This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Motorsport Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. World Rally Start‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying related articles on Wikipedia, including the FIA World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.World RallyWikipedia:WikiProject World RallyTemplate:WikiProject World RallyWorld Rally articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

If you felt as strongly about the issue as your comments suggest, you would have made the effort to change other articles. And yet, you haven't even bothered to change it in a single article—not even the ones directly related to the subject. This leads me to conclude that you are letting a personal agenda dictate your editing practice. I don't need you to "let it slide" because you have no more or less authority than any other editor. Edits don't need your personal approval, so check your ego at the door. 1.129.110.250 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — As per MOS:NUMERAL, both "One" and "1" are acceptable, but the style should be used consistently throughout an article. This article uses digits to refer to other championships such as the World Rally Championship-2, World Rally Championship-2 Pro and World Rally Championship-3. Thus, in the context of referring to series' titles, we should use "Formula 1" for consistency, even if it does trigger a redirect. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, it does not matter. You can't compare it to WRC2/WRC3 because they are not also called WRC Two or WRC Three. Would you change "forty-seventh season" to 47th and "fourteen events" to 14? If you do these changes, I'll support you cuz you actually try to use some style. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should do some re-reading. MOS:Number literally states that integers from one to nine should be spelled out.Tvx1 10:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use two separate styles for the same thing in the one article. Both "Formula 1" and "World Rally Championship-2" are series titles and so should be represented the same way. The only way that we could use the name "Formula One" consistently is if we referred to the "World Rally Championship-Two", and there is not a single source that will back that up, much less enough sources to supersede the use of "World Rally Championship-2". Given that you have made no effort to change "Formula 1" to "Formula One" in any other article, I have to wonder what you're trying to achieve here. 1.144.111.54 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the article (and all WRC articles) should be changed so that the entry list appears before the calendar. This is because of the structure of the article lead. As per WP:LEAD:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

In other words, this is the who, what, where, when, how and why of the article. The article lead is written with this in mind.

Furthermore:

Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

The lead does exactly this; it gradually introduces ideas.

Finally:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

This is significant because the lead introduces the idea of competitors before it introduces the idea of events:

"The 2019 FIA World Rally Championship is due to be the forty-seventh season of the World Rally Championship, an auto racing championship recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) as the highest class of international rallying. Teams and crews will compete in fourteen events for the World Rally Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers and Manufacturers. Crews are free to compete in cars complying with World Rally Car and Group R regulations; however, only Manufacturers competing with World Rally Cars homologated under regulations introduced in 2017 are eligible to score points in the Manufacturers' championship. The series will once again be supported by the World Rally Championship-2 category at every round and by the Junior World Rally Championship at selected events. The World Rally Championship-3 was discontinued."

It is a more logical progression to introduce competitors before events, especially since some competitors are only contesting a few events. By putting the entry list first, the reader can take in the information and read on to find out which events are being contested, but by putting the calendar first, the reader has to scroll back up, which breaks the cosehion of the article.

Putting the entry list before the calendar is also a convention of just about every championship article within the scope of WP:MOTOR. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need a consensus here to move entries before calendar. Nobody has ever even brought up this "issue" in WRC articles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this issue here two days ago. In that time, this talk page has seen a lot of traffic. Nobody has voiced any opposition to the change, which means I'm free to go ahead with it. If there is no opposition, "you don't have a consensus" is not a reason to oppose the change. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your edit with mentioning you don't have a consensus, means you don't have a consensus, it's a clear opposition. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not every change needs a consensus. Consensus is there to discussed proposed changes, but if there is no opposition to a change, editors are free to implement them. Which leads me to ask: why are you avoiding discussing the proposal and are instead insisting that there is no consensus to block the change? If you cannot come up with an actual argument as to why the calendar should be listed before the entries, then you should accept the change. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? By looking previous season articles you can see that entries section is much-much longer than the calendar, with lots of text included. Calendar (mostly short table) is the most essential part of the season, that is the part you would like to know first - when is this sport happening? Also, for a random reader, these names mean nothing. Calendar is logical build up next to introduction. First there has to be a rally for somebody to take part in. Calendar hardly changes (already set for the whole season), but entry list is not so certain, it depends on the calendar/rally. So the rules you are referring to, are not supporting your opinion. Even though you referred to lead section rules, which are a bit off topic here. Having calendar before is much more easing into the subject, rather just dropping the entries without enough backround of the 2019 season (which calendar provides). Just to mention, you have never tried to reach a consensus, you always push your opinion - no matter if it means edit warring. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The length of a section has nothing to do with its position.
2. Competitors are at least as important as the calendar.
3. If listing the calendar first was the most logical approach, every championship article within the scope of WP:MOTOR would do it. As it is, WRC articles are the only ones that do.
4. As per WP:CONSENSUS:

"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

Not every change needs to be discussed in advance. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. - I have reverted you atleast 3 times. But you still don't understand the rules here... Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you only provided a reason here. Until then, all you said is "you don't have a consensus", which is an example of trying to block a consensus. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rally reports detail the entries before the itinerary and an itinerary is basically a calendar for the event. The championship articles should be formatted the same way. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing and we don't have itineraries included in most articles. Even wrc.com has calendar before teams&drivers. About the event articles and their build-up, you should bring that up in one of those discussions, maybe Talk:2019 Monte Carlo Rally. Was the first time you introduced itinerary 2018 Wales Rally GB? There's not much to read from that actually, where are times? And is that table even necessary? Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, itineraries matter. For one, it shows more than just which stages are run—it shows service parks, regroups and the physical place of the stages. It also gives the chance to discuss how the route was changed year on year. The start times are difficult because there are dozens of crews released at three-minute intervals; with sixty entries, it takes three hours just to get every car into a stage. Multiple stages are also run concurrently.

Wales 2018 was not the first time I have tried to introduce an itinerary—2013 Monte Carlo Rally was the first time I tried it, but there wasn't really a core group of editors back then so it was difficult to sustain it. 1.144.108.211 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since new regulation of numbering has approved, it is time to dissuss the new tables for the manufacturers' standing. From my personal prospective, the table lay-out can have a copy of F1's, where they used new style in 2014 when new regulation of fixed number began, because

a) No more reluctant NCs.

b) Manufacturers only have at most two cars to score the points in each rally, not three.

c) Aviod messy numbers, which would occurred in the original table.

I will use 2018 table to explain.

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	2	4	6	2	1	4	3	1	1	1	2	6	1	368
		3	6	7	6	7	8	7	3	3	2	3	7	4
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

-- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call those NCs "reluctant". They were included because all three cars were eligible to score points at the start of the event and so omitting them implies that they were never eligible to score in the first place.

I would also refrain from modelling the table on F1 seasons. The F1 WikiProject has had lots of problems with people not understanding the layout of the matrix and trying to change it to the pre-2014 style. There's just a core group of editors who refuse to budge and claim that there's no problem with the matrix despite constant edit requests. It was a bad edit and one that I strongly suspect was pushed through because one team used five different numbers in 2017, which created large white spaces in the matrix that people were opposed to. It was a confusing edit based on a cosmetic issue that has caused problems for months. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturers table is the table that shows how many points each team scores and how they score these points. "NC" respresents the crew doesn't score any points for the manufacturer. In another word, without NCs, the manufacturer still score the same points as with NCs. So, why do we still contain those redundant NCs? If you go to the WRC official website and see how they list manufacturers' standing, you will find that they also use the same layout as I recommend. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because those crews are eligible to score points when the rally starts. It's not like the teams have to nominate two crews to score points before the start of a rally. The NCs are not redundant because those crews were eligible to score points, but did not score (they were Not Classified in the manufacturers' standings). Removing them implies that they were never eligible to score or that they were never entered. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, removing NCs doesn't equal to ineligible to score or something else. In the "Entries" section, we can find all the information about which crew are eligible to score at which rally. So, this table should be entirely focus on how many points each manufacturer scores and how they score these points instead of indicating how many crews are eligible to score points. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except we distinguish between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries in the entry lists. To then only present some of those entries in the matrix breaks the cohesion of the article.

Furthermore, the manufacturers' championship uses a different scoring system to the drivers' and co-drivers' championship. Including the NCs is a key part of a) showing how manufacturers scored points and b) differentiating it from the other results matrices. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IMPERFECT, chasing one-to-one correspondence, i.e."the cohesion of the article", is somewhat unnecessary I think.

"Including the NCs is a key part of showing how manufacturers scored points."

It is the top two crews of each manufacturer that score points. Removing NCs is just an action similar to hide it. It doesn't mean we do not acknowledge its scoring system.

"Including the NCs is a key part of differentiating it from the other results matrices."

We've already have three secondary entries (FIA World Rally Championship for Drivers, FIA World Rally Championship for Co-Drivers and FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers). "FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers" is much clearer than NCs to different it from the other results matrices. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:3O, I think we need more editors to discuss this. Tvx1, Pelmeen10, Kovpastish What are your opinions? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, but I think it's necessary to list all 3 cars in the table. I think the proposed table looks good, but if 2 out of the 3 drivers that can score manufacturers' points retire, only 1 retirement can be included in that table → what happened to the third car? Most teams will enter 3 cars in 2019 (only Citroën will enter two the whole season). A scenario for this in a modified points table:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	2	4	6	2	1	4	3	1	1	1	2	6	1	330
		3	Ret	7	6	7	8	7	3	3	Ret	3	7	Ret
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

This table implies that 2 of the 3 entered Toyota's retired in Sweden, Turkey and Australia, but it doesn't say so directly. It only tells that 1 car retired instead of 2. Another scenario might be that 1 car scores points, 1 retires and the last gets excluded - which one gets included in the final table, out of the retired or the excluded? Keeping the rules simple would include all 3 cars and avoid any clashes of interest in including retirements, withdrawals or disqualifications and so on. Kovpastish (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Then what about this one:(Ret→DSQ→DNS→WD)

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	2	4	6	2	1	4	3	1	1	1	2	6	1	330
		3	Ret	7	6	7	8	7	3	3	Ret	3	7	Ret
		NC	Ret	NC	NC	NC	NC	NC	NC	NC	DNS	NC	NC	DSQ
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

It is now all about adding car number or not. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for that, without the driver numbers it's sorted and looks tidier than our current. Kovpastish (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know how the numbering system is going to work. Loeb and Sordo are sharing a car—do they share a number? Or do they get individual numbers? What if they choose the same number and so only run under the one but are treated as separate entries. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know yet, but if they really are going to be like the F1 numbering system they would not share the same number (numbers would be driver specific and not chassis specific). But we can only wait for official confirmation. Kovpastish (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the last table, the first row is for best car, second row for second best car and third row for third best car? No matter which car? I think it's okay. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support Unnamelessness's first proposal. I proposed the exact same change myself before and I used some of the exact same argument as the ones given here. It's just pointless to waste table space to "results" that aren't credited to the manufacturers in any way. It's time we start reflecting the sources.Tvx1 19:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources clearly say that three cars are eligible to score points at the start, but only two will score at the end. As has been pointed out—and which you have repeatedly failed to address—omitting the third entry implies things which are not true. If you want the article to reflect the sources, then it must reflect all of the sources, not just the ones that are convenient. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it has already been pointed out to you that your claims about omission are just not true. The entry list esatblishes eligibility and the results table just the results the competitors are credited with. Simple and easy to understand for everyone.Tvx1 21:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree—we make a point of identifying who is eligible to score points in the entry list, so the matrix should reflect all results. After all, we include points-scorers who are running in the WRC-2 in the results matrix, but omit them from the entry list. It would be completely contradictory to include eligible points-scorers in the entry list, but omit them from the matrix. And given the countless number of times the format of the results matrix has had to be explained on the talk page of F1 articles, "simple and easy to understand for everyone" is the last phrase I would use to describe it. I know you like to pretend that everything there is perfect and it just needs time for people to get used to it, but when reades are questioning the format nearly a year after the changes were made, it is clearly not working as intended. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if these changes are accepted and we have the issues I am predicting, who is going to be the one to fix the articles? It's not going to be you—you don't contribute to the article. Given that I have a reasonable belief that these changes will cause problems for the article, I really don't think that you should be advocating for change if you aren't prepared to handle the issues that arise from it. All of this is moot, though, because limiting the table to two rows misrepresents things. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A non-classified finish (NC) and retirement (Ret) are both worth 0 points and both contribute just as much to the championship. Yes, including all the NC's will look redundant but we can't assume that it will be the case for every rally, there will be multiple retirements within a team at some. Disqualifications too, although they are more rare but they can still happen. Including the NC will tell that all of the eligible cars made it to the finish. Kovpastish (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Ford's sitation—they have committed to two season-long entries, and at least two rounds with a third car. If they only enter Evans and Suninen in Mexico—compared to Evans, Suninen and Tidemand in Sweden—then that affects how they can score points. Including the NCs is more complete and more accurate.

And given the problems F1 articles are having, removing the number column will only create headaches here. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "headache"? Unable to compare the results of teammates? No one-to-one correspondence with entry list? This table should be care and only care about HOW each manufacturer scores points instead of how each car of each manufacturer scores. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People kept posting edit requests on F1 championship talk pages because they couldn't understand how the results were organised. If Vettel and Raikkonen finished first and second in one race and then second and first in the next, the matrix would show two first places in the top row and two second places in the bottom row. It was a massive change to the format of the matrix that was applied retroactively to several articles, but not all of them. F1 editors regularly have to explain the format on the talk page which is a problem because they shouldn't have to explain it—the organisation of the table should be obvious at first glance. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly emphasized what should this table be focus on. That is the manufacturer, not drivers. It is completely unnecessary to list all details in one table. If you are worried about the clarity, explain it with a few words before the table. That's enough. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations of how an article is structured are inappropriate. Worse, they're proof of bad editing practice. We should not need to explain how the table is organised—it should be obvious at first glance.

