Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Multiple proposals

Per Talk:2019 World Rally Championship#Proposal: rounds column, multiple proposals were raised in order to improve the readability.

Tvx1, Pelmeen10, Kovpastish — Feel free to comment and add new proposals below if you have. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Rounds column

Should the rounds column treats by the number of rounds a crew contested or relates to the specific rounds?

A:Treating by the number of rounds a crew contested.

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	4	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	All
				5	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	All
				6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	1, 3–5, 9, 12
					Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	2, 6–8, 10–11, 13

B:Relating to the specific rounds.

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	4	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	All
				5	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	All
				6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	5
					Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	7

Comment

• Neutral. I have no strong perspectives on this. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• It does not look that good if a driver has multiple co-drivers. And to be consistent, then all season's article's should be changed (which is too much work). It's also confusing during the season. Imagine how would it look mid-season. So, I don't see any gain from this change. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• A — I think it's fine the way it is now. Kovpastish (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• A I simply cannot understand what the numbers in the second table's round column are supposed to mean.Tvx1 00:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Entry list

Should we have only one entry list or two entry lists?

A:One.

B:Two.

Comment

• Neutral. It would be fine with the current two, but if it has to be one, then I suggest like:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
World Rally Car entries eligible to score manufacturer points
Manufacturer name	Entrant name	Car model	Tyre brand	Car number	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points
Manufacturer name	Entrant name	Car model	Tyre brand	Car number	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Source:

-- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This kind of looks better than the current tables, with no major changes. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: we should have one entry list with equal weight given to drivers, co-drivers and manufacturers. Indicating manufacturer entries in a more subtle way should be possible. Or we could just leave it to the results matrix since that is limited to manufacturer entries anyway. 1.144.108.234 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Then would you please give us a sandbox? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — in its simplest form, it would look like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
				No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	4	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	All
				25	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	All
				38	Pontus Tidemand	Emil Axelsson	1—2
				54	Tiabeanie Grunkwitz	Elfo the Elf	3–14
				66	Homer Simpson	Marge Simpson	11
				91	Phillip J. Fry	Bender B. Rodriguez	5, 8

We would then use the WCM matrix to indicate which cars were eligible to score points. That means using the number column (which is unpopular, I know), but the entry list is for the entries and the matrix is for the results. They shouldn't be trying to do the job of the other.

Since the number column in the results matrix is unpopular, an alternative might look like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
				No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	4	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	All
				25	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	All
				38	Pontus Tidemand	Emil Axelsson	1—2
				54	Tiabeanie Grunkwitz	Elfo the Elf	3–14
				66[a]	Homer Simpson	Marge Simpson	11
				91[a]	Phillip J. Fry	Bender B. Rodriguez	5, 8

We use the footnotes to indicate which entries were not eligible to score points. Other options might include a shaded background (such as MotoGP articles), an icon within an extra column or a coloured border for the number.

And yes, I am a Matt Groening fan. 1.129.105.121 (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my personal preference would be to keep the entry list as neutral as possible and worry about points eligibility elsewhere. Yes, that means keeping the numbers column in the matrix, but it's a small price to pay for keeping the functions of the tables separate. 1.129.105.121 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Using (foot)notes like your second example does not make the table simpler or more understandable. I don't get the unequal weight you're expressing. Two wikitables or a simple way of seperating two different things in 1 table is justified. And the results table is too late to explain something that is left out previously (entry list). Something that may seem simple, is not always better. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

In the season article, if we keep the style of including only World Rally Car entries, there's not much needed to change. Event articles are a different thing, IMO we should keep them similar to season article and also mention in their entry list (example 2018_Rally_Turkey#Entry_list) their manuf points eligibility - WRC-2 or other championship eligibility is mentioned. As for the explanation - "Only crews contesting the World Rally Championship, World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3 are listed." - if this note is even necessary then "Only crews contesting with World Rally Cars or in the World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3 are listed." is more accurate.

My other suggestion in event articles is if we'd have the full results wikitable from Wales Rally GB article (we don't have to iclude private crews anywhere else than overall results), maybe even add points to that same table to save space. Or just keep ignoring private entries. Just something changed in the table(s) for final results and points scored, that it would look better. Prisonermonkeys mentioned we should not dublicate info (like flags) everywhere, then maybe entrant/car can be removed - we're not showing manuf. points anyway - so the width can be used to mention points. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not the job of the entry list to show who is eligible for which points. 1.129.105.121 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Entry list on wrc.com and ewrc-results.com both include eligibility - M, WRC2, WRC3, WRC3J and NONE. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

So long as we keep all of the content, we are under no obligation to perfectly recreate the style of the sources. Formula 1 entry lists give three names, the entrant, the constructor and the team's trading name—but the trading name is irrelevant, so it is not included in articles.

The entry list should be presented in the most straightforward way. Points eligibility is an unnecessary layer of complexity, especially when we have a results matrix that shows the results breakdown. The difference between Wikipedia and wrc.com is that our entry list and results matrix are on the same webpage. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is okay, but it has a small problem. What if we encounter the circumstance like Dani Sordo in 2018, when he is eligible to score manufacturer points in six rounds but ineligible at Portugal, how could we do?

Manufacturer Entrant Car Tyre No. Driver name Co-driver name Rounds Hyundai Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 4 Andreas Mikkelsen Anders Jæger-Synnevaag All 11 Thierry Neuville Nicolas Gilsoul All 2 Dani Sordo Carlos del Barrio 1, 3–5, 9, 12 6 7 Hayden Paddon Sebastian Marshall 2, 6–8, 10–11, 13

Key eligible to score manufacturer points ineligible to score manufacturer points

This is probably the solution. I prefer coloured borders for rounds like MotoGP articles do. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral as well. Kovpastish (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• B:Two. We have used this system for years and it works just fine. Moreover the proposed table is not accessibility compliant. The table wide headers cause problems for people using assertive technology.Tvx1 00:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: you do know that there's more than two proposals here, right? 1.129.107.93 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Results matrices

Should the results matrices indicate positions or points?

A:Positions.

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42	Ret	22	5	41	102	13	22	51	219

B:Points.

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	26	5	25	28	18	0	22	10	19	5	28	22	15	219

Comment

• A — If we use B, we won't know where the driver finshes at each rally (4th or below). If two divers score exactly the same points at the end of season, how would we know who ranks ahead? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a better way to show points or even both. And the Power Stage (or stage win) points should be divided from other points. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• A little sketch of including both position and score, can be modified further.

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	1 26	10 5	1 25	1 28	4 16	Ret 0	2 22	5 10	4 17	10 5	1 28	2 22	5 15	219

Looks decent and is what most other results sites use, but if we are voting between either points or positions I vote for A. Kovpastish (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would vote for that, but still Power stage points should be divided. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea! -- Unnamelessness (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, PS points should be divided, I agree with that. Should the first row have position or points? In my first example it's position that's first. This is how it would look with points in the first row:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	25+1 (1)	1+4 (10)	25 (1)	25+3 (1)	12+4 (4)	0 (Ret)	18+4 (2)	10 (5)	12+5 (4)	1+4 (10)	25+3 (1)	18+4 (2)	10+5 (5)	219

This is also similar to how sites like eWRC-results and WRC present it. For Manufacturers' table I now think we would have to limit the results to two cars instead of three, to do a sum of the two classified cars. Kovpastish (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Position first like:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	1 25+1	10 1+4	1 25	1 25+3	4 12+4	Ret 0	2 18+4	5 10	4 12+5	10 1+4	1 25+3	2 18+4	5 10+5	219

Using "{ { small| } }" to replace "< small >< /small >" to save size.

"For Manufacturers' table I now think we would have to limit the results to two cars instead of three, to do a sum of the two classified cars."

How to design? I hope you can open a new sub-section to discuss. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We cannot limit it to two cars instead of three, as was explained at length in the recent discussion on the 2019 talk page. 1.129.110.50 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary. That discussion actually shows a clear support to limit to the two result they are actually credited with. Your are literally the only contributor who opposes the removal.Tvx1 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• A I really can't see much benefit in overhauling this system. The positions are necessary as they act as tie-breakers in case of a tie on points.Tvx1 00:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So, coming to the end, we try to include both positions and points in the table to avoid that problem. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever we do to one table, we need to do it to all of them. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Results table (Manufacturers)

Something that first came to mind:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1													324
		6
		25+8
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

--Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I was imagining something like that. Kovpastish (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We've been over this—we absolutely cannot get rid of the third result. Those cars were eligible to score points at the start of the event and recorded a result even if that result did not contrubute to the WCM score, it was still a result. Plus, there are too many thorny issues that arise if a team has two retirements; removing the third car implies it was never there to begin with. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can. The discussion on the 2019 article shows a clear support to do so. What you claim removing the third car implies is just no true. The entry list includes them, the drivers' table includes them and the co-drivers' table includes them. The manufacturers' standings table sole purpose is to show the outcome of that championship. Listing just the two cars that were credited with results does achieve to show which manufacturer finished where and how. You desperately want that sole table to explain the full story of the entire World Rally Championship and simple isn't suitable for that. We have a combination of tables and proses to detail all eventualities, not just one table. The problematic implication is actually created by including the third car. It implies the manufacturers are credited with a result they are in reality not credited with.Tvx1 00:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

They are credited with a result—"Not Classified". It means that they finished the event but their result did not contribute to the team's result. By removing it, you imply that there was never a third car that was eligible. Teams do have the ability to forgo WCM points. When he was driving for Volkswagen, Andreas Mikkelsen contested at least three rallies where he was not nominated to score points. Similarly, they may only enter two cars to begin with. Likewise, you have never addressed what to do if a team has two retirements so that only one of three eligible cars scores points. That's three key scenarios related to the structure of the team and its ability to score points that should be in the matrix.

"It implies the manufacturers are credited with a result they are in reality not credited with."

In which parallel universe does "not classified" mean the opposite of not being classified? It means the car recorded a result, but that result was not counted as part of the WCM result.

"We have a combination of tables and proses to detail all eventualities, not just one table."

Then why have the results table at all? 1.129.107.93 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WCM table is the place to point out the manufacturers' standing. It isn't the place to count how many crews are eligible to score points. Because we are going to add points in this table, which is the form of "A+B". Correspondingly, only two cars should be on the table for each manufacturer. As for the problem you mentioned about, i.e. two retirements, just a "Ret" fills in the table will be fine, because it indicates one score points for the manufacturer while the other two both retire. If you are still worried about the situation that one Ret, one DNS/WD/DSQ, I would say this is very unlikey to happen. We don't need to over-think on this. It's not too late to discuss how to solve this problem when it really happens. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So what happens when, say, Tidemand, Suninen and Lappi retire in Monte Carlo? We'll be in a situation where both teams are implied to have the same number of entries, even though we know that's incorrect. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The place where Evans finishes + Ret for Ford; the place where Ogier finishes + Ret for Citroën. There's no problems. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just got an idea to fix the problem I mentioned before. As we all known, the crew with more completed distance is listed ahead of the crew with fewer completed distance in the final official result. According to this theory, we can know which car is the second-best car for the manufacturer. For example, Jari-Matti Latvala retired at SS12 while Kris Meeke is disqualified at SS14, that's a DSQ should be filled in that second blank. If Jari-Matti Latvala retired at SS14 while Kris Meeke is disqualified at SS12, then that's a Ret. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's the problem:

"As we all known, the crew with more completed distance is listed ahead of the crew with fewer completed distance in the final official result."

You're assuming that anyone reading the article will be familiar with this, but I don't think that fits in with what we can reasonably expect the reader to know. Especially since there are other things—like Power Stage points only being awarded to drivers and co-drivers—which are more practical but need to be detailed in the article.

And no, explaining the structure of the table to the reader is not an option. If you need to explain the format, then the format is poorly designed. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"If you need to explain the format, then the format is poorly designed."

Why do you always strive for perfection? Moreover, the problem I mentioned before seldom happens, which means nearly all the time, the table is uncontroversial becuase it simply lists the best and the second-best car. So, we completely don't need any explaination about how the table works because it is easy to understand. That is to say, this table is not poorly designed. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Why do you always strive for perfection?"

Because it's achievable and because I don't settle for second-best. Especially when I know that more is possible because we're already doing it.

"the problem I mentioned before seldom happens"

But it can happen, so shouldn't we have a table format that is flexible enough to account for these scenarios if we know it is possible? The three-car format has worked well through 2017 and 2018. Why change what isn't broken? 1.129.107.54 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Why change what isn't broken?"

Because you suggest we should add points in the table, which is the form of "A+B". If we use the form of "A+B+0", I will support you. However, according to the rule "For any one Manufacturer, a maximum of three nominated drivers may be eligible to score points of which only the 2 best placed will score points according to their relative position." the form of "A+B+0" is misleading. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that the use of "NC" makes it clear that the result the crew achieved did not contribute to to the team's WCM result. It's not misleading at all, and it explains why three crews from one team can score WCD and WCCD points, but only two crews score WCM points. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do we even have to write "Ret"? We can leave the cell blank if no points were scored. So add a sentence "Only scoring finishes are included." or something in that matter. If someone find a better solution to add a third car, that does not make the table too long, I want to see that. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Why do we even have to write "Ret"? We can leave the cell blank if no points were scored."

There are several different ways that a crew can fail to score points. Leaving it blank implies that there was no entry in the first place.

"So add a sentence "Only scoring finishes are included." or something in that matter."

If you have to explain the format of the article in the article, it's a bad format.

"If someone find a better solution to add a third car, that does not make the table too long, I want to see that."

We already have one—including all three cars. Even if all four teams enter three cars, the table is still wider than it is tall. With all four teams entering three cars, the table would have twelve rows; by comparison, a results matrix in a Formula 1 article currently has twenty rows and the matrix in a Supercars article has twenty-four. So I don't really see how you can suggest that the table is too long when other articles need longer tables just to meet the minimum requirements of the article. 1.129.107.159 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Then it would be like:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1													324
		6
		NC
		25+8+0
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Correspondingly, the points line should be like "25+8+0", i.e. "A+B+0". I don't think that extra "+0" is necessary. It is redundant and none of the results sites list points like this. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean if we have to add points, then the table should be limited to two cars for each manufacturer. If the table should have three cars, then we shouldn't add points. In that way, both WCD and WCCD tables shouldn't add points, which means they should keep the original ones. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"In that way, both WCD and WCCD tables shouldn't add points, which means they should keep the original ones."

I'm okay with that. I think including all three cars is more important than swapping positions for points. The reason I floated the idea of changing the format was to discuss the current format. I'm not a fan of change for the sake of it; if what we're currently doing is the best way of doing it, then that's what we should keep doing. 1.129.106.255 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes we know very well what you think by now. However what's very clear as well is that no-one agrees with you with regards to third cars. It's high time that you accept that there is a clear preference to remove the third car from these tables.Tvx1 13:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on the driver tables, also a possibility:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1 25													324
		6 8
		NC 0
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

--Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is the third line is impossible to score any points, so why do we add that "0" below? Since the WCM is a whole, I'd prefer to count the total points of each manufacturer scores at each rally. But, as I said before, then it has to be limited to two cars. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

But given that our opinions are different, it can be accepted as a compromise. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is ok. If we use this format, then we, possibly, can remove the key for position scores? I'm talking about this one:

Position	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th
Points	25	18	15	12	10	8	6	4	2	1

Since the points are now in the table it should make it more self-explanatory. Kovpastish (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of an "entrant" column in WRC-2

I would just like to ask -- if entry in the World Rally Championship-2 is dictated by the driver entering, why put an "entrant" column? Because all it'll do is create a duplicate "driver" column in the entries table, and we don't need that. Besides, even though we know the details relating to which drivers rally for which teams (i.e. Takamoto Katsuta rallies for Tommi Mäkinen Racing, Jari Huttunen is going to rally for Printsport, Nikolay Gryazin for Sports Racing Technologies, etc.), the entry lists that we go by do not publish the teams. It seems to me as though that's actually a rule; look at Katsuta at Monte Carlo. He's not entered in the WRC-2 there, yet he is entered as "Tommi Mäkinen Racing." At Sweden, a rally in which he's participating for WRC-2 points, he's just entered as himself, despite evidence to the contrary.

Sorry to rant for a little bit, but I would just like to know if we still need an "entrant" column, considering this. Johannes275 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes275 Sometimes, it's the co-driver that enters the rally as the entrant. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness That hasn't happened in any case yet. Well, either way, the point is, the team ISN'T the entrant, even if they are the ones entering the car. It seems to be mandated by the rules that a part of the crew is the entrant. If this didn't exist, we'd see Tommi Mäkinen Racing be the entrant for Katsuta's car at Sweden. Johannes275 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes275 I can tell you that does happen based on my experience in editing 2018 rally pages althrough it is not not very often, which means the entrant is either driver or co-driver (sometimes pseudonym as well). As a result, we have to distinguish them despite the fact that it is the driver that enters a rally as the entrant in majority. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness You haven't yet addressed what I'm talking about. I know that the co-driver is sometimes the entrant, but that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that, an "entrant" column usually distinguishes not just entrants entering as just the driver or co-driver, but also teams, like Tommi Makinen Racing, or Printsport, or the Toksport World Rally Team, or what have you. I know it has only been two rallies, but so far none of the WRC-2 entrants are entering under a team name, even if said team is very clearly present at the rally helping the crew out. We can argue about entering as a driver or co-driver, but the fact of the matter is, they both indicate an independent entry. And since it seems to be required that all entrants in WRC-2 enter as independents, regardless of which team runs the car, I am wondering whether or not we need an "entrant" column. Besides, both drivers and co-drivers are distinguished in their own columns, so there isn't much need to display them twice in my opinion.

@Johannes275 Whatever it is a private crew or a team-entried crew, the first thing they have to do is to register, which requires an entrant. Without the entrant, you cannot enter any rally. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove the column. FIA probably has decided not to use team names in Championship 2 this season. Only exception in the list is Pietarinen, and in his case the team name is speculation. --Klõps (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps You do have read any official entry list and do understand the rule, right? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing the column implies that all crews are entered/operated by the same team, which we know to be untrue. 1.144.108.227 (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In both, Monte Carlo and Sweden, official lists have all WRC-2 (not pro) drivers with the drivers name written in the competitors column. Takamoto Katsuta/Daniel Barritt are listed as racing for Takamoto Katsuta not for Tommi Mäkinen Racing (the team that prepares their car) etc. That means in this class there are no teams. The column Entrant is the copy of the column Driver. These can be merged with no info lost. --Klõps (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness @Klõps I have a very reputable source known as the 2019 FIA WRC Sporting Regulations, Section 8.3.1 of which confirms exactly what I am talking about. Section 8.3.1 specifically states that "Registration in the WRC-2 Championship...must be made in the name of a driver holding a current and valid competitor's licence." That means that, like Klõps said, there will not be any teams entering the championship, because the rules require the driver name.

I just made this edit in the WRC-2 section of the page, but I made a disclaimer at the top, stating that they are all independent entries per the regulations.

@Johannes275 You still didn't get my points.

a) Per 8.3.1, yes, no teams any more. But no co-drivers or pseudonyms as well?

b) Removing/merging the column cannot distinguish the situation of whether the entrant is diver, co-driver or pseudonym.

c) Removing/merging the column implies the crew no longer need to register, which obviously aganists the regulation.

d) Removing/merging the column is a big modification, which requires a consensus. And, clearly, there is no consensus. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The change should be for this format only (WRC-2 2019). It's pointless to have two separate columns that are exactly the same except the title. It is wiki article not a bureaucratic form. If FIA itself said that in the WRC-2 in 2019 format the registration will be made in the name of the driver then why to keep the column that is the result of FIA coping the drivers name to the entrants column?

a) who said anything about removing co-drivers column?

b) right now its 100% driver. As also FIA rules say. Pseudonym equals (co-)driver. Why would somebody using pseudonym be treated differently?

c) It's wiki article not an official bureaucratic form. We can simplify things and do not need to follow strict FIA rules.

d) Clearly there is a question why we need two columns that duplicate each other? I understand Your arguments, but is it still necessary to follow the FIA rules here? Could we use prose to address all these concerns? --Klõps (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Using prose to explain the rule is not a good idea. If the explanation is inappropriate or incorrect, ambiguity will arise. Nothing is better than following the format of the source. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove the column and add an explanation to the "(rule) changes" section. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Entries table

An IP editor wants to change style of the entries table. As a continuation of the previous discussion here, that ended without any conclusive solution. The question asked was Should we have only one entry list or two entry lists?

Unnamelessness Stated their neutralness on the question and suggested just to join the tables without making any other changes and got support from Pelmeen10

An anonymous IP wished more equality between drivers, co-drivers and manufacturers. And that they wished that Indicating manufacturer entries in a more subtle way should be possible. Pelmeen10 disagreed with IP proposals. And they argued if entry list should show who is eligible for manufacturers points. Unnamelessness intervened with a question about Dani Sordos situation in 2018 season, who at Rally Portugal competed without being eligible to score manufacturer points and proposed to use a table with colour backgrounds for rounds column. Kovpastish stated their neutralness, and Tvx1 was against. --Klõps (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My oppinion. Looking at the media clearly the focus is on manufacturers teams drivers. Which driver are signed by which team. These are the drivers that compete for the rally wins. Then there are private entries who do not compete for manufacturers points. They usually take part at a limited number of rallies and usually even do not compete for points. They are mostly using cars from previous seasons. The coverage they get from media is much less than drivers contracted by manufacturer teams. Looking at the 2018 season, we see that there are 13 such drivers and 10 of them competed at one rally each. Now joining those tables would create really confusing table were full season drivers are mixed with drivers who competed for one event. For me it makes no sense. --Klõps (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The split-table format is a bad hangover from the early- and mid-2000s when the sport had a series of complex rules designed to allow private teams to enter as manufacturers separately to manufacturer-backed teams. It was mostly done to compensate for a lack of manufacturer-backed teams. Those rules have long since been simplified, so the table format should be changed as well.

"Looking at the media clearly the focus is on manufacturers teams drivers."

Making the article proportional to media coverage runs the risk of introducing WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. In the eyes of the FIA, all World Rally Cars are considered part of the RC1 category of Group R; their crews are Priority 1 crews. We cannot and should not be treating them differently based on whether or not they score manufacturer points.

"Now joining those tables would create really confusing table were full season drivers are mixed with drivers who competed for one event."

Motorsport championship articles regularly do this without a problem. Case in point, 2018 MotoGP season.

"Unnamelessness intervened with a question about Dani Sordos situation in 2018 season, who at Rally Portugal competed without being eligible to score manufacturer points and proposed to use a table with colour backgrounds for rounds column."

I think his comments make it pretty clear that he supported the use of coloured backgrounds and was asking the question about Sordo for clarity, not because he was proposing that the colours only be limited to manufacturer-backed entries. 1.144.105.6 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the IP is Prisonermonkeys and is the same IP that took part in the earlier discussion. I disagree with the notion that the format should be changes. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. The two table format is still the most efficient and clear format to list the two groups of entries the sport deals with. Moreover using colored cells as sole means of conveying information is, as a user like Prisonermonekys suffering from a form of colorblindness should know, very poor practice per MOS:ACCESS. Lastly, the MotoGP article is not a good example as that sports does not make such a clear distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points entries. In MotoGP every bike entered having been manufacturer by a certain manufacturer is eligible to score points for the manufacturer standings, with the highest finisher on a bike from that manufacturer scoring a result.Tvx1 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries."

Not in the eyes of the FIA. All World Rally Cars are classified as RC1 and given Priority 1 status. A stage at the 2018 Wales Rally GB was cancelled due to an accident that took time to be cleared away, but RC1 crews are Priority 1 crews, so it had to be run in such a way that the RC1 crews could complete it.

"Moreover using colored cells as sole means of conveying information is, as a user like Prisonermonekys suffering from a form of colorblindness should know, very poor practice per MOS:ACCESS."

And as I have explained to you on multiple occasions, colourblindness works on the combinations of colours—red and green rather than red alone. There are some rare conditions that mean people cannot distinguish between colours at all (I once knew someone who could not see the colour violet; they just saw white in its place), so if you want to form an argument based on MOS:ACCESS, there are much bigger issues at hand that apply across Wikipedia and this is not the venue for that discussion.

Furthermore, the move to a single-table format does not require the shading. There are other ways of representing it.

"It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers."

It is equally clear from some of that editor's comments that they don't understand the issues that they are talking about. He seems to think that the table was explicitly for manufacturer-entered cars, like the first table in the split-table format, even though the table was clearly for all RC1 entries. 1.144.105.6 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles should be written based on coverage. In any sport the coverage is mostly media. I doubt that even in history books these non-manufacturer drivers would get the same attention as full time drivers competing for the championship. There is no undue weight as all the drivers are listed and no one has been left out. The question is how they are sorted. I don't see any problem on sorting the main protagonists of the season before than those privateers that only compete at a limited number of rallies. I think the system as it is gives a clear overview that a person reading the season review is looking for. Mixing things up because of some strange claims of equality between drivers and co-drivers sounds unnecessary. As said before. MotoGP has different rules and article there definitely has accessibility issues with green and red used for markings, but this as said goes under Other stuff exists. And on RC1 argument – we are talking about how to present the season article, as said before all the cars competing under RC1 rules are listed, not a single one has been left out.

NB! I don't think that proving me incompetent (which seems to be one of Your main arguments through all the discussions we have had) can help You to prove your arguments. --Klõps (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see any problem on sorting the main protagonists of the season before than those privateers that only compete at a limited number of rallies."

Because you're assuming that they're the "protagonists" before the championship even begins. Citroën withdrew from the sport in 2006 and their team was run by Kronos Racing. Although Citroën gave permission for the Citroën World Rally Team name to be used, they were effectively a privateer team. Likewise M-Sport, who only got factory backing in 2017. There are circumstances in which privateer teams can compete with—and beat—manufacturers.

Here's s hypothetical for you: what would you have us do if Marcus Grönholm finishes on the podium in Sweden? He is entered separately to Toyota's entries and ineligible to score manufacturer points. However, we can reasonably infer that he would get significant media coverage. I know that's a hypothetical and thus speculation, but your argument for the split format is that manufacturer entries will be the most competitive. What would you do if a non-manufacturer entry is competitive, such at Craig Breen at the 2017 Monte Carlo Rally?

"And on RC1 argument – we are talking about how to present the season article, as said before all the cars competing under RC1 rules are listed, not a single one has been left out."

Except that in the eyes of the FIA and rally organisers, all RC1 cars are the same; some are just eligible for separate points. If the regulations classify them the same way, we should too.

"I don't think that proving me incompetent (which seems to be one of Your main arguments through all the discussions we have had) can help You to prove your arguments."

I'm not trying to prove you're incompetent. I know you're not. I'm simply trying to highlight that at least part of your opposition to the single-table format is based on a lack of understanding about that format. My question is thus: if you understood the single-table format, would you still be opposed to it?

"Mixing things up because of some strange claims of equality between drivers and co-drivers sounds unnecessary."

It's not strange at all. Check any entry list—all WRC cars are listed as "P(riority) 1" and all WRC-2 cars are "P2". 1.144.105.6 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to hear what @Unnamelessness, @Pelmeen10 and @Kovpastish have to say about this since they were all involved in the original discussion. 1.144.107.217 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, I am neutral on this. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — I'm afraid neutrality does not really help here. We need a consensus one way or the other. We have got one in favour, two opposed and at least one neutral. The next stage is a third opinion or an RfC, assuming we can get one (they don't always get responses in the allotted time).

As it is, the rules clearly state that all WRC cars are Priority 1 cars regardless of their eligibility for points. It is written into everything from the sporting regulations down to the operations manual for an event; for example, if a stage cannot be completed, organisers have to try and get all P1 cars through before they abandon it (case in point, the 2018 Rally GB). They're not allowed to run manufacturer cars but not WRC privateers. The FIA makes no special distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer cars.

Secondly, there is a distinction between who is entering a car and who is operating it. This may seem more evident in the WRC-2 at the moment, but Marcus Grönholm's Rally Sweden entry is a privateer in name only; Toyota Gazoo Racing is overseeing everything else. The distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries is no longer clear-cut.

Thirdly, the WRC-2 has multiple classes within it, with crews competing for different titles despite using the same regulations within each class. No such distinction exists within the WRC(-1). There is a manufacturers' championship, but no separate championship for privateer entries. To separate the entries places undue emphasis on manufacturer teams as those crews are eligible for their own individual championships. All that is needed is an indication of which teams are manufacturers, which can be achieved with a single sentence.

Finally, as I have stated before, the split format is unnecessary and redundant, a result of complex decade-old rules that were designed to allow privateers to enter as manufacturers; rules that no longer exist, and so splitting the table makes no sense.

In short, Wikipedia is the only place that makes such an overt distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries. It offers no discernable benefit to an article, is at odds with the sport's governance, and weighs the article down with redundant markup. 1.144.107.50 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine.Kovpastish (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kovpastish — First, consensus is not a vote. Secondly, is there a reason you feel that way? We could easily apply the single-table format to other articles and "we've always done it that way" is not really an argument. 1.144.107.179 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I was neutral when this was first discussed and would like to say I still am. The only way I could describe why I lean toward two tables is because a "major entries" table includes entries that can affect both manufacturers' and drivers' World Rally Championships which the article essentially is covering. Kovpastish (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kovpastish — a single table with something to mark the manufacturer entries would do exactly the same thing. Plus, we would have the added benefit of including the sort function (like Formula 1 entry lists) which would further enable distinctions between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries. 1.144.107.179 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding the sortable function

@Unnamelessness, @Pelmeen10, @Kovpastish, @Tvx1, @Klõps — I've been playing around with some of the markup and if I have done this right, I have added the sortable function to the table. It's a bit of a kludge because I've borrowed from another article, but if I have done it right you should be able to sort based on manufacturer, entrant number and rounds. Most importantly, I have worked the rounds column so that when you sort in descending order, all of the manufacturer entries will be listed first and all of the manufacturer entries at the bottom of the table. This removes the need for two tables but still allows the reader to organise the table based on their preference. The net effect is that it satisfies both sides of the argument.

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
				No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Citroën	Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1 4	Sébastien Ogier Esapekka Lappi	Julien Ingrassia Janne Ferm	All All
	Mauro Miele	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	20	Mauro Miele	Luca Beltrame	1
Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	3 7 33	Teemu Suninen Pontus Tidemand Elfyn Evans	Marko Salminen Ola Fløene Scott Martin	All All 1–2
				37	Lorenzo Bertelli	Simone Scattolin	2
	Janne Tuohino		M	92	Janne Tuohino	Mikko Markkula	2
Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	6 11 19 89	Dani Sordo Thierry Neuville Sébastien Loeb Andreas Mikkelsen	Carlos del Barrio Nicolas Gilsoul Daniel Elena Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	3–4 All 1–2 All
Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	5 8 10	Kris Meeke Ott Tänak Jari-Matti Latvala	Sebastian Marshall Martin Järveoja Miikka Anttila	All All All
	GRX Team		M	68	Marcus Grönholm	Timo Rautiainen	2

I have to stress that it's not perfect—but it is a start. 1.144.105.152 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I could apply this to driver names (so they're alphabetical), car numbers (so the table is sequential) and rounds (so we can sort based on the number of appearances), but it's a big job and it's too late to start right now. There is a lot of potentisl here. 1.144.107.158 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — would you be interested in applying the sort function to results matrices? It might be possible to give the reader the chance to sort based on the most recent results, but it would require some complex, extensive markup. I would have to apply everything to a sortable entry list first (since I already have most of what I need in place there). 1.144.108.17 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I just did a experiment based on 2018 tables, and I think it is too complex and messy. Plus, it will take a lot of effort (I spent an hour modifying the 2018 tables). -- Unnamelessness (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary to sort drivers based on their car numbers? It's a random number. It's as useful as to sort drivers by their names last letter. Sorting does not give any meaningful new info there. Also in the rounds column, adding invisible parameter is kind of an easteregg. And we already have drivers sorted by entrants. So there's no value added by adding the sortable function here. I do think that Season summary should be sortable as there the function helps to see each driver wins listed, each team wins listed etc. --Klõps (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Why would it be necessary to sort drivers based on their car numbers?"

Some users prefer sequential numbers. You might have noticed some activity before Monte Carlo where someone was swapping Toyota and Hyundai around because Toyota's lowest number is 5 and Hyundai's is 6.

"Also in the rounds column, adding invisible parameter is kind of an easteregg."

It doesn't have to be called the "rounds" column. 1.144.108.69 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Still does not make any sense. Car number is a random number. Some may prefer drivers listed by their height also. This is a really niche thing. --Klõps (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the rules clearly state that all RC1 cars are treated equally, so the split table needs to go. None of the sources we use for entry lists split RC1 cars like that. 1.129.105.42 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So You run out of arguments and just said that wikipedia article has to follow FIA rules for rallies? There is no inequality, all the drivers are listed. The question is how are they sorted. It is logical, that based on the media coverage, the reader wants to get on overview which are the main drivers for the teams. Structuring the information based on different factors for the reader is the way things have been. There are other sources also not only official entry lists (btw entry list do not treat drivers equally, but list them by the championship standing). If we want to make all the drivers equal as they are in the rally entry lists, the table should look like this...

#	Driver	Co-driver	Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Rounds
37	Lorenzo Bertelli	Simone Scattolin	Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	2
33	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	1–2
TBA	Gus Greensmith	Elliott Edmondson	Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	TBA
68	Marcus Grönholm	Timo Rautiainen	Toyota	GRX Team	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	2
4	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm	Citroën	Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1–2
10	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	1–2
19	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	1–2
5	Kris Meeke	Sebastian Marshall	Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	1–2
20	Mauro Miele	Luca Beltrame	Citroën	Mauro Miele	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	1
89	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	1–2
11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	1–2
1	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Citroën	Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1–2
6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	TBA
3	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	1–2
8	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Toyota	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	1–2
7	Pontus Tidemand	Ola Fløene	Ford	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	1–2
92	Janne Tuohino	Mikko Markkula	Ford	Janne Tuohino	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	2

All drivers sorted alphabetically, so that all RC1 cars are treated equally as rules say. --Klõps (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"So You run out of arguments and just said that wikipedia article has to follow FIA rules for rallies?"

No, I'm pointing out that the sources distinguish between Priority 1 and Priority 2 cars. All WRC cars are P1 cars regardless of their eligibility to score points. Separating them implies the existence of multiple classes within P1, like the WRC-2 and WRC-2 Pro within P2.

Show me a source that says manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries are treated differently in running a rally and we can talk. Because right now, your position is not supported by any reliabke sources that I am aware of. 1.129.105.124 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not edit war! These tables are same in all the WRC season articles. I restore the table to the format that all the other articles have. Do not change it before we have reached consensus. --Klõps (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And regarding Your last comment. The way the drivers are sorted does not in any way imply that there are multiple classes. The table has one headline Entries and under it drivers are sorted first the drivers eligible to score manufacturer points, because the media coverage (autosport.com. wrc.com eurosport.com etc) the focus is on who is contracted for which team. The reader gets clear overview of the drivers market situation. Then we have sorted all the drivers not racing for manufacturer points. These are private drivers, young drivers getting the change to try WRC cars etc. Looking at 2018 season, there were 14 such private entries and all together they have 18 participations. 1.3 rallies per entry! You can clearly see why it is useful to sort by this category first. The way drivers are sorted in no way imply that these drivers are treated differently in rallies. --Klõps (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, where is your source? All of the sources clearly state that all WRC cars are Priority 1 crews regardless of manufacturer points.

"The way the drivers are sorted does not in any way imply that there are multiple classes."

Except that it does because multiple tables are used for just such a purpose at 2019 World Rally Championship-2 where there is a clear division in Priority 2 cars. 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.110.255 (talk)

DO NOT EDIT WAR! I see that You are edit warring at many pages using Your dynamic IP. I will report this if You continue this! --Klõps (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not some official database that has to follow official FIA policies. Articles must present information in the most simplest and clearest form. Your table format does not do this and has clear accessibility issues as You have been told above.

The sources You talk about are entry lists for rallies. Some of them list drivers by number, some use championship order, some list drivers by team etc. It is really strange to say that Wikipedia table format has to follow sources and official rules from some international organisation. What is in the table is all in the sources. The question is how is it presented. Right now, all over the project pages, the table format is as it is. Before You start to edit war on one season article we must reach consensus here first. Using edit warring to get things the way you want is not the solution.

The table as it is in the projects season articles DOES NOT imply in any way that the cars are not in the same class, same priority etc what ever You think. To say that is as logical as to say that sorting table by manufacturer implies that drivers driving for different manufacturers are not treated equally. How many times I must repeat that only You are thinking that there are two classes. Nothing in the article says that. Have a look at 2019 World Rally Championship-2 this is how two separate classes look like – different sections with subheadings and prose about the separate classes. I posted above how a table should look actually if it was fully according to Your demands. --Klõps (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"The sources You talk about are entry lists for rallies."

And the sporting regulations and the operations manual, the guide to how a rally is to be run. You have not been able to provide a source that contradicts these.

"I posted above how a table should look actually if it was fully according to Your demands."

No, you didn't. That looks nothing like what I have proposed and you know it.

"To say that is as logical as to say that sorting table by manufacturer implies that drivers driving for different manufacturers are not treated equally."

I suggested no such thing, so once again you are trying to argue against a point that you clearly don't understand. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

For the 3rd time! No edit warring to make the changes you like. I will report this! Klõps (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

For the 100th time! — provide a reliable source to support your changes. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And to answer Your last comment. You say that You are following the sporting regulations and the operations manual, the guide to how a rally is to be run. This is simply not right approach. This is Wikipedia article, not a bureaucratic form. This wiki article is not the document under which rallies are held. This article does not have to follow the rules under which rallies are held.

This is an season article that has to in a simple and easy to understand format summarise the season.

The entry list of rallies do not support Your way of reorganising the table. Everything from the entry lists are in the table both in the project accepted style and in your style. The difference is how the information is presented. In Your style sorted first by manufacturer. In project style first by eligibility to score manufacturer points and then by manufacturer.

The table above which I posted is how entry lists are at wrc.com. This is exactly as you want things to be. Drivers are all equal, sorted by name.

And we finish with personal attack again how I do not understand what I am talking about. I do understand. You are stuck in Your way of thinking that the way table is sorted somehow implies that there are multiple classes. You are the only one who thinks this way. You just repeat Yourself over and over. --Klõps (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

How many times I have to repeat the issue is how tables are sorted. All the information is there that is in the sources. It just sorted in a different way. This is Wikipedia, the table does not have to be sorted according to FIA rules. Stop this bureaucratic nonsense. This is not an argument! --Klõps (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

How many times do I need to ask you for a source to support your claims? Every source that we have shows that P1 crews are treated equally. The article has a bigger scope than the manufacturers' championship.

"This is Wikipedia, the table does not have to be sorted according to FIA rules. Stop this bureaucratic nonsense."

This "bureaucratic nonsense" is Wikipedia policy—articles must be supported by reliable sources. Show me the reliable source that says manufacturer entries are treated differently to non-manufacturer entries. Because everything that I have says that all Priority 1 crews must complete a stage for it to be valid. If a stage is cancelled before all P1 crews complete it, the stage does not count; if there is a position change among crews and the stage is cancelled, the position change is undone. This is precisely what happened at the 2018 Wales Rally GB, when the final stage was interrupted and run in a way to allow all P1 crews to complete it because championships were on the line. If your concern is who scored manufacturer points, that is what thd results table is for. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

NO the bureaucratic nonsense is Your claim that wikipedia article has to follow FIA rally rules.

I repeat the table has all the same information (from the same sources) in both formations. Only organized in different order. The sources are the same. You can't claim that the table has to be sorted according to the FIA rules. This is bureaucratic nonsense.

There isn't anything in the tables, in the current format, that implies that the crews are not treated equally and that they aren't all at RC1 category. --Klõps (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

By splitting the tables, you suggest that there is a greater distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries than there actually is. Especially since 2019 World Rally Championship-2 uses a split table because it is a multi-class championship. 1.129.105.144 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In both ways the table consists of all the information from the sources. So stop playing this stupid game and demanding sources while there is no new information added. Only thing that changes is the format of the table.

No, splitting the table does not suggest that there are any distinction between the crews. This is only the way to sort the information based on coverage. This sorting is done to give the reader the best overview of the drivers market in the season. The goal of the article is to simple and well structured summary of the season. Wikipedia is not a database. This here is a summary based on the sources. First are the main drivers. If You noticed almost all the coverage between the seasons that WRC got was about which driver will be signed by which team. Then there are private entries. As said above there were 14 of those crews in 2018 and 13 of them only took of part one rally each. Sorting them together with full time drivers only creates confusion for the readers. Well structured table is better option than to strictly follow FIA rulebooks. I repeat this is a summary article not some official database. Looking at 2019 WRC-2 we can clearly see how there are two different headings and the prose clarifying the situation. More over there are results tables showing that the points are counted in two different classes. This is different than the situation at the 2019 WRC season. --Klõps (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"So stop playing this stupid game and demanding sources while there is no new information added."

The FIA consider all P1 cars to be equal regardless of points eligibility. They do not separate them. If a stage is interrupted and cannot be restarted before all P1 cars complete it, the results do not count. Separating them in the entry list implies that they are treated differently from the start. I would like to see a source that says they are treated differently because the article is about MORE than the manufacturers' championship.

"More over there are results tables showing that the points are counted in two different classes."

If there are points tables that show who scored points in which championship, why is it so important that the entry lists show who was eligible to score points? Surely the first priority of the entry list is to show who entered.

"Well structured table is better option than to strictly follow FIA rulebooks."

I agree that a well-structured table works best. And a single well-structured table is precisely what I have provided. You are the one insisting on two tables that unnecessarily split the entries and over-emphasise the importance of the manufacturers' championship. 1.129.105.169 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

STOP edit warring. This is not the way to make changes. You changed something. It was reverted. We discussed. Theres no consensus supporting Your changes to project standard. It is really hard, because of Your dynamic IP, but I will report this. --Klõps (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• How many times I have told You that the way tables are sorted does not imply that the crews are not equal. There is no separation etc etc etc. It is just how table is sorted. This is nonsense argument. This can be said on every way the table is sorted. If sorted by manufacturer one can ask why this manufacturer is sorted before are they are they treated separately. The solution for this problem would be to remove the table at all. Because in any list somebody is in front of somebody else.

• Again all the same information is in the table, it is just sorted differently. FIA rules aren't source, because this is Wikipedia. Wiki articles do not need to follow rules from some international organisation. WP:NOT. This is not an official entry list.

• Having no structure is not well structured. For the simple overview for the reader we sort drivers who are getting the most coverage before. And private drivers (out of 14 private drivers in 2018 season 13 participated in 1 rally each). It is logical to sort by this parameter first. --Klõps (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Theres no consensus supporting Your changes to project standard."

Your claim of consensus is specious at best. You have two in support, one opposed and one completely neutral. Furthermore, you have been unable to provide any sources to support the division of the table. Indeed, all of the reliable sources that we have clearly show that P1 cars are treated equally. I am simply restoring the version of the article that the sources support. While a consensus is important, it cannot contradict the sources.

"FIA rules aren't source, because this is Wikipedia."

The FIA rules are a source because they dictate how rallies are run. If a rally is not run according to the rules, the result can be invalidated. All P1 cars are afforded the same privileges regardless of their manufacturer status and the article should reflect this. You cannot simply ignore a source because it is inconvenient or because you don't like it.

"How many times I have told You that the way tables are sorted does not imply that the crews are not equal."

Saying it does not make it true. 1.129.105.227 (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop edit Warring!!!

• Its nonsense. How table is sorted is not question about sources. The official entry tables are not sources supporting you. The FIA rules do not say haw Wikipedia article must be written. I have repeated this over and over and over.

• There is long time project standard. You do not have any support nor any argument based reason except that You do not like it!.

• Saying Wiki article must be written according to FIA rules is pure bureaucracy. FIA rules in any way do not define how drivers in groups are ordered. In the rallies they use seeded order based on championship standing.

• There is nothing that implies that the way tables are sorted does not imply that the crews are not equal. You have not argued against it. You say that Saying it does not make it true this is pure I don't like it style argument. --Klõps (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You want to change a long time project standard that is used over on large umber of season articles. This must be discussed and agreed here before. You just can't take one article and edit war on it, because You do not like how things are. You did Your thing. It was reverted. In discussion we have weak consensus keeping the project standard. If You want to change it make clear proposal here before! --Klõps (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"If You want to change it make clear proposal here before!"

Do you honestly have no idea what I am proposing after all this time? I am proposing that we use one table for entries, not two.

I have raised this at WP:DRN. Please contribute there. 1.144.104.87 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, proving me incompetent is one of Your main arguments. I do understand Your view and I am against. You are pushing for bureaucratic indiscriminate presentation of the lists. In wikipedia all the information should be presented in organized and sorted way. You are not pushing for to join the tables, You are pushing for the one table to be sorted on your preferred way with coloured key added to the table.

You are calling the project standard way unsourced. This is absurd. Both Your way and current way have all the same information from the same sources, only in different order. You are claiming that Your way is following the fia rules also absurd, there are no FIA rules how Wikipedia article should list WRC crews. You claim that the current way implies there to be more than one class and that the RC1 class crews aren't treated equally. Again there is nothing in the article that suggest this. You are the only one who has the problem and sees it this way. Its clear that You just don't like it. --Klõps (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one sitting on an article reverting changes on sight and refusing to take part in the dispute resoltion process. That's not how consensus-building works. 1.144.104.174 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"You are not pushing for to join the tables, You are pushing for the one table to be sorted on your preferred way with coloured key added to the tab."

No, I want to remove all mention of manufacturer points from the table entirely. I am, however, proposing a single table with the sortable function as a WP:COMPROMISE. You are the one who insists that a very weak consensus somehow overrides the objections of everyone and gives you the right to unilaterally revert edits on sight and are exempt from the negotiation process. 1.144.104.15 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Table Format

There is discussion in progress of the table format at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2019_World_Rally_Championship_2 . Any editors are welcome to come to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and take part in moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As per discussion at the DRN, several proposals for the table have been put forward. I have put them on my sandbox page to keep them centralised. The first of these is the shaded cells format where manufacturer points eligibility is indicated by one or more shaded cells. The second is an icon system, indicating which entries are eligible to score points with an icon (I stress that this is more of a concept than anything else; both tyres and points eligibility are indicated with an "M"). Are there any other formats that editors would like to see put together?

I'm going to tag @Robert McClenon since he volunteered to moderate the discussion at WP:DRN, and @Klõps since he was involved in the discussion there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Shaded cells look bad and i won't support that. TBH the second option does not look that good either, just a bunch of coloured M-s everywhere. I lean towards using the old format. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Form should follow function. As I have repeatedly said in the past, splitting the tables overstates the importance of the manufacturer entries.

More importantly, the line between manufacturer and non-manufacturer is nowhere near as clear-cut as it once was. Marcus Gronholm entered Rally Sweden, but the whole operation was run by Toyota Gazoo Racing. His name appeared on the entry list and on the car, but that's it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have also created a third style, the rally article style, which is based om the entry lists used in rally articles such as 2019 Rally Sweden. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've added bold markup to the rally artivle style. It occured to me that the current format of the table is largely derived from Formula 1 championship articles and only loosely adapted to fit the needs of the WRC. It's this that I've been pushing back against, but then I realised that I could instead run with it. Formula 1 race articles use (such as 2018 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix) use bold font in the race results table to indicate who scored points. That could be adapted to fit here—bold entries indicate WCM eligibility. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

From my personal prospective, I would lean on with shaded cells, but I am also okay with the rally article style (but it may require more effort to optimize). The icon system is shocking, especially with the icon that contains light-yellow-coloured background and black-colouered M in the "Points" column and still need someone to explain that M means manufacturer cars. That's just making the thing bad, I am afraid. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — I stress that the icon system is just a mock-up. If we were to choose it, we could re-design the icons to be something more palatable. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps — are you going to contribute here? Moving the discussion to the WikiProject was your idea. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing new here. I'm sorry, but none of the proposals look convincing for me and will not convince me that mixing up manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries would be step forward. In the end of the season there will be 15 to 20 private entries, which will make the unsorted table massive and confusing for the reader. Option 1 & 2 are basically the same with 2 being the development without invisible parameter for manufacturer points, but the title "points" is confusing, and the M icon borrowed from tyre markings... Option 3 is even bigger step backwards, from sorted and organised to totally unorganised. It's totally against the principle of making things easy and clearly understandable for the reader. After all wikipedia is not a database. --Klõps (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How predictable. You agree to the discussion at DRN, propose moving to to the WikiProject and then immediately dismiss it once you get here. This is exactly what I suggested would happen and what @Robert McClenon described as a legitimate concern.

"Option 3 is even bigger step backwards, from sorted and organised to totally unorganised."

It is organised—entries are arranged sequentially by car number (which gives added stability in future when numbers change). Nobody is grouped together based on manufacturer so there is no over-emphasis on manufacturers. You yourself repeatedly referred to the need for the table style to be consistent with other tables, and it is; it is consistent with the 2019 rally articles. The bold font highlights the manufacturer entries without being distracting (as opposed to highlighting non-manufacturer entries), using a method with a proven track record in other articles. This table was specifically drafted to address all of your concerns, so for you to dismiss it so quickly tells me that you never intended to agree to any proposal.

As for the sorting, that can always be applied separately. It just takes me a long time to do the markup. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

All in all, I still feel that keeping the two table is the best way forward. It's still the most efficient way to present the sets of information and we haven't had any complaints by any readers to the contrary.Tvx1 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"It's still the most efficient way to present the sets of information"

What are you basing that on? I've already pointed out the redundancy of having two tables, the decade-old rules that no longer apply, the misleading nature of the split format and the changes in the organisational structure of teams that mean the distinction between entries is significantly smaller than it used to be. If you're going to oppose the changes, could you at least present an argument as to why?

"we haven't had any complaints by any readers to the contrary"

This whole discussion is based on a reader complaining. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Way Forward?

Since I was asked to close the discussion at DRN and bring it here, I will ask everyone what they think is the best way to go forward to resolve this. Option 1 is discussion. This will work if there is the possibility of compromise, or of new ideas. I think that User:Mclarenfan17 has presented some new ideas, although it appears that User:Klõps has dismissed them, but I will ask everyone again. Option 2 is an RFC. We do not need to list options that are known not to work, either because they are contrary to policy, such as edit-warring, or because they don't work, such as shouting matches. (I didn't say that anyone has tried those yet.) You may describe an option 3 as a way to go forward also. So, do we continue discussion, do we use an RFC, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — I think continuing the discussion is the right way to go. We have had a few extra voices in @Pelmeen10 and @Unnamelessness but we haven't really discussed everything because there has been no chance to explore what they would consider an acceptable substitute. If they contribute we're still in a stalemate, then it might be time for an RfC. I'm just disappointed that I took the time to create the "rally article style" based on Klõps feedback and specifically designed it to address his concerns and he dismissed it in such a way that showed he had barely even considered it. What I took from the DRN discussion was that there is a desire for change and that compromise is possible (and probably needed). To regress to people stubbornly refusing to accept anything other than what we already have means we wasted our time and goes against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. The whole purpose of achieving a consensus is to satisfy as many people as possible and to satisfy them as much as possible. I think that digging in and refusing to consider the alternatives when the possibility of compromise is real, achievable and practical really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — looks like we will need an RfC after all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tooltips in the WCC table

But I'd still like to know who scored (or did not) score manu points, this is my next suggestion

Pos.	Entrant	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	3	1	2												86
		5	5	5
		NC	NC	NC

Waiting for feedback on those suggestions, because I'd also like to see somekind on consensus here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10

"But I'd still like to know who scored (or did not) score manu points, this is my next suggestion"

I'm not a fan—tooltips are not visible om the mobile/tablet site. We had a system that worked just fine until earlier this year with the addition of the number column. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Tooltip is better than nothing. 80% (or whatever the number of people who clicks on desktop view or has a computer) is much better than 0%. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10 — and 100% is better than 80%, which we had with the system that was removed. But that's a conversation for another time; right now we should be focusing on the entry table. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10 — No, we don't need tooltips, because WCC table just counts how each team score points instead of how each driver score points. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment on table format

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus due to a lack of valid votes - No arguments for any of the solutions were based on WP:policies and guidelines; but rather on WP:ILIKEIT; after discounting them there were zero valid votes for anything left. This outcome does not prevent opening another RFC; but if you do please make policy-based arguments. (non-admin closure) Lurking shadow (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

---

I've started this RfC because after lengthy discussion here and on article talk pages and an attempt to resolve the issue at DRN, the WikiProject is deadlocked on the issue of the table format in championship articles such as this one. What format should these tables take? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the split table format should be abandoned in favour of a single table for all entries. There are several reasons for this:

1. The style of table with competitors grouped by their entrants has been commonly used by motorsports articles since Wikipedia's inception. However, I feel that this "one size fits all" approach was born out of necessity rather than being designed to address the needs of specific articles and that this is now restrictive. Many championship articles such as MotoGP, Supercars and IndyCar have their own bespoke table formats, but the WRC does not and I think it needs one.
2. The table is split based on the entrant, but the definition of "entrant" has changed. Once upon a time, a team would enter and run the cars and the whole thing would be a single operation. However, in 2019 teams often operate multiple cars under different names. For example, Marcus Grönholm's Rally Sweden car was entered by "GRX Team", but per this source the car was run by Toyota's works team ("GRX Team" is Grönholm's rallycross team, but had nothing to do with the running of the car). Likewise, Lorenzo Bertelli's entry in Sweden was run by M-Sport WRT quite separately to their manufacturer team.
3. The split-table format was introduced into WRC articles in 2006 owing to a complex series of rules (designed to encourage more entries) that were written out of the sport a decade ago. Continuing to use the split-table format does not meet the needs of the article.
4. The tables are split based on who is eligible for points in the manufacturers' championship. However, all crews are eligible for entry in the drivers' and co-drivers' championships regardless of their manufacturers' eligibility. Splitting the table over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturers' championship.
5. You will notice that there are some drivers (such as Yoann Bonato) who are included in the results matrix, but not in the entry list. That is because Bonato entered the series' support championship, but finished high enough to score points in the main championship. A long-standing consensus among rally editors is to limit the entry list to "RC1" entries (the sport's designation for the top class); in other words, crews that entered the World Rally Championship first. This choice was made because rallies often attract dozens of entries; this year's Monte Carlo Rally had 84. Splitting the table effectively creates three separate categories: manufacturer entries, non-manufacturer entries, and entries outside the RC1 designation.
6. Speaking of RC1 entries, the sport make no distinction between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries when it comes to the running of the sport. Both are classified as RC1 entries, and the regulations state that all RC1 entries that are capable of completing a stage must complete the stage for the result to be considered valid (this literally came up overnight when an RC1 car caused a stage stoppage; one of the other crews picked up a puncture and lost several places, but gained them back because their time was invalidated).

With this in mind, I have created several possible formats to introduce to the articles, and I believe that this one works best. It merges the two tables into one but still distinguishes between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries (and in a way that highlights the manufacturers), and is far more flexible than the split-table format when introducing the ability to sort the table (which I have not added here as it takes me forever to do the markup). Proponents of the split-table format have repeatedly argued that the table format must be consistent with the formats used in other, similar articles (though I have not seen any policy that dictates this) and this proposal does exactly that—it uses a style consistent with the entry lists that appear in individual rally articles going back to 2013. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Entry lists

Detailed table formats. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: shaded cells Manufacturer Entrant Car Tyre Crew details No. Driver name Co-driver name Rounds Citroën Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1 4 Sébastien Ogier Esapekka Lappi Julien Ingrassia Janne Ferm All All Mauro Miele Citroën DS3 WRC M 20 Mauro Miele Luca Beltrame 1 Ford M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 3 7 33 Teemu Suninen Pontus Tidemand Elfyn Evans Marko Salminen Ola Fløene Scott Martin All All 1–2 37 Lorenzo Bertelli Simone Scattolin 2 Janne Tuohino M 92 Janne Tuohino Mikko Markkula 2 Hyundai Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 6 11 19 89 Dani Sordo Thierry Neuville Sébastien Loeb Andreas Mikkelsen Carlos del Barrio Nicolas Gilsoul Daniel Elena Anders Jæger-Synnevaag 3–4 All 1–2 All Toyota Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT Toyota Yaris WRC M 5 8 10 Kris Meeke Ott Tänak Jari-Matti Latvala Sebastian Marshall Martin Järveoja Miikka Anttila All All All GRX Team M 68 Marcus Grönholm Timo Rautiainen 2 Option 2: icons Manufacturer Entrant Car Tyre Crew details No. Driver name Co-driver name Points Rounds Citroën Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1 4 Sébastien Ogier Esapekka Lappi Julien Ingrassia Janne Ferm M M All All Mauro Miele Citroën DS3 WRC M 20 Mauro Miele Luca Beltrame 1 Ford M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 3 7 33 Teemu Suninen Pontus Tidemand Elfyn Evans Marko Salminen Ola Fløene Scott Martin M M M All All 1–2 37 Lorenzo Bertelli Simone Scattolin 2 Janne Tuohino M 92 Janne Tuohino Mikko Markkula 2 Hyundai Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 6 11 19 89 Dani Sordo Thierry Neuville Sébastien Loeb Andreas Mikkelsen Carlos del Barrio Nicolas Gilsoul Daniel Elena Anders Jæger-Synnevaag M M M M 3–4 All 1–2 All Toyota Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT Toyota Yaris WRC M 5 8 10 Kris Meeke Ott Tänak Jari-Matti Latvala Sebastian Marshall Martin Järveoja Miikka Anttila M M M All All All GRX Team M 68 Marcus Grönholm Timo Rautiainen 2 Option 3: rally article style No. Driver Co-Driver Entrant Car Tyre Rounds 1 Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1–4 3 Teemu Suninen Marko Salminen M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 1–4 4 Esapekka Lappi Janne Ferm Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1–4 5 Kris Meeke Sebastian Marshall Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT Toyota Yaris WRC M 1–4 6 Dani Sordo Carlos del Barrio Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 3–4 7 Pontus Tidemand Ola Fløene M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 1–2 8 Ott Tänak Martin Järveoja Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT Toyota Yaris WRC M 1–4 10 Jari-Matti Latvala Miikka Anttila Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT Toyota Yaris WRC M 1–4 11 Thierry Neuville Nicolas Gilsoul Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 1–4 19 Sébastien Loeb Daniel Elena Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 1–2, 4 20 Mauro Miele Luca Beltrame Mauro Miele Citroën DS3 WRC M 1 33 Elfyn Evans Scott Martin M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 1–4 37 Lorenzo Bertelli Simone Scattolin M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 2 40 Jean-Charles Beaubelique Julien Pesenti Jean-Charles Beaubelique Citroën DS3 WRC TBA 4 41 Armando Pereira Rémi Tutélaire Armando Pereira Ford Fiesta RS WRC TBA 4 42 Alain Vauthier Gilbert Dini Alain Vauthier Ford Fiesta RS WRC TBA 4 43 Robert Simonetti Célia Simonetti Robert Simonetti Citroën DS3 WRC TBA 4 68 Marcus Grönholm Timo Rautiainen GRX Team Toyota Yaris WRC M 2 89 Andreas Mikkelsen Anders Jæger-Amland Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC M 1–3 92 Janne Tuohino Mikko Markkula Janne Tuohino Ford Fiesta WRC M 2 Entries in bold type are eligible to score points in the World Rally Championship for Manufacturers. Source:

Discussion

@Mclarenfan17 Yes, Option 3 looks pretty good. But to sort out the problem like Sordo last year I mentioned before (which is some rounds are eligible, while some rounds are ineligible), I believe boldface the rounds would be much better. --Unnamelessness (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — that's easily fixed:

No.	Driver	Co-Driver	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Rounds
6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	3–4
			Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT			5

The boldface can be expanded to the rounds column, too. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. But I mean we can simplify it like:

No.	Driver	Co-Driver	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Rounds
6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	3–4, 5, 6–7

Anyway, that's just my personal preference. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3: rally article style More appropriate under today's regulations and much easier to do copy-edit when creating an entry list. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• In that case, I would suggest applying it to all WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3 and JWRC articles since 2017 as 2017 is when the regulations were changed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel free to that, but it mainly depends on other editors' opinions. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping we'll be able to hear from otherwise-uninvolved editors soon. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to answer as we were instructed by Robert McClenon in the closing statement of DRN "...or don't continue the dispute. The latter is recommended" [1] and You clearly have an issue respecting other peoples opinions if they are not agreeing with you. I'd suggest You to learn it as it will help You in life. Also the question isn't deadlocked, rather, in my opinion, your proposals have been rejected, but as said You don't respect the opinions of other people.

I think the overly long introduction You have made above just scares away any uninvolved editors, because its hard to understand what really is the problem You have. So lets put it simply:

In season articles should the entries table be:

• Option 1: (current) sorted so that entries eligible to score manufacturer points are listed before entries ineligible to score manufacturer points.
• Option 2: all drivers mixed up and not sorted to manufacturer and non manufacturer points eligible entries

I support Option 1 because it gives clearer overview for the reader about the drivers market situation. The media (main coverage) clearly focuses on the manufacturer contracted drivers. The non manufacturer points drivers usually only take part one event during the season (in 2018 season there are 14 private entries and 12 of them only participate in one event only) so it is a lot of drivers but they make up a small part of the season. And over all I think that at the and of season, there will be more private entries than contracted manufacturer drivers, the table will be long and massive. Reader looking in the article will be really confused if they look in the table and it is full of unknown one race drivers such as Jean-Charles Beaubelique, Robert Simonetti, Armando Pereira etc. I understand that for the bureaucratic approach this option goes against general rules of database-ism, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor a database. Wikipedia articles have to be copyedited, clear and sorted so that reader gets fast overview it is more important than following some FIA rules etc. --Klõps (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping to hear from uninvolved editors because the same people making the same arguments are making the same contributions.

"Also the question isn't deadlocked, rather, in my opinion, your proposals have been rejected"

If my proposals have been rejected, why do they garner support? You rejected them, but you don't own the article.

"it gives clearer overview for the reader about the drivers market situation"

There is more to the championship than the driver market.

"The media (main coverage) clearly focuses on the manufacturer contracted drivers."

That's misleading and you know it. You know perfectly well that rules were introduced in 2017 limiting access to 2017-specification cars to manufacturer entrants. You also know that those rules are being relaxed.

"Reader looking in the article will be really confused if they look in the table and it is full of unknown one race drivers such as Jean-Charles Beaubelique, Robert Simonetti, Armando Pereira etc."

Nevertheless, they still drive World Rally Cars and the long-standing consensus is that all WRC crews should be included in the table. You cannot just ignore them because you think they're irrelevant.

You claim thst the reader will be confused if non-manufacturer crews are included in the same table as manufacturer crews. Can you please demonstrate—with diffs—where that issue has been raised on the past? And can you also demonstrate how separating them is less confusing given that the reader will still not know who they are? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Again You are attacking me. Every time I just give my opinion You call me ignorant, my opinions bad faith, and accuse me of owning the articles. Looking Your edits You are the one who on many articles fights as You own them. But worst lie from you is the claim that I alone have been against your changes. I do have to remind You the DRN.

In the discussion above two editors beside me were against the changes:

*Tvx1, wrote: I disagree with the notion that the format should be changed. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. [2]

*Kovpastish, who also did not see any problem with the table: Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine. [3]

*There was one more editor who was neutral. No editors supported IP editor (Mclarenfan17).

Just don't lie any more. That and attacking my opinions rather than arguing makes it impossible to have any discussions --Klõps (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the 3 options Mclarenfan17 has proposed I would argue that option 3 is the best. This way is in my opinion the clearest way that you can show the information. The other 2 options require you too look at one specific column making it harder to see at a glance who is eligible making option 3 (making the row bold) the clearest way to see at a glance who is elligable. The one thing I would suggest is that you inform readers what the cold refers to at the top of the table. I also think that all entries should be in the same table given they are entered into the same event, 2 entry tables suggests 2 distinct competitions happening at 1 organised event, (like a main competition and a support series. SSSB (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• None of the previously mentioned My suggestion is to remove "Manufacturer" column, because it adds confusion. Citroen, Ford, Hyundai and Toyota are mentioned both in entrant and car. It adds nothing to the "gentlemen drivers" (car also points that out) rather than adds confusion. Also a possibility to combine those two tables into one, which IMO looks better. I think this consensus should meet both sides in the middle. So something like this:

Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
			No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	1–4
			4	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm	1–4
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	3	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	1–4
			7	Pontus Tidemand	Ola Fløene	1–2
			33	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	1–4
			TBA	Gus Greensmith	Elliott Edmondson	TBA
Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	3–4
			11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	1–4
			19	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	1–2, 4
			89	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Amland	1–3
Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	5	Kris Meeke	Sebastian Marshall	1–4
			8	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	1–4
			10	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	1–4
World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points
Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
			No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Mauro Miele	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	20	Mauro Miele	Luca Beltrame	1
Jean-Charles Beaubelique		TBA	40	Jean-Charles Beaubelique	Julien Pesenti	4
Robert Simonetti		TBA	43	Robert Simonetti	Célia Simonetti	4
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	37	Lorenzo Bertelli	Simone Scattolin	2
Janne Tuohino		M	92	Janne Tuohino	Mikko Markkula	2
Armando Pereira	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	TBA	41	Armando Pereira	Rémi Tutélaire	4
Alain Vauthier		TBA	42	Alain Vauthier	Gilbert Dini	4
GRX Team	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	68	Marcus Grönholm	Timo Rautiainen	2
Source:

--Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• That still has the same problem of over-emphasising the WCM. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sifting through the discussion it seems like you are the only person who thinks the WCM is being over-emphasized.Tvx1 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Pelmeen10 version. Clear and easy to read. This table has to make make a clear and good overview of the situation on the drivers market. So emphasising the WCM is a must. Manufacturer contracted drivers and privately entered drivers are on a different situation in the drivers market! It gives a much clearer picture of the season, contracted drivers and privately entered drivers sorted. Our goal is to make the article easy to understand for the reader, not to follow FIA rules with bureaucratic punctuality! --Klõps (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment:

"emphasising the WCM is a must"

That implies that it is more important than the WCD or WCCD, which it is not.

"a different situation in the drivers market"

There is more to the championship than the driver market. We are interested in everything to do with the championship, not just drivers moving between teams.

"Our goal is to make the article easy to understand for the reader, not to follow FIA rules with bureaucratic punctuality!"

I don't see how emphasising the WCM at the expense of the WCD and WCCD achieves that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In this state I can't support this table. The way the captions and headers are formatted it creates many accessibility issues as explained by our MOS.Tvx1 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Well, my main point was that we should remove manufacturer column. How would you see the table(s)? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10 — personally, I like removing it. Toyota is not classified as a manufacturer; Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT is. But that creates a side issue where GRX Team is not a manufacturer, but rather an entrant. To further complicate things, GRX entered Gronholm, but Toyota Gazoo ran the car for him. The definition of what is an entrant and what is a constructor is no longer as clearly cut as it once was. To keep using the same terminology despite this change is a mistake. It's one of the reasons why I want to completely re-structure the tables, and I think Option 3 addresses all of those issues and then some. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Yeah, also "Tommi Mäkinen Racing" cars are run by MM Motosport (Markko Märtin Motosport) link. That aside, I think it's perfectly fine to mention whatever the name they have chosen to entry list; no "manufacturer" is needed. If we look at any entry list either official, ewrc-results, wrc.com etc nothing like that is included. But I really don't like using rally article style entry list in a season one. Why would we want to have a season entry list ordered by each car number? Like that is somehow very important. It's not. To me, it looks a mess (not making it easier to understand the sport). We've chosen our current tables based on what we think is important. So currently by those 4 big teams, and then (more or less) individual entries. Championship or any proffessional competition is oriented towards results and who is better. Who has the means to be on top or drives a full season. Or gets hired for some rallies by a team who wants to win manu title (trying to promote their car). There's a big difference who gets paid (is good enough in the eyes of teams and sponsors) and who pays for their drive. Yes, though M-Sport has a different logic. // Anyway, I understand that eligibility for manu points is somewhat weird, mostly in the example of Sordo who drove 1 rally last year in a manu team, but was not nominted for manu points. Having Sordo twice in an entry list, driving the same car in the same team - too confusing and pointless. But, my next suggestion is still seperate manu team from private entries.

Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
			No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	1–4
			4	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm	1–4
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	3	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	1–4
			7	Pontus Tidemand	Ola Fløene	1–2
			33	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	1–4
			TBA	Gus Greensmith	Elliott Edmondson	TBA
Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	3–4
			11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	1–4
			19	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	1–2, 4
			89	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Amland	1–3
Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	5	Kris Meeke	Sebastian Marshall	1–4
			8	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	1–4
			10	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	1–4
Mauro Miele	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	20	Mauro Miele	Luca Beltrame	1
Jean-Charles Beaubelique		TBA	40	Jean-Charles Beaubelique	Julien Pesenti	4
Robert Simonetti		TBA	43	Robert Simonetti	Célia Simonetti	4
Armando Pereira	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	TBA	41	Armando Pereira	Rémi Tutélaire	4
Alain Vauthier		TBA	42	Alain Vauthier	Gilbert Dini	4
GRX Team	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	68	Marcus Grönholm	Timo Rautiainen	2
Source:

Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"I think it's perfectly fine to mention whatever the name they have chosen to entry list"

I'm not so sure about that. There is clearly a difference between manufacturer and entrant. As evidenced by the WRC-2 discussion above, "entrant" appears to be little more than a name on a piece of paper, and the entrants of 2019 are very different to those of, say, 1999.

"Why would we want to have a season entry list ordered by each car number?"

For one, it's logical; the organisation of the table is obvious to the reader. Second, it's neutral; there is no over-emphasis of the manufacturers' championship. And finally, it's a compromise; opponents of change have said that the style needs to be consistent with the style of other, related articles and this is consistent with the style of rally report articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

But you are trying to over-emphasize car numbers. Organising the whole table by entrants (what you so-call over-emphasizing manufacturer championship) gives the table readable structure and makes it look simpler - you'll see how many cars each team enters and where they enter them. What do you think a reader searches from a season entrant table? Rally-article style tables can be already seen in those articles. A season table should be a bit more informative. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This RfC has expired. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to give an uninvolved editor time to read over the discussion and offer some insight. You have had an entire month to contribute these arguments, not to mention the lengthy discussions on talk pages. Reviving the discussion now may be interpreted as deliberately stalling to drag the conversation out and force a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of summarizing this thread if nothing even near a consensus is reached. I totally forgot this discussion (I have other thing to do), but when I saw you posted (in this case, a summary section), then ofc I remembered to leave a reply. Anyway, this discussion has not been closed yet. Privately entered cars are always in a bit different situation, in WRC-2 they even made them a seperate championship and now we also have 2 tables @ 2019_World_Rally_Championship-2#Entries based on championship. You are partly right, IMO that we should not seperate them by points eligibility, rather than 1)factory entrants and 2)privately entered crews. It can be combined into 1 table, or we can keep using the old style. But if we don't mention the points eligibility in that table, it should be mentioned elsewhere if a confusion is possible. And I have a question, is this edit OK or not because I did not see anybody wanting to keep this confusing and incorrect column. Mclarenfan17, you also did not actually tell what did you think about my last suggested table format, rather than replying to my comments.

"I'm not so sure about that. There is clearly a difference between manufacturer and entrant. As evidenced by the WRC-2 discussion above, "entrant" appears to be little more than a name on a piece of paper, and the entrants of 2019 are very different to those of, say, 1999." - Sorry, I did not understand what were you trying to say. Examples? Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"What's the point of summarizing this thread if nothing even near a consensus is reached."

Because consensus is not a vote. This thread attracted all of the comments that it could, and a clear pattern emerged. Most editors supported some form of change and Option 3 was the most popular, if by a lesser margin. Consensus does not need to be unanimous because if it did, all it would take is a minority of one person refusing to budge and no change would take place.

"this discussion has not been closed yet"

A bot removed the RfC template. That means the discussion has been taken off the list of active RfC discussions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Any design decision should constrain the overwhelming use of flag icons in these kinds of tables. They are near un-readable to the casual reader. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @GenQuest — it's much better than it used to be. The general consensus at WP:MOTOR is that competitors represent nations, if not in the same way that Olympians do. It's not something that I agree with, but attempts to change it elsewhere have been very poorly-received. The real question here is whether we use one or two tables for entries; the matter of flagicons can be addressed separately. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been doing a little bit of digging and have found the reason for the original split: the WRC Trophy.

When the 2017 cars were introduced, the split between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries was much greater. Crews competing in pre-2017 cars were supposed to be eligible for the "WRC Trophy". The idea was that because pre-2017 cars could not compete with the new cars, a separate competition within the championship was created to attract entries. At the time splitting the table into Manufacturer and Trophy entries was seen as the right way forward. However, it soon became apparent that the WRC Trophy was not as significant as we were led to believe it might be; in fact, it was discontinued after one year. There is extensive discussion on the Trophy in the 2017 talk page archives. Given that the reason for splitting the table in the first place no longer exists, it makes even less sense to keep splitting the tables. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That's just not true. We've been using the dual tables since for years before the WRC Trophy came about. That was never the reason to have two tables at all. That was just the point at which you started your campaign to reduce them to one table, a campaign you have restarted every year since.Tvx1 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary

@Robert McClenon — I'm tagging you here because the RfC is now closed (and the discussion ran its course two weeks ago) and I was wondering what you thought of it. I feel that there is very definitely an appetite for change, although what form that change takes is less defined. Of the proposals, Option 3 seems to be the most popular.

However, that is my take on this RfC and in the past I have found that it is difficult to rule on the outcome of a discussion when you are part of that discussion and/or there is no overwhelming consensus. So I am hoping that you will be able to take some time to read the RfC discussion and offer some thoughts on it. Hopefully we can take that as more or less a final outcome. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how Robert McClenon seems to be otherwise engaged and given that there is no objection to my summary of the RfC, I will go ahead and make the changes shortly. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the people involved in this discussion were against, including me. This whole Rfc was so wrongly started. Like there is only 3 possible ways to go. Most people actually preferred not to make any changes. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You cannot claim a consensus has not been reached simply because you disagree with it. I proposed (and naturally supported) Option 3. Unnamelessness and SSSB also voiced support. You yourself supported a change, though not Option 3, and while you got some support for it from Klõps, it was pointed out that your proposal did not work under WP:MOSACCESS. So I have no idea where you are getting the claim that "most people actually preferred not to make any changes". If you cannot honour the consensus, this may have to go to ANI.

"This whole Rfc was so wrongly started. Like there is only 3 possible ways to go."

What was I supposed to do? Come up with every conceivable way of making the table? The RfC process was carried out appropriately. The thread was open for a month, which gave people ample time to discuss the issue and propose solutions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Entrant	Car	Tyre	Crew details
			No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Citroën Total WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	1	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	1–4
			4	Esapekka Lappi	Janne Ferm	1–4
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	M	3	Teemu Suninen	Marko Salminen	1–4
			7	Pontus Tidemand	Ola Fløene	1–2
			33	Elfyn Evans	Scott Martin	1–4
			TBA	Gus Greensmith	Elliott Edmondson	TBA
Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	3–4
			11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	1–4
			19	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	1–2, 4
			89	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Amland	1–3
Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	5	Kris Meeke	Sebastian Marshall	1–4
			8	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	1–4
			10	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	1–4
Mauro Miele	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	20	Mauro Miele	Luca Beltrame	1
Jean-Charles Beaubelique		TBA	40	Jean-Charles Beaubelique	Julien Pesenti	4
Robert Simonetti		TBA	43	Robert Simonetti	Célia Simonetti	4
Armando Pereira	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	TBA	41	Armando Pereira	Rémi Tutélaire	4
Alain Vauthier		TBA	42	Alain Vauthier	Gilbert Dini	4
GRX Team	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	68	Marcus Grönholm	Timo Rautiainen	2
Source:

This was my latest proposal, which works under WP:MOSACCESS, but did not recieve any feedback. (Tyre column could also be listed after crew details.) Besides me and Klõps, Tvx1 and Kovpastish also supported two separate tables (against these three options). So if 4 people were against, you can't say consensus is reached. All I see is that everyone wants to remove the manufacturer column. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"This was my latest proposal, which works under WP:MOSACCESS, but did not recieve any feedback."

Nobody is under any obligation to provide feedback to a proposal simply because it was put forward. Did it occur to you that nobody commented because nobody had anything to say about it?

"Besides me and Klõps, Tvx1 and Kovpastish also supported two separate tables"

Two of those editors did not participate in this RfC. You cannot cite their views in support of your position now because you cannot assume that their views have remained the same.

"So if 4 people were against"

Firstly, consensus is not a vote. Secondly, you're not in a position to call a consensus given that you claimed nobody supported the original proposal when at least three people did.

At this point, everything you are doing looks like a stalling tactic to prevent a consensus that you don't like from being applied. Maybe you should wait for ANRFC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Two of those editors did not participate in this RfC. You cannot cite their views in support of your position now because you cannot assume that their views have remained the same."

Rfc is for requesting community input on article content. This is not the place where previous input is annulled. Also, there is no concrete duration of an Rfc, any editor can relist the discussion. You can read more about the Rfc here. So yes, it's not a vote. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"What was I supposed to do? Come up with every conceivable way of making the table?"

You wanted to make it look like there were only three possible options. There is also a possibility not to make any changes which was actually the most popular opinion before you came up with this Rfc proposal. Though the Rfc wording was not the logical continuation of the previous discussions, I guess some editors just don't feel like expressing their opinion 10+ times in every new chapter you create. But you should still respect their opinion, Rfc is mainly created to attract uninvolved editors to join the discussion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"You wanted to make it look like there were only three possible options."

That's an assumption of bad faith. I wanted to find the best possible option and felt that I had achieved it. It's entirely unreasonable to expect that I come up with dozens of possible alternatives.

"This is not the place where previous input is annulled."

But we cannot assume that those editors hold the same views as they did before because opinions can and do change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — I saw your comment over at ANI. I'm not sure how it is unclear:

1. I proposed three alternatives and ultimately supported Option 3.
2. Unnamelessness supported Option 3, with minor changes.
3. SSSB supported Option 3.
4. Pelmeen10 proposed a fourth option, a less-radical change.
5. Klõps initially opposed any change, but later supported Pelmeen10's proposal.
6. Tvx1 did not support any proposal, but did point out that Pelmeen10's version did not satisfy WP:MOSACCESS because of its markup.

Based on this, it is quite clear that Option 3 is the favoured version. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, after forgetting about the discussion for two weeks and insisting that the discussion is ongoing, you have made no further arguments for or against any of the options on offer and have now ignored the discussion for three more days. So much for that "ongoing discussion". If nobody has anything else to say, I think we can close the RfC for good and implement Option 3 in the articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree. This definitely needs closure from someone uninvolved (such as Robert McClenon). I have been reading the discussion and I do not see a solution emerging here, definitely not the way You have put it in Your last statement. First the set up for the RfC was really confusing (see WP:WRFC). Secondly, that Your opinion is dominating does not mean that this is the solution. You have been holding siege here. Attrition isn't a way to win a dispute. --Klõps (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You had just as much opportunity to respond to every comment as I did. If you did not choose to, then that's on you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not about that, but with Your overwhelming participation here, it would be better if someone neutral closes it. On my participation... I'd remind You that we were recommended not to continue the dispute in the closing statement of the Dispute resolution. However You chose to continue and put up this really confusing RfC that possibly scared away any uninvolved editors. Also You beat the crap out of anyone who dared to get involved, but the result is that the RfC just died out with no clear outcome. So You have no position to declare yourself a victory with attrition. --Klõps (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"we were recommended not to continue the dispute in the closing statement of the Dispute resolution"

An RfC was also recommended. You agreed to move the discussion here and hold an RfC.

"You chose to continue and put up this really confusing RfC that possibly scared away any uninvolved editors"

You had no problems with it being "really confusing" until Robert McClenon described it as such and demonstrated that you were quite capable of contributing to it at the time of discussion. Your opposition to the change is well-documented, so your comments here look like you're stalling to prevent a consensus that you don't like because you know more people are in favour of the change than are opposed to it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Read back and forth through this discussion I still cannot see a clear consensus that a change is warrende in the first place. The RFC lacks neutrality in that keeping the existing format is not even presented as an option at all, even though that always should have been option 1. It clearly established that a change is mandatory, when the discussions don't show that at all. And note that the fourth presented option can be easily tweaked to meet the guidelines, though that would make it the same as what we currently use minus the manufacturer column.Tvx1 11:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"The RFC lacks neutrality"

We have managed to go six or more weeks without this being an issue. As soon as Robert McClenon suggested it, though, you all jumped on the bandwagon. If it was as big of a problem as you suggested, you should have raised it then.

"keeping the existing format is not even presented as an option at all"

The terms of the RfC were agreed to at the DRN. It's exactly what Robert McClenon negotiated between myself and Klõps. Klõps did indeed raise the suggestion of keeping the format early on, and it was ignored.

"that would make it the same as what we currently use minus the manufacturer column"

No, because the organisation of the table would not be apparent. Without the manufacturer column, it would need to be organised alphabetically by entrant and I know exactly how that conversation will go because apparently we need to priositise the manufacturers' championship over everything else even though the sport does not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what happens when someone arrives to assess the RFC after it expired. They start right back with the introduction. And again you're not being truthful here. Someone already voiced their concerns with the introduction just two days after you posted it. And the concerns are certainly justified. You clearly used the introduction to already dictate what the participants should choose. As for the ordering without the manufacturer's column, alphabetically by entrant is natural then and I don't see why anyone would object to that. Also, there is no prioritizing of the manufacturers' championship. No-one has agreed with your repeated claims to that effect, so it's really time to drop them. There is merely distinguishment. And we have it because that's how the sport itself does it. It's just basic information that we tell our readers who entered for the manufacturers' championship and who didn't. And the dual tables format is still the best way to do that. You're preferred version isn't, because it overemphasizes the numbers and most importantly because the bolding isn't accessible to all readers.Tvx1 10:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Someone already voiced their concerns with the introduction just two days after you posted it."

And you all had ample opportunity to agree with him. So why didn't anybody? Could it be that nobody felt it was the right approach?

"You clearly used the introduction to already dictate what the participants should choose."

Firstly, the terms of the RfC negotiated at DRN were to explore alternatives to the current system. Rather than try and explore every possible layout at once, wouldn't it be wiser to explore every possible alternative then select the community's preferred alternative and compare it to the current layout? When the person who raised keeping the current layout got no support for it in the discussion and even backed away from that, I felt that comparing the preferred alternative to the current layout was unnecessary.

Secondly, it's pretty obvious that I have no love for the current layout, as evidenced by the extensive argument I made against it. I cannot find a single redeeming quality to it. If I proposed it as an option, you'd likely criticise me for trying to manipulate people into avoiding it by downplaying it. When I feel that strongly about an issue, I think the better course of action would be to let someone who believes in an alternative that I disagree with be the person to make the case for that alternative because they will almost certainly make a better argument for it than I can. Part of the process of consensus-building is to persuade your audience of the merits of a particular edit. Arguing against myself by presenting the merits of an edit I disagree with undermimes what I am doing.

"Also, there is no prioritizing of the manufacturers' championship."

Except that a) that's exactly what splitting the tables does, and b) it's been the backbone of Klõps' argument the whole times and he has been leading the supporters of the current layout. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to argue "the discussion is ongoing" when you ignore it for two weeks, insist on restarting it and then ignore it for another two weeks. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No matter how ongoing it is, it simply doesn't show the consensus you claim it does. You are literally the only one seeing it. Besides, you posted a request for closure, didn't you?Tvx1 10:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There were six people in this dicussion: you, me, Unnamelessness, SSSB, Pelmeen10 and Klõps. This is what they had to say:

• I, obviously, supported it.
• Unnamelessness said "Option 3 looks pretty good" and "More appropriate under today's regulations and much easier to do copy-edit when creating an entry list", which is clear support.
• SSSB said "I would argue that option 3 is the best.
• Pelmeen10 said "My suggestion is to remove 'Manufacturer' column, because it adds confusion".
• Klõps was initially opposed to any change, but then went on to ssy "Support Pelmeen10 version".
• You did not support any particular version.

So please explain how this amounts to no consensus when half the participants supported one particular version and five of the six editors involved supported some change from the split-table model. Your claim that "I am the only one seeing a consensus" is BS designed to stop a consensus that you don't like. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Because clearly three peeople (Me, Klõps, Pelmeen10) did NOT support option three at all. You have thus just as much opposers as supporters. I couldn't be any more obvious that there is no consensus in favor of that proposal at all. And four people have so far stated independently of one another that they don't see you're claimed consensus. So it isn't "BS" at all. You're just trying to bludgeon through what you decided that must happen. Learn how to LOSE.Tvx1 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You never actually stated a position. Klõps referenced your previous position, but without you confirming it, I couldn't assume that that was still your position. After all, at least one editor here has changed their mind since the last discussion.

And do you deny that at least five editors have supported some kind of change, even if they disagree as to what kind of change should ultimately be implemented? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

None of them stated clearly that they were convinced a change is necessary. They just gave their opinions on the proposal without stating that use of one them is required. Four people have now stated independently of one another that they don't see a clear consensus for a change. You remain the only one who sees a consensus in your favor. The RFC was flawed from the beginning as it didn't present no change as a proper option.Tvx1 13:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"None of them stated clearly that they were convinced a change is necessary."

That a clear case of moving the goalposts.

"Four people have now stated independently of one another that they don't see a clear consensus for a change."

No, four people have stated that they don't see a clear consensus for the specific change that I believed was present.

"The RFC was flawed from the beginning as it didn't present no change as a proper option."

Wrong. The RfC originally asked "What format should these tables take?" It was only then that I outlined my position (some 40 minutes later), which I clearly set aside as a separate comment and which I pointed out was my own view. I also linked to the proposals on my talk page. I did all of that on 10 March. The tables were edited into the article and given their own dedicated sections and a section called "discussion" was added to the RfC by Robert McClenon on 18 April (nine days after I asked him to review the RfC). His edit is unsigned and there is nothing in the RfC to indicate that he has done this; for all intents and purposes, it appears that I included them from the outset, which I did not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Something like this is a solution that satisfies all of the comments. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, as an added advantage, this hybrid version fits the default display width—readers on the desktop version of the site don't have to scroll side-to-side to read the table (or have to deal with smaller font if the display is automatically readjusted to make it fit). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The hybrid version doesn't satisfy much at all. The only thing it does, is that it makes the entries for the manufacturers' championship less clear? And there is still no justification present in this discussion to do so. Moreover, relying on a font variation does not satisfy MOS:ACCESS. A set of readers don't receive that information at all. As for your width concern, as said before, the same solution can be achieved through removing the manufacturer column from the dual tables. That in itself is not justification for overhauling the complete table styles.Tvx1 08:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, with regards to your claim that four people have merely stated that they merely don't see a consensus for your preferred proposal. That's clearly wrong. Pelmeen10, Klõps and Robert McClenon have all stated that they do no see a consensus for any change at all.Tvx1 09:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Option 4

"The hybrid version doesn't satisfy much at all."

1. It removes the two table format, which I wanted. SSSB agreed with that when he said "2 entry tables suggests 2 distinct competitions happening at 1 organised event".
2. It is easier to edit, which Unnamelessness suggested.
3. It still separates out the WCM entries, which Klõps wanted.
4. It overhauls the table without being a radical departure from other tables, which Pelmeen10 wanted.
5. It keeps the ordering of the table natural, which you suggested was necessary when you said "[if] alphabetically by entrant is natural then and I don't see why anyone would object to that".

The hybrid design pretty much satisfies everyone.

"The only thing it does, is that it makes the entries for the manufacturers' championship less clear?"

As I have said from the outset, the entry list should not make that distinction. The results matrices do that. By making the distinction, we effectively create three entry lists: manufacturer WRC entries, non-manufacturer WRC entries, and entries that are not World Rally Cars and thus not included. I'm willing to trade that away and make the distinction if it means achieving a consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and that's your opinion. And as has also been abundantly clear from the outset, there is little agreement with your stance that the entry lists should not make that distinction. Result matrices are just not that practical for that purpose.Tvx1 12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — which is why I'm willing to negotiate it away; it's a deal-breaker for some people. You know perfectly well that consensus is about compromise. That's what Option 4 is: a version of the entry table that satisfies everyone's comments/expectations/demands/etc. as stated in the RfC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel fit satisfies everyone's comments/expectations/demands/etc. at all. It only serves to make the manufacturer points eligible entries less clear. And as stated before, relying on font variation is not an accessible way of conveying information. The fact remains that over the multiple discussion that were held, there still doesn't appear to be a consensus that a change is required.Tvx1 11:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"And as stated before, relying on font variation is not an accessible way of conveying information."

So what would improve it?

"there still doesn't appear to be a consensus that a change is required"

And that's a classic case of moving the goalposts because it seems I now needed two consensuses: one in support of a new layout and one in support of changing the existing one. It could create a situation where there could be a clear consensus in favour of a new layout, but if no-one said "I support changing the existing design", you could claim that there was no consensus for change and try to block it—which I think was your intention in raising this need for a second consensus. Editors could (and did) support keeping the existing layout. Some that did just changed their minds later. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no moving of the goalposts at all. It's just basis procedure that if a change is proposed through discussions that some sort of agreement is found that a change is needed at all. And through the multiple discussions that have been held recently, no such clear agreement has emerged. And the proposal you claimed had a consensus, has just as much opposition as support.Tvx1 08:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"It's just basis procedure that if a change is proposed through discussions that some sort of agreement is found that a change is needed at all."

Except you're mandating that two separate consensuses need to be formed. It is reasonsble for those taking part in the discussion to conclude that by supporting a proposal, they support making a change to the article.

"And the proposal you claimed had a consensus, has just as much opposition as support."

Which is hardly the complete lack of consensus you suggest it to be. There is clearly an appetite for change, whatever form it may take, yet you seem hell-bent on preventing it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:47, 1 June 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.