) makes no mention of changing numbers.

Also, the rally entry lists are not produced by the FIA, unlike Formula 1 entry lists. Rally entry lists are produced by event organisers. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sporting regulations also make no mention of Permenant numbers nor that numbers can't change, therefore that source doesn't support or go against any viewpoints discussed in this article (unless you use WP:SYNTH). Who the entry lists are made by is also irrelevant. It is still a more reliable source than any of the sources you provided.
SSSB (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The FIA does in this article announcing and explaining the key changes to the sporting regulations:

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.

There is nothing in the 2020 regulations to contradict this.

And who publishes the entry list is very relevant. You claimed they come from the FIA, which gives them authority—except they don't come from the FIA at all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet the entry list we're discussing clearly carries the FIA logo. That clearly shows they have certified it. That's more than enough to accept it as a source. We always used these source to support the entries in our rally articles, so why would they now be unacceptable just because it contains things that you don't like?? This is really becoming ridiculous now. I really don't understand why it is such a drama for you to accept having numbers of crews for which we do not have a 2020-specific source yet as "TBA". This really has to end now. No one is agreeing with your hypothesis. This is exactly what multiple administrators complained about in a recent WP:ANI thread dealing with you. You simply cannot concede, even when you are clearly wrong.Tvx1 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This coming from the man who came up with the theory of "seasonal numbers" and then refused to provide any sources in support of it, acknowledge any sources that refuted it, but still insisted that it was others' responsibility to prove him wrong? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the sources. I have proven that numbers have changed. You're the one with the hypothesis that the numbers are fixed for their entire careers with nothing to support that.Tvx1 23:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Really? You're the one who insisted that they are "seasonal numbers" and that drivers need to reapply every year. That was your original claim, which you have refused to provide any evidence in support of. All you have demonstrated so far is that two numbers have changed, but you cannot explain how that change came about, which is a far cry from your original claim. Look at it this way: Thierry Neuville used #11 in 2019 and is using #11 in 2020. How have you proven that he had to reapply for that number?

I, on the other hand, have been consistent throughout. I concede that I was wrong in calling them "career numbers" to begin with and instead should have used "permanent numbers" the whole time, since that is the language used in both primary and secondary sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you had read my original comment properly you would have realized immediately that my point was not what the exact procedure is, but that we simply cannot assume that all numbers stay the same between seasons. And now we have evidence that numbers have changed. So we simply cannot assume the numbers for 2020 (or indeed 2021) that have not been announced for that season yet. Why they changed doesn't even matter. Whatever the myriad of reasons are, they changed and others can change too. They're not fixed for entire careers. That's what multiple users have been telling you now. So please stop adding the 2020 and 2021 numbers which have not been published in a 2020 or 2021 specific source now.Tvx1 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the claim that you have yet to prove:

I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

First, none of the sources talk about "seasonal numbers". The phrase only appears in the title of Article 26 of the Sporting Regulations. Secondly, I have provided sources from the FIA, wrc.com, Autosport and Speedcafe that all detail the use of permanent numbers. But most important is this part:

It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

This suggests that a driver retains a number for one year at which point they lose that number and must reapply for it at the beginning of the next year. You have not provided any evidence that this is the case. The only evidence you have so far (which you only got weeks after making the initial claim) demonstates that two numbers have changed. It does not give any context to how that number change came about, so it does not support your "seasonal number" theory at all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually the Autosport source twice talks about a driver using a number "this season". Crucially none of your sources actually talk about "career numbers" or "numbers being fixed for their careers". And the comment of mine you quoted wasn't intended to mean that they have to "fully re-apply each season". The point was that there was no evidence that they were guaranteed those numbers for more than a season. The point thus was that we couldn't just assume these numbers all stayed the same. We needed more 2020-specific evidence to support that content and more recent evidence have clearly proven that they don't all stay the same which actually means we included incorrect unsupported numbers for weeks.Tvx1 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

They do, however, mention "permanent numbers", and the definition of "permanent" is lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely. You would have us believe that "permanent" means something else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

FWIW, as an uninvolved editor, I checked the FIA rules. In 2018 the rules for seasonable competition numbers were:

MANUFACTURERS The World Champion driver of the previous season is allocated number 1. The second driver of the World Champion’s team is allocated number 2 and the third driver, if applicable, number 3. Using the same system, the numbers are then allocated by the FIA according to the classification of the previous year’s Manufacturers’ Championship. Remaining P1 drivers, other than those using a number under Art. 17.3, shall be allocated sequential numbers by the organiser up to number 30. 2018 rules - section 17.1

Then the rules changed in 2019 to:

MANUFACTURERS P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99. 2019 rules - section 17.1

There is nothing about the numbers being permanent. What they do allow is for P1 drivers to apply to the FIA and the promoter for the number, and they can endorse the number. What we have here is a convention that allows for numbers to be reused every year. In all likelihood the WRC and FIA will, as they publicly stated, honor these numbers. The previous rules clearly did not allow this, now with the change they are allowed to allocate numbers as they see fit. And likely some drivers (or all drivers!) will have their same numbers every year. But this is not set it stone, and there may well be some drivers whose applications are not endorsed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hillclimb venue

I plan to change this template to show only metres/yards (in either order) or kms/miles (in either order) rather than how it currently is which is quite weird and places a strange emphasis on the Imperial measurements (prioritising "miles (yards)"). Please raise any objections at Template talk:Infobox hillclimb venue. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Driver deaths in motorsport is "too big"

It's hitting a Wikipedia technical limit causing templates to not work properly.

I've opened a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:Driver deaths in motorsport#This article is so big it is causing technical problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hell Drivers

The above article, vaguely within the realms of "motorsport", was recently replaced with a redirect. The article as it stood can be seen here. Does anybody think this is worth saving, and have the sources to do so, or do the articles Lucky Teter and Joie Chitwood adequately cover the subject? --kingboyk (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I should probably add that the article was originally nominated for deletion but the nominator withdrew the nomination in favour of replacing with a redirect to the film of the same name. The nominator's key rationale was that 'aggregating a bunch of tenuously related car shows because their names include "Hell Drivers" doesn't make any sense'. This sounds like a very reasonable rationale, but I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to know if this article was indeed an artificial aggregation by a wiki editor (to which WP:OR would probably apply), or if "Hell Drivers" or "Hell drivers" is a notable and well-documented genre of motorsport-related entertainment. Over to you. --kingboyk (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted a request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports regarding two users contributing to this project. If anyone wishes to add evidence for arbitrators to consider, you can add it to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.Tvx1 23:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Notabality for motosports bios

Would someone from this WikiProject might taking a look at Anders Olsson (motocross driver) and Dick Olsson? Both articles were created by Dickolsson, who is claiming to be "Dick Olsson", and thus would have a clear WP:COI with respect to both subjects if that's the case. "Dick Olsson" was actually recently deleted per WP:PROD, but deprodded per this request at User talk:Explicit#Unfair proposed deletion of Dick Olsson. I'm not finding a lot of WP:SIGCOV about either individual which would meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, but perhaps there is a more specific guideline for motorsports that both meet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: the speciific notability guidleines you are looking for can be found at WP:NMOTORSPORT. However it would appear to me that both fail the criteria set out there.
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've PRODded the first one (Anders Olsson). The article has been through BLPPROD before but that does not make it ineligible, and I can find no evidence the subject is notable. The other article seems to be puffed up with references about inconsequential/tangential activities (such as amateur cycling and software development; yeah, plenty of us do those things)... I don't have the inclination to look into that one any further but maybe it should go to WP:AFD. --kingboyk (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Articles backlog

There's quite a backlog of motorsport related articles in the Sports and recreation section at Good Articles nominees. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) an article under review may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article.

For example, Justin Wilson (racing driver) has been waiting for review since 8 November 2019, and some Grand Prix articles have been waiting since September. --kingboyk (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a go at reviewing the above article myself. It has over 150 citations, which would take days to plow through! Looks more like an FA candidate to me. No wonder GAR is grinding to a halt. --kingboyk (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to deal with the backlog (mostly race reports) but I am a little busy. Perhaps I'll do a couple during my hols but most likely I won't be able to attend to it till the summer after my exams.
SSSB (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean any criticism of this project; just that that particular article looks more like an FA candidate and that the apparently narrowing gap between GA and FA is possibly contributing to the backlog as FA-level articles have a lot of citations which takes a long time to review (and the original message was just a heads up in case folks weren't aware of the backlog or that anyone can review, and might like to do some reviewing). Thanks for all the work you do. Good luck with your exams and well done for getting your priorities right! --kingboyk (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed addition of logo to Template:Infobox motorsport venue

An editor has suggested adding a "logo" field to Template:Infobox motorsport venue. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done (and integrated as a test case at Indianapolis Motor Speedway). Please ping me if there are any problems. Please revert my changes if there are any serious problems. --kingboyk (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)