Talk:2018 Wales Rally GB

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 Wales Rally GB article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

World Rally Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying related articles on Wikipedia, 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Route distance

[1] 318.34 + 1083.01 / 1401.35. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the event starts, we should also check if the itinerary matches. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last stage was reduced from 8.03km to 7.43km. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

The article is placing too much emphasis on the Tir Prince stage. It was a 1.70km super-special; its importance pales in comparison to the Friday stages, which total over 100km of the rally. There were over 100 words dedicated to the Tir Prince stage, recounting the top ten and support category leaders; by comparison, there were 300-400 words dedicated to the next eight stages. It doesn't matter if "we have always done it that way"—that's not a reason to keep doing something that clearly does not work. Tir Prince might have been run on the Thursday and everything else on the Friday, but it is still considered part of Leg 1. If you retired on Tir Prince, you would not be allowed to rejoin until Saturday. 1.129.108.49 (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other notable finishers"

@Unnamelessness — Prisonermonkeys here. Where is this "other notable finishers" thing coming from? I think we might need to change the approach to the classification because we're focusing too much on the WRC context. We might need to do full results for all 60 entries. 06:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "other notable finishers" thing is what @Pelmeen10 and me discussed in Talk:2018 Rally Turkey. I also agree that we should have a full results table. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamelessness, @Pelmeen10 — then why not do that? I've been concerned for a while now that we're too focused on the WRC context. There were British national entries and privateer entries, too.

Of course, if we were to expand the results table, it would need a re-design. That's not a problem, but I think we'd be hard-pressed to just limit ourselves to the results table. We'd probably need a full entry list, results table, penalties and retirements. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I start to work right now. — Unnamelessness (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I removed italics from wikitable headers, because there's no need for it. Still used in Itinerary table, but atleast the main part - Leg 1 etc won't need it. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Class "WRC" and "World Rally Car entries"

Maybe we should point out that it means factory entries? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... So, how to design the table? — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not mean factory entries. Pre-2017 cars like the DS3 can still be entered (even if none were) and are still recognised as WRC cars and as part of the WRC class (they are more powerful than R5s), even if they are ineligible to score manufacturer points. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New co-driver column (at "Special stages")

Why not combine driver and codriver in the same column? "Class leaders" for example does not look good. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we have several crews win a stage or lead the class, that would be much worse to look. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets only use it when there are multiple class leaders. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why at stage winners the driver an codriver are still in a different column? ewrc-results.com for example has "flag1 Ogier Sébastien - Ingrassia J." for stage and "flag1 Ogier S. - Ingrassia J." for overall. Can we also remove their first name to save width? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to save much width. And what do you propose we do in instances where driver and co-driver are different nationalities, such as Paddon and Marshall? It will also make the article enormous because it will require lots of markup; for example, "[[Sebastién Ogier]]" will become "[[Sebastién Ogier|Ogier, S.]]".

Also, if you're concerned about tables extending beyond the width of the article, you can fix that by adjusting the resolution settings on your device. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "S. Ogier", but how enormous are we talking? Just this 1 stage winning wikitable. We can remove lots of nowraps, only 1 per column is needed. My "device" is computer and these tables don't extend nowhere, that is not the problem. The problem is that this wikitable is awful + for new readers maybe unclear the co-driver/shared win part. --Pelmeen10 (talkl) 07:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every character adds one kilobyte of data to the article. Special characters add more; how much depends on the character.

Your proposal still creates lots of issues. What do you do if driver and co-driver have different nationalities? What if Sebastién Ogier's cousin Steve Ogier enters a rally? I don't think it's confusing at all. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are wikilinked, so I see no problem with that (it's so rare case to have same name). 2 flags can be used. For example

Ogier –

Ogier. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you would have two identical wikilinks&mdash:"S. Ogier"—that go to different articles. I know Ogier doesn't have a cousin named Steve (at least not one with a Wikipedia page), but that's not the point. Here in Australia, we have a driver named Eli Evans in the national championship. What happens if he competes against Elfyn Evans? Both would appear as "E. Evans". Sure, one is Australian and the other British, but that does not disambiguate enough. To further complicate things, we use the nationality on the entry list, which might not be the driver's nationality of birth (for example, Nico Rosberg is half-Finnish and half-German, but chose a German racing licence). Your proposal creates all manner of complications for the sake of fixing something that doesn't need fixing. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no such problem, we don't have to think "what if..." This season it has not happened. If it happens, we can write their full name. Currently it's not clear why in one case driver and co-driver have two columns and in the other case same column seperated by <br> - choose one, or let's seperate them by dash. Much more likely to happen is shared stage win/shared lead - has already happened this season for several times. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if you are conserned so much with the article size, it's reasonable not to add co-driver column (as we have done previously). They are written in every other wikitable in the article already. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is reading the article and cannot figure out the intended meaning because the co-driver's name appears under the driver's instead of alongside it, I'd say the structure of the article is the least of their problems. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Retson

According to the entry list, Finlay Retson entered and drove two cars—#103 and #105. I can't find the solution to it, though. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

different people, but same name maybe? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particularly common name. It's worth double-checking. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ewrc-results.com/entries/43469-dayinsure-wales-rally-gb-2018/ just a mistake. Retson is no.101. but nobody is 103 though --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — 60 crews entered, but only 57 started. My guess is that #103 is one of the 3 that never started. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In fact, #90, #98 and #103 did not start. — Unnamelessness (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Reston has three entries—#101, #103 and #105—all with a different co-driver. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see @Unnamelessness has fixed #105, but that still does not address #101 and #103. 1.144.109.239 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now all fixed. — Unnamelessness (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamelessness, @Pelmeen10 — the new classification table looks good, but needs work. It needs all 60 entries, including crews that did not start and did not finish. Tony Jardine also appears three times. It might also benefit from an additional column for points. I'd do it myself, but it's close to midnight here. 1.144.109.175 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, cuz I haven't finished yet. — Unnamelessness (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. You're very fast. Faster than I would be. Thanks for keeping on top of it. 1.144.109.175 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. :) — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split the page?

I have basically completed the work of expanding the page. Now expanding pushed the size of the page over 110K bytes. We can remove some unnecessary "nowraps", but I estimate that the size of the page would not be less than 100K. So, what about spilting the page to reduce the size like tennis pages? I mean, create a subpage to store detail information. If so, I would suggest to adjust the "classifaction" section — Keep each category's top three (or other quantities) and championship standings in the main page and move the entire section except championship standings to the subpage. Anyway, that's my thought. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. Most of the stuff that would wind up on the split page would be related to the privateers and national-level drivers and that's not enough to sustain an article on its own. 1.129.104.37 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readable prose size is what looked at for judging whether a split is warranted. And there currently is only 18kB of that.T v x1 23:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Discuss!"

@Pelmeen10 — What's to discuss? For some reason that I cannot figure out, you have decided to adopt a style of table that makes thd table extremely wide—so wide, in fact, that most readers won't be able to see article properly without adjusting their display settings because the table is wider than the page allows and so the page will be shrunk to fit the full width of the table. As far as I can tell, this was done to keep all the rows in the table on one line. You've prioritised aesthetics over accessibility, which is an incredibly poor choice. 1.144.104.59 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my suggestion nor change, but I supported. Very short discussion at Wikiproject happened before. Unlike you adding a column for co-drivers without any discussion. Want a table that is narrow, then I support going back to the version without co-drivers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A crew is made up of a driver and co-driver. Both should be recognised. But having them separated by an mdash is not the way to do it because it is causing accessibility issues. There is nothing wrong with having them separated by a line break. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally#New_Special_Stages_Wikitable_Design. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]