Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fecotank (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 18 December 2018 (→A consensus formed elsewhere). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:12, 18 December 2018 by Fecotank (talk | contribs) (→A consensus formed elsewhere)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

World Rally Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying related articles on Misplaced Pages, including the FIA World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.World RallyWikipedia:WikiProject World RallyTemplate:WikiProject World RallyWorld Rally
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Calendar and Rally Japan

If you are adding Rally Japan to the list based on this article https://www.autosport.com/wrc/news/138171/rally-japan-gets-goahead-from-wrc then you should also mention what's in the article: A final decision will be made at the World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on October 12. "The proposal will now go to the FIA World Motor Sport Council where we assume we will get a positive approval to bring the rally back to Japan and then the event will take place from 2019 for probably four years. — so it's not 100% final yet. You can't just cherry pick a part of that news report and ignore the rest of it. Like I mentioned in the edit summary and in the previous discussion with Rally Australia, the date (Oct 12) is important because if any premature conclusions of calendar predictions are made, that's a note how long the calendar is not 100% final. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1, Unnamelessness, Kovpastish do you have an opinion here? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they have a deal/contract to hold the race in 2019. As far as I know that meets the standard of inclusion we use for all future season WP:Motor articles. None of the races on 2019 Formula One World Championship have received final FIA approval either, yet we include them. They are contracted for said and season and we introduced them as such.T v x1 17:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: So, can we make 2020 season article, and write that Kenya has a contract? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't we include the date when the final calendar is revealed? Isn't the World Motor Sport Council meeting important for us? In comparison 2026 Winter Olympics includes "The host city will be selected at the 134th IOC Session on 11 September 2019 in Milan, Italy." --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the significance of the date. A calendar needs to be published for the championship to go ahead; that's a foregone conclusion. So all the line does is draw attention to the date. Why is 12 September so important? What does publishing then do that publishing on 11 or 13 September does not? 1.129.109.103 (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you know... that September is not actually October? But why is that date important? - Because from this article (currently) we can find that: 1. Tänak & Mikkelsen have active contracts. 2. Rally Japan has a contract with WRC (reality is actualy different, cuz it's not confirmed). We can't really find out anything more about 2019 WRC season. What we could find out - 1. Any other driver tied to a team? - not that we know of; When we do we know? - we don't know. 2. What rallies are planned - we don't know, because the calendar is not decided yet. When do we know? - Oh, we do actually know that, it the 12th of October. But that's it. Nothing more to write (or read from the article)! I'd say the current article is really pointless. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Look at any other article for an upcoming championship. None of them detail when a calendar is due to be published. 1.129.110.209 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Not 100% confirmed yet so no, I wouldn't include it right now. This source: https://www.wrc.com/en/wrc/news/august-2018/japan-agreement/page/5684--12-12-.html also says a candidate event, to make sure all the standards for a World Rally Event is met, will be held in early November. Kovpastish (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The release date of the calendar is not so important — It does not affect the 2019 season. Of course, I have no objection to the accession of the date. It does not affect the readability as well after all. — Unnamelessness (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly this anon user wont stop the edit war. I dont know if the person cant read or what is his problem. I have told this several times that before the Motorsport Council meeting, no rally has a contract. It is not a village sport, these are FIA rules. If you have a proper source to prove me wrong, please provide it. But in reality none of the sources can say that a rally has a contact with WRC, because it has to be confirmed in that meeting! Please read WP:CRYSTAL. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Clearly this anon user wont stop the edit war. I dont know if the person cant read or what is his problem."

Is it really edit-warring when I am undoing someone's incompetence? It's a bit rich of you to throw around accusations that people are not reading sources when you clearly haven't read them yourself.

"I have told this several times that before the Motorsport Council meeting, no rally has a contract."

Which just goes to show how little you understand the subject. A contract is signed between the event organisers and the rally promoter. The WMSC doesn't come into it until they assign the event a specific date on the calendar. That's why the section is called "list of planned rallies" and not "calendar". It's a separation of powers that applies to every FIA-sanctioned championship in the world.

"If you have a proper source to prove me wrong, please provide it."

The source that I have provided is adequate. It clearly states that dates for 2019 rallies are being discussed, and they could not be discussed without a contract. 1.144.107.172 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that they have a contract. Certainly not this source, neither your last attempt to add Rally Australia. Anything can be discussed without a contract, or is that WP:OR? You are trying to suck something out of a source that does not exist, which is WP:CRYSTAL. Please do read those policies. Btw, Rally Sweden has already announced the 2019 dates - 14-17 Feb. Do something else for 9 days and come back on 12 Oct to share your brilliant knowledge of WRC. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rally Sweden has already announced the 2019 dates - 14-17 Feb."

So why isn't it in the list? They cannot announce dates for the rally if they don't have a contract.

"come back on 12 Oct to share your brilliant knowledge of WRC"

Shouldn't be too hard, seeing as how you still haven't figured out that I'm Prisonermonkeys. After all, I'm not the one who claimed that a rally has to have a contract with the WMSC. 1.144.107.10 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Because any one of the rallies could lose their place as WRC event. Rallies are still held on national and/or ERC level. None of the places are guaranteed. Rally Poland for example is held every year. Does it mean that they are automatically WRC event - ofcourse not, they lost their place after 2017. Any one of the 2018 rallies could be dropped just like Poland. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are the news about contracts? Nowhere, because any announcement would be premature. We don't care if a contract is in someone's drawer. No official announcement, no mention in Misplaced Pages. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you haven't learned a thing about Misplaced Pages since you updated the 2010 and 2011 articles with those statistics tables. Case in point:

"Because any one of the rallies could lose their place as WRC event."

But you also said:

"You are trying to suck something out of a source that does not exist, which is WP:CRYSTAL."

One moment you're criticising me for breaking CRYSTAL despite providing a source and then the next you're breaking CRYSTAL yourself without a source. You said it yourself:

"Because any one of the rallies could lose their place as WRC event."

You are speculating (the emphasis is mine) that those rallies may not take place in the future regardless of whether or not they have a contract. That's CRYSTAL, plain and simple. So why is it okay for you to break CRYSTAL while I have to observe it? I think you put it best:

"If you have a proper source to prove me wrong, please provide it."

So please, provide sources. You cite Rally Poland as an example of an event that was removed from the calendar, but if you actually bothered to read the articles and the sources provided, you would see that the FIA threatened the future of the event's World Championship status multiple times due to safety concerns before they dropped the event. So, when you say:

"Because any one of the rallies could lose their place as WRC event."

That suggests that you have reason to believe that the rallies in Australia, Mexico, Monte Carlo, Sweden and Wales will not be going ahead. What is your justification for that and more importantly, do you have a source to support it? I am guessing that the answer to both is "no", in which case I would suggest that you stop citing policies that you clearly don't understand and that—given the importance of CRYSTAL—you stop editing Misplaced Pages until you do understand it. You're not helping. All you're doing is creating more work for other editors. 1.144.106.32 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Bla-bla-bla. Provide me a source that verifies any of those rallies actually having a contract with WRC Promoter. Totally offtopic with 2010 and 2011 statistics table, and also delusional - check history and you find out that all I did was revert your removal of those tables, I did not add nor update those. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think we only add which crew drives on which round after each entry list, rather than writing "all rounds" - even when they actually have a contract to do the whole season? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Provide me a source that verifies any of those rallies actually having a contract with WRC Promoter."

Oh, I will—once you provide a source for the following:

"I have told this several times that before the Motorsport Council meeting, no rally has a contract."

Ordinarily, the Autosport source that I originally provided would be enough. However, you have made the claim that rallies need a contract with the WMSC before they can be included. I would like to see a source supporting that claim because it fundamentally changes the sources that I need to provide.

"Totally offtopic with 2010 and 2011 statistics table"

Not at all. You want me to provide sources to support claims, but how can I have any confidence that you will accept a valid source is a valid source when I have reason to believe that you don't understand the policies that you are trying to enforce?

"also delusional"

I'm not the one who criticised another editor for breaking CRYSTAL despite their providing a source and then went ahead and broke CRYSTAL. 1.144.106.32 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm done wasting my time over your nonsense. Unless you come up with a valid source, your words are worthless. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I need to know what you would define to be a "valid source" given that you have provided contradictory definitions.

Is it this:

"I have told this several times that before the Motorsport Council meeting, no rally has a contract."

Or is it this?

"Provide me a source that verifies any of those rallies actually having a contract with WRC Promoter."

On the one hand, you say the rallies need a contract with the WMSC, but then you say they need a contract with the WRC Promoter. The WMSC and the WRC Promoter are not the same organisation, so which is acceptable? If I show that they have a contract with the WRC Promoter, you'll just say "that's not good enough because they need a contract with the WMSC". If I show that they have a contract with the WMSC, you'll just say "that's not good enough because they need a contract with the WRC Promoter". You've created a paradox here which cannot be resolved. 1.144.106.32 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10 — could you please read your sources more carefully? When you made this edit, you were clearly responding to Autosport's story about Japan being dropped. However, if you read the source, nothing in it actually confirmed that Japan was going to be dropped—only the Autosport expected it to happen. They were speculating, and the fact that they got it right does not vindicate them. Indeed, the article makes it clear that Japan had a contract to hold a rally. Removing thst content based on that article is itself speculation and violates WP:CRYSTAL. 1.129.109.29 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

autosport.com, the same site used when adding Rally Japan in the first place (https://www.autosport.com/wrc/news/138171/rally-japan-gets-goahead-from-wrc). Why are you WP:"Bluelinking" policies when you don't understand their meaning? It was known, and I pointed out several times that the article includes "A final decision will be made at the World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on October 12." ""The proposal will now go to the FIA World Motor Sport Council where we assume we will get a positive approval to bring the rally back to Japan and then the event will take place from 2019 for probably four years." - In context of 2019 World Rally Championship it's speculation (Why should we add something that is said not to be final?) therefore a crystal-ball type of report. Why is it important to add rallies who have a contract with the wrc promoter if it does not mean they will be included in the Championship? Certainly wikitable for this is not appropriate, but prose for different developments if presented correctly are acceptable. This wiki article also wrote that "The series will once again be supported by the WRC-3" - again, speculation that we now know was incorrect. And currently the rally headquarters are speculations. Per WP:PROVEIT "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." - is there a source fot the headquarters? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"A final decision will be made at the World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on October 12."

The "final decision" was the question of whether or not the rally would go ahead. They had a contract, hence, it was "planned".

"(Why should we add something that is said not to be final?)"

We never said it was final. We said it was planned and subject to WMSC agreement. You are the one who removed reliably-sourced content based on a source that was a) speculative and b) could reasonably used to support the existing claim: that Japan had a contract.

"This wiki article also wrote that "The series will once again be supported by the WRC-3" - again, speculation that we now know was incorrect."

That was not speculation at all. There was no solid evidence that the WRC-3 would be discontinued until the WMSC announcement.

"is there a source fot the headquarters?"

You would know if you'd read the article and its sources. 1.129.109.29 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Any info you add to Misplaced Pages needs to be sourced are verified. You can not add something just because it was like this last year and you think it stays like that the next year (or forever). Then you blame people for crystalballing when they remove unsourced content and you demand sources to prove otherwise. No, it's not how Misplaced Pages works. You really need to read WP:VERIFY, especially the part of WP:PROVEIT. Any added content needs to be directly supported by sources and any material not directly sourced can be removed. Don't come bluelinking with any policies when you ignore the most important one. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Any info you add to Misplaced Pages needs to be sourced are verified."

And that information about Rally Japan was verified. The story about potentially being removed from the calendar clearly states that Japan had a contract. That's what the story was about: Japan missing a calendar spot despite having a contract. I cannot recall a single instance where the WMSC has done that. The irony in all of this is that Autosport offered no evidence that Japan would lose their spot.

"Any added content needs to be directly supported by sources and any material not directly sourced can be removed."

And the article did exactly that! It clearly demonstrated that Japan had a contract and was therefore a "planned event". But you clearly didn't read the article because if you had read it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You're the one who removed content from a page based on a source that supported its continued inclusion on the page. You need to do more than just read the article title. There was nothing in the article to justify removing that content. When they say "Autosport understands" it means "we can't verify it, but we believe it"—but that doesn't make it true. They've done exactly the same thing with Kris Meeke moving to Toyota: they've heard it, they believe it, but that doesn't make it true. 1.129.109.141 (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you read any of the sources in the article? Sources 9 and 12 clearly demonstrate rally headquarters, which you would know if you had read them. But you obviously haven't because you went around slapping failed verification templates on everything. 1.129.109.141 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in 2.2 Calendar Changes 3rd sentence "The rally’s return stremmed from" spelling should be "stemmed" Stickler4 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 4 October

Please restore this edit. The World Motorsport Council is debating where these five events will appear on the 2019 calendar. As the WMSC is the only body with the power to approve the calendar, it is clear that these five events are currently planned to take part. Whether or not they appear on the final calendar is beside the point: as of right now, they are planned to go ahead according to one of the most reliable sources on the subject, which will be included in the article as a result of restoring that edit. 1.144.106.11 (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to tag @MelanieN here and ask that she restore the edit as she originally protected the page. 1.144.106.11 (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I only protected the page; I do not have an opinion about the content. You need to discuss this with User:Pelmeen10 - and anyone else who has recently been involved in editing the article or the talk page. Whenever you have a disagreement with someone about content, discuss it at the talk page - not in edit summaries while repeatedly reinserting your version. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN —

"You need to discuss this with Pelmeen10"

I'm trying to, but he clearly does not understand the issue. Certainly not as well as he thinks he does. He has already asked me to provide sources that live up to two different, contradictory standards, and when I point this out to him and ask him to decide which standard he wants the sources to meet, he refuses to take part in the discussion. He has also accused me of breaking WP:CRYSTAL despite providing a reliable source, only to the go and break it himself and my request to see a source to support his claim falls on deaf ears. How can I discuss this with him when he is constantly moving the goalposts? 1.144.106.35 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop talking to me. I am not going to referee this. Talk to him, listen to him, make your points to him. Actual discussion is the way we make decisions at Misplaced Pages. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking place (rally event) does not mean it's automatically a WRC2019 event. Pointless to go over and over and over again on the same subject. For example there are lots of drivers currently under a contract with teams - Latvala&Lappi @ Toyota, Breen&Ostberg @ Citroen. I wonder why didn't you come up with an idea to list those here also. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"I wonder why didn't you come up with an idea to list those here also."

Because I don't have sources to support their inclusion. If you do, you should add them.

"Taking place (rally event) does not mean it's automatically a WRC2019 event."

The section is called "list of planned events". The source I provided makes it clear that those five rallies are planned to be run as part of the World Championship. If they are not included on the final calendar for whatever reason, that does not change the fact that they are planned right now. 1.144.106.35 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Rally Chile confirmed

Today, october 4th, one of the members of the FIA World Council, Carlos García Remohí, confirmed that WRC will land in Chile for the first time in 2019. Here is the source (automatically translated): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emol.com%2Fnoticias%2FDeportes%2F2018%2F10%2F04%2F922776%2FChile-recibira-en-2019-por-primera-vez-el-Mundial-de-Rally-y-tendra-nuevamente-una-fecha-de-la-Formula.html&edit-text=&act=url — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainQuetzal (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 10 October

Please update the entry table to include Kris Meeke and Jari-Matti Latvala at Toyota, as per this source. Please also update the crew changes section with the following text:

Kris Meeke will return to full-time competition, replacing Esapekka Lappi at Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT. Meeke had previously contested the championship with Citroën before being fired halfway through the 2018 championship.

The part about Meeke being fired might need a reference, but there is one in the 2018 article. 1.129.108.220 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Undone as not official. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The list of drivers within each team should be alphabetised until an entry list with numbers is published. 1.129.104.84 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Done also. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a few more little tweaks needed. First, this passage:

"The following teams and crews under contract to compete in the 2019 FIA World Rally Championship."

Should instead read:

"The following teams and crews are under contract to compete in the 2019 FIA World Rally Championship."

And this entry:

"Sébastien Ogier and Julien Ingrassia left M-Sport Ford to return to Citroën. Ogier and Ingrassia had last driven for the French manufacturer in 2011 before moving to Volkswagen Motorsport."

Should read like this:

"Sébastien Ogier and Julien Ingrassia left M-Sport Ford to return to Citroën. Ogier and Ingrassia previously competed for the French manufacturer in 2011 before moving to Volkswagen Motorsport.

The "had last driven" is awkward in its grammar. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Klõps (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also undid the first change, as there are no official announcement by the team or Meeke (and Latvala). Autosport's article is speculation. Toyota is set to announce next week and Toyota team principal Tommi Mäkinen remained tight-lipped about precise details of his 2019 line-up. Wait for official confirmation. Klõps (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I did find it a bit odd when I read it. Why would Toyota sign Kris Meeke, who got fired for crashing too much, to drive a car with a reputation for falling apart if Ott Tänak looks at it funny?

I really hope this isn't a sign of things to come. The quality of Autosport's reporting has really gone downhill in the past two years or so, especially when the story is about a British driver. It's not as bad as the BBC's Andrew Benson—who suggested that Lewis Hamilton would be entirely justified in deliberately crashing into Nico Rosberg if it meant winning the World Championship—but I did notice a few weeks ago that when George Russell was the subject of criticism, Autosport ran stories about his being ready for Formula 1.

I had hoped this nonsense would stay out of their rally reporting, since rallying is not as high-profile as Formula 1 and the French and Finns have had a stranglehold on the sport. Pretty much evert WikiProject within the scope of WP:MOTOR relies extensively on Autosport, but there seems to be a definite pro-British bias in their reporting. 1.129.104.33 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, https://www.autosport.com/wrc/news/139323/rally-japan-wrc-return-set-to-be-abandoned this is why we should't write things too early. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Estonian titles

@Pelmeen10 — could you please update sources 13 and 14? Specifically, could you please add the following markup to the references:

trans_title=

This will allow you to add an English-language translation of the title which will then appear in the reference. Sorry to single you out like that, but you're the only Estonian-language editor I know. 1.129.104.33 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

2019 calendar confirmed

WRC official website confirmed 2019 calendar: https://www.wrc.com/en/wrc/news/october-2018/wrc-calendar/page/5810--12-12-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.103.133.98 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Germany, GB, Spain and Australia - date subject to confirmation. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WRC-2

In light of the new WRC-2 Pro category, I have created an article for the championship. It is at Draft:2019 World Rally Championship-2. Would somebody mind reviewing it and moving it to 2019 World Rally Championship-2 please? 1.129.109.29 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

We're also going to need to create article for Rally Chile. 1.129.109.29 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Numbering

Now that crews can choose their own numbers, we need to re-think how we organise the table. There has to be a logic to it and it has to be obvious to the reader as to how it is structured. The way I see it, we have two options: alphabetically by manufacturer or numerically by lowest number. I have drawn up two sample tables to illustrate:

Option 1 – alphabetically by manufacturer

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name
Citroën	Citroën World Rally Team	Citroën C3 WRC	11	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm
			17	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia
			25	Teemu Suninen	TBA
Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	8	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila
			45	Kris Meeke	TBA
			76	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja

Option 2 – numerically by lowest number

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name
Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	8	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila
			45	Kris Meeke	TBA
			76	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja
Citroën	Citroën World Rally Team	Citroën C3 WRC	11	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm
			17	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia
			25	Teemu Suninen	TBA

My preference is for Option 1, simply because even though Option 2 has its teams arranged by the lowest number first, there is no real order; 8-45-76-11-17-25 is hardly sequential. Option 1 is the system used in Formula 1, Indycar and Supercars articles, and I think it works very well there. 1.129.108.33 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

alphabetically by manufacturer, but should the team with no1 go first or not? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not. It breaks the organisation. The logic behind the organisation of the table needs to be obvious. We'd wind up with something like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name
Hyundai	Hyundai Motorsport	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	1	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul
			29	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag
			32	Hayden Paddon	TBA
Citroën	Citroën World Rally Team	Citroën C3 WRC	11	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm
			17	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia
			25	Teemu Suninen	TBA
Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	13	Elfyn Evans	Daniel Barritt
			24	Craig Breen	Scott Martin
			68	Mads Østberg	TBA
Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	8	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila
			45	Kris Meeke	TBA
			76	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja

The structure doesn't make any sense. 1.144.108.0 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

Don't we have a better image for Ogier? Same size with Toyota would be good (or combine one with Ingrassia). Other suggestion is with him having Ford clothing. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What could be better than a recent image that clearly shows his face? An older image that does not show his face as clearly is not better because it is the same width as another image. Please stop prioritising the aesthetics of the article over encyclopaedic content. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A consensus formed elsewhere

A consensus formed elsewhere does not automatically apply across Misplaced Pages, especially when that consensus only has a narrow application. Furthermore, threatening to go to the admins unless you get your way is poor form. On the few occasions that I have seen someone go through with it, they have been the ones to incur the wrath of the admins. 1.129.111.182 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems that you just can't accept that your in the minority in your view that Formula One should be referred to as Formula 1. As it diverts anyway, I'll let it slide. Fecotank (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories: