# Talk:2020 World Rally Championship

Portugal has been cancelled, but how should we present it? I mean, is Portugal still a part of 2020? According to the FIA, the answer is yes, but that raises another question — Is Chile a part of 2020? According to the FIA, the answer is no. So why we still add Chile into the calendar? That is inconsistent. I believe Chile should be removed. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: I think that if we include one rally, then we need to include both. Otherwise we're in a situation where one cancelled rally is considered a part of the championship and the other is not, and with no clear explanation as to why. If the best explanation we have is that it's procedural—that Chile was cancelled before the start of the championship and Portugal after it—then we need to reconsider things. Both Chile and Portugal had a contract to be run. Both events were included on a calendar ratified by the WMSC. And both events were cancelled due to circumstances beyond the organisers' control. Even the process of cancelling the event was the same for both of them. The only differences between them is a) the reason for the cancellation and b) the date of the cancellation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Unnamelessness. Chile was removed from the official calendar and is not part of the 2020 season. Prose is enough, no need to include it to any wikitable. Neither wrc.com nor fia.com has Chile. 2020 was scheduled with 13 rounds. fia calendar - we can follow this table. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This might need a third (fourth) opinion.
"Chile was removed from the official calendar and is not part of the 2020 season."
If Chile had a contract, but was never included on any calendar, I would agree with you. The problem is that it was included on a calendar, which had to be re-issued when the event was cancelled. Your comment suggests that it was never a part of the calendar. Furthermore, you also imply that Portugal is somehow part of the calendar despite its cancellation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
My comment is based on sources. Portugal is still included in the calendar, Chile is not. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the Rallies of Portugal or Chile be included in the calendar and results tables of this article? Mclarenfan17 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
Why I think they should be included
Both rallies have been cancelled. The circumstances behind those cancellations differ, but the effect is the same. Both rallies were included on the first calendar published by the World Motorsport Council. A new calendar was issued after Chile's cancellation, but the only real difference here is procedural. Chile was cancelled before the season began, but Portugal was cancelled after it began. This, I feel, risks creating a contradiction: two rallies that have been cancelled in the one year, but both of them are treated differently in the article and it is not apparent to the reader why this difference is present. If one is notable enough to be included in the tables, then both should be included. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Only Portugal per official source - FIA, the governing body. Or the official homepage. And per the previous discussion. It's a no brainer. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Only Portugal per above. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Only Portugal - per the above. If necessary add a footnote explaining that Chile was origianally due to be part of the calendar, or find a consensus to include both the original and updated calendars.SSSB (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither - I don't really see why a cancelled event should still be on the calendar. Given the unprecedented situation, I think potentially we could have two calendars (as I suggested for the 2020 F1 season on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One I think) with one being the officially announced original calendar, and then the actual one as well, or if that's too much just include the events that actually ran. There's a whole section below the calendar in this article called "Calendar changes", and I think that is the best place to mention any cancelled rallies. (Of course at the moment it's unclear whether certain rallies will run or not, so the maybe running maybe not ones should stay in the calendar for now, but that isn't part of the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Only Portugal This race is the only one of the two currently still treated as a round on the calendar by the FIA. They issued a new calendar following the cancellation of the Chile rally and a such it lost it status as a round of the 2020 season entirely. Further explanation can provide through prose and footnotes.Tvx1 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Only Portugal per Tv Idealigic (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


### Discussions
You still don't get it, do you. We've had two cancellations—three if we count Australia 2019—and they're all handled differently in the articles with nothing to explain why they're being handled differently. For example this edit inexplicably moved Portugal to the end of the calendar. We also had a situation where Chile and Portugal were both cancelled and both were listed in the calendar, but one was removed from the results tables while the other was kept. Again, there was no explanation. And all of this hinges on a) the date when the rallies were cancelled, b) the procedure for cancelling a rally and c) sources that do not appear in the article. There needs to be consistency. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I've put myself pretty clear. I fully follow how the FIA presents the calendar — Australia 2019 still counts as a round of 2019, Chile 2020 is removed, while Portugal 2020 is moved to the bottom but still counts as a part of 2020. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, Chile is officially not a part of 2020, so I don't see any reason why it should be treated as a round of 2020 (which is included in the calendar). By contrast, both Australia 2019 and Portugal 2020 are. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, whether a rally should be included in the calendar should be decided by if it is a round of the certain season. It has nothing to do with the date or cancel procedure. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we maybe come to an agreement before making changes? I just had to undo an edit that put Portugal to the bottom of the results summary table because it was still listed fourth in the results matrices.

while Portugal 2020 is moved to the bottom but still counts as a part of 2020
Uh, why? When Rally China was cancelled in 2016, we kept it in its intended position in the 2016 article. If you moved Portugal to the bottom because Australia 2019 is at the bottom of the 2019 tables, please remember that Australia was always intended to be the last round of 2019.
See, this is what I'm finding frustrating right now: there's no organisation to the tables. We just had a situation where Portugal does not appear in the calendar, but it was at the bottom of the season summary, and in the middle of the results matrices. There's no consistency from table to table and no explanation in the article as to why the same content is presented in three different (and contradictory) ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I moved Portugal to the bottom is that is how the FIA does. Of course, I have no problem with the position where Portugal should be at, but at least it should be included in the calendar while Chile should not. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree that there should be consistency between the tables, but in that case, does it mean Portugal is the fourth round of the season? The situation is somewhat different from 2016 or 2019 because there are other rounds postponed. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Unnamelessness: nowhere does it imply that Portugal is the fourth round. Both the calendar and the summary table make it clear that the round was cancelled and another rally is round four. Portugal does appear as round four in the matrices, but if someone jumps into them with no context, I think they're going to have bigger problems.
The reason why I moved Portugal to the bottom is that is how the FIA does.
While we have to include the same content that sources include, we have some freedom when it comes to how we present it. Our including Portugal as the fourth row of the table does not contradict the source in any way. Think of it like this: we list the dates of each rally, the name of the rally and the rally headquarters in the order. But if we changed it to be rally name, headquarters and dates, that would also be fine. We haven't changed the content, just the manner of presentation. The same applies here.
Also, I think that moving the cancelled events to the bottom and/or end of the table raises a lot of questions that we can't really answer here. It's the sort of thing that needs to be discussed at WP:MOTOR because it would affect a lot of articles. I'm a big believer in tailoring the format of an article to suit the subject, but I don't see what it would add here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: Fair point. But we might have to deal the consistent issue with the 2016 and 2019 articles then — China 2016 is still treated as the tenth round of the 2016 season in the calendar table, but according to the FIA sources, it isn't; Australia 2019 is also treated as the final round of the 2019 season, and according to the FIA sources, it is. How should we do? If we follow the FIA, then it would inconsistent between 16, 19 and 20 articles. If we treat them same — none of them count as a round of their respective season — then it would contradictory with the FIA. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


#### New calendar layout proposal
Discuss what? WRC is the only one not to have these rallies with unknown dates or cancelled events separated:

MotoGP has them in the bottom of the table
Formula E has them in the bottom of the table
F1 has a seperate table for them
Superbike in the bottom
Supersport in the bottom
WTCC in the bottom
Moto2 & Moto3 in the bottom
MotoE in the bottom
So after checking other articles, I suggest this one (most common), atleast as long as there will be zero postponed rallies.

This way the table is very clear, postponed and cancelled rallies are both separated. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit of modification so that we can compromise between us.

— Unnamelessness (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Unnamelessness, I wouldn't include Unaffected rallies (pointless header) nor Removed rallies/Chile (explained earlier). Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of including multiple table-wide headers in the middle of table. This creates accessibility issues, as explained here. While we could technically code it so that they only visually look like headers while not technically behaving like them, that would not be ideal as a number of readers would be deprived of correct information.Tvx1 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1: couldn't that be avoided by having separate tables one after the other? A7V2 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Or we could just keep the one table as it is and use prose to explain it. It's a bad habit among motorsport editors—and we're all guilty of it—to keep using tables to do things thst should be done in prose. Simple tables are effective tables. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, the current table layout is good and simple. If we keep the table as it is, then we need to deal the consistent issue with the 2016 and 2019 articles as I explained earlier. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: I don't think it would be a problem at all.
Take, for example, Chile. It was included on the 2020 calendar and assigned a date, only to be cancelled and a new calendar published. That new calendar does not completely invalidate the original one as if it was never issued, and we have a host of sources that document the circumstances of Chile's cancellation. What you're suggesting is really only a problem if we're only relying on the most-recent source produced by the FIA. I have no objection to listing Portugal as round 4 in this article, making it like the 2016 article; likewise, I have no problem changing China to a dash in the 2016 article to make it more like this one. What we need is one simple, consistent way of addressing it. Consider the three most recent cancellations:

Chile was cancelled before the season began and before the teams arrive in the country
Portugal was cancelled after the season began, but before the teams arrived in the country
Australia was cancelled after the season began and after the teams arrive in the country
The one thing they have in common is that they were cancelled and I don't think the differences in when they were cancelled relative to teams arriving and the season beginning is enough to justify different ways of representing it in the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say list Portugal as round 4 in this article, not only be consistent with the 16 and 19 articles, but also be consistent with the 4 championship standings tables in this article. Of course, just using the current calendar layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10, Mclarenfan17 We might need to discuss how to demonstrate it. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
From my point of review, we should be like 2020 Formula One World Championship—a rescheduled calendar + a cancelled calendar. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, using two tables supplemented with prose for context is probably the best choice.Tvx1 22:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we have to show a points progression graph of some drivers at this stage in time? I think it's a bit premature right now, and it's only interesting if there's a battle "down to the wire", come the end of the season. Kovpastish (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit early. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hide at the minute. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary at all. WT:MOTOR generally leans against the usage of such graphs.Tvx1 18:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with its inclusion. I think editors should concern themselves with doing what is best for the article rather than shoehorning it into something WP:MOTOR says.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.88 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC) 
I don't understand why some editors keep viciously imposing this graph on the article. The only argument they bring is "we have one in 2019 as well". That is just an empty argument. So far this season is not especially notable for a tight title battle, so I do not understand why apparently we must have such a gigantic graph at all costs. A graph that is poorly designed with regards to accessibility to add to the problems. I really don't see the benefit of this. There is a reason why every time this is raised anywhere within WP:MOTOR, there is general tendency not to use such graphs. The prose does a much better effort of telling the championship's story.Tvx1 17:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Maybe after Monza (if it will take place) it might be relevant, depending on the rally results, but definitely not now. Kovpastish (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an user that keeps flatly refusing this graph to be removed though. They keep edit-warring.Tvx1 15:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
So the edit-warring user has been blocked. For some reasons they refuse to take part in the discussion here. I still don't see the benefit of the graph. In any case it is unnecessarily huge.Tvx1 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 World Rally Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs) 12:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. They usually take me a day or two.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


### Lead section
[Teams and crews were competing in seven rallies...] Simple past tense is standard: {Teams and crews competed in seven rallies...}
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[Originally thirteen events were planned, but with more events being cancelled due to the pandemic, and some new ones added as replacement, eventually seven events were held.] Slightly awkward wording, particularly the word "more", if it's referring to the cancellation of events that were originally scheduled. I also think "replacement" should be pluralised, as it refers to more than one replacement event: {Originally thirteen events were planned, but with several events being cancelled due to the pandemic, and some new ones added as replacements, eventually seven events were held.}
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, if I understand the situation correctly, originally fourteen events were planned, with Chile being removed due to political unrest to drop the total to thirteen, followed by the pandemic making further changes. If so then "originally" should be replaced with "prior to the pandemic"
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Calendar
[...but the calendar had been reduced to seven rounds...] Again, use simple past tense: {...but the calendar was reduced to seven rounds...}
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Calendar changes
[The event is to be based...] Past tense: {was to be based}
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...had expressed interest in hosting the event...] This should be "hosting an event", as each race is its own event.
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...which facilitates the opportunity...] Past tense : "facilitated".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[Further calendar options may include...] Past tense: "included".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...Rally Sardegna was moving forward...] Past tense: "moved".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Summary
[Loeb and Elena will contest...] Past tense: "contested".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...used for 2021 season...] Missing "the" before "2021".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[Katsuta will contest...] Past tense: "contested".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[Latvala will contest two events] It looks like he only contested one, so something like, "Latvala planned to contest two events".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...is set to contest an expanded programme of nine rounds in 2020] Should be past tense, but also this is out of date, as there were not nine rounds to contest.
 Partly done I re-wrote the scentence. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Sporting regulations
Have the changes in the first paragraph taken place? Past tense needed throughout if so.
I moved the paragraph to the 2022 article as 2022 is the year when that relguation applies. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Opening rounds
[the eight final stage] Should be plural ("stages").
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...their and teammates...] Should be "and their teammates", I think?
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Season resumption
[...half-year hiatus by the COVID-19 pandemic...] Should be "caused by".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...determined to vanquish their home soil...] Sounds a little awkward, as though they're planning to destroy the soil. I'd suggest, "...prevail on their home soil..."
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[rough roads and rock storm] Should be "rock storms" (assuming there was more than one such storm).
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Closing rounds
[...in the WRC history...] Simply "in WRC history" would be standard.
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...which spelt trouble in all terms...] Should this read, "spelt trouble for all teams"?
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[The other major retirement of the rally is...] Past tense: "was".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...a limit-visibility issue...] Should be "limited-visibility", unless this is a specific rallying term I'm not familiar with.
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...Hyundai had a 2–3 finish this weekend...] Avoid present tense. I'd recommend, "Hyundai had a 2–3 finish in the final weekend".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers
[...are taken into account...] Past tense: "were".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Notes
[The running date of Rally Argentina was initially scheduled to hold between 30 April to 3 May.] Awkward phrasing. I'd recommend, {The running dates of Rally Argentina were initially scheduled to be 30 April to 3 May.}
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[Every crew that enters...] Past tense: "entered".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
[...is eligible to score points...] Past tense: "was eligible".
 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


### Summary
The vast majority of issues are with changing to the past tense now that this event is no longer active. Overall, it's a well-structured and -sourced article. I'll await your response.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole: Thanks for reviewing! I've fixed these issues. Feel free to address any other problems with the article, I will be there. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Unnamelessness: Looks good now - I'll promote the article to GA status. Thanks for the interesting read.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sheikh Khalid Al Qassimi - WRC Rally Finland 2017.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)