And given that the manufacturers' championship awards the same points as the other championships but awards them in a different way, there should be sone correlation between the tables to make understanding them easier.

The current system of organisation showing who scored which result within a team is not a bad system. It does not shift the focus of the matrix away from showing how a team scored their points and may even prove beneficial in the long run. Hyundai are running four crews across three cars whereas Citroën are only running two crews in two cars. It's a fundamentally difference approach to the championship that affects how they score points: for Citroën, every result counts; Hyundai, on the other hand, have some latitude. If you want the focus to be on how the team scored points, then how the team structured themselves to score points is a key part of that. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, would you please have a look at the manufacturers' championship of WRC website? They also use the best car and second-best car to count points. The new table is very easy to understand because it lists from the best car to the worst car. It is logical. How the team structured themselves to score points is the thing we should be done in the entry list. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? That a source does it? We have other sources thst clearly state the third car is entered, but does not score. We should write the article to reflect all sources, not just the ones that are to our liking.

Your proposal is not logical at all because the format has been used elsewhere and there is a documented history of readers not understanding it. How is that logical?

Given that the results matrix shows how the teams scored the points, their chosen structure is extremely relevant because it affects how they can score points. It is at least as relevant to the matrix as it is to the entry list, if not more relevant (because the entry list shows who started whereas the matrix shows how they finished). Just because we make that distinction in one place, that does not mean we cannot or should not continue to make that distinction elsewhere in the article. Especially when those two places are at opposite ends of the article and there is an entire article between them.

An article should be written with an holistic view in mind. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an huge division between you and me. (well, us) This is impossible to get consensus. Plus, "An article should be written with an holistic view in mind." How do we define "holistic"?

At this point, RfC is needed. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamelessness — when I say "holistic", I mean all-encompassing. We should consider not just each section of an article individually, but how they all fit into the article together and influence each other. For example, in the section above this one, I have proposed putting the entries before the calendar because the article lead introduces the idea that entires are competing before it introduces the idea that they are competing in a series of rounds. In other words, how we structure the entry table influences the results matrix and how we structure the results matrix influences the entry table.

Ideally, there should be one table for all entries, regardless of eligibility for points. The results matrix would then show the distinction of how points were scored, and this includes incorporating the structure of the teams into the results matrix. 1.144.111.230 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, all-encompassing. I would say the manufacturer table as well as the other three result tables together list the statistics to display us results and standings. That's their duty. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is all about making it one-to-one correspondence, I would say this is over-chasing the perfection. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is just a case of being over-concerned. The individual drivers' result are of no concern to the Manufacturers' results. That's why don't have their names either. There is corresponding result for every entry in the Drivers (and co-drivers) table. There you have your connection. The manufacturers table should only list those results credited for that championship. Every additional information is unnecessary complication.Tvx1 12:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers" table add car number? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Per previous entry, No. Because Manufacturers' standing is the standing that speifically counts the manufacturers' points, not drivers. This table should completely concentrate on how each manufacturer scores points, which is the best two cars score points regardless of which car. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: per previous discussion, yes. Each manufacturer has structured their team differently (Citroën only has two cars, M-Sport Ford has two cars with a third on a round-by-round basis, Toyota has three full-time cars and Hyundai has three cars shares across four crews) and this affects how they can score points. Adding the numbers column allows for additional sorting within each manufacturer to show the reader how points were scored from round to round. Furthermore, ever since the proposed format was introduced to Formula 1 articles, it has been subject to ongoing dispute here is a lit of every instance I have so far found:
  1. WCC RET issue
  2. Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018
  3. WCC table is very badly broken
  4. Haas points in article wrong for USA.
  5. Constructor Standings: Ferrari mix-up
  6. World Constructors' Championship standings
  7. Constructors' Standings revisited

Don't just take it from me that this is an issue, here is what @Zwerg Nase (sorry, I have to mention you since I am quoting you directly) had to say in one of those discussions:

"I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment."

Others have repeatedly voiced concerns about the proposal; I would tag them too, but do not want to be canvassing. The proposal has a documented history of causing problems elsewhere (the only reason those changes have not been reverted is because some editors refuse to acknowledge that it is an issue) and given that it removes detail of how teams scored points (which is what the matrix is designed to show), it is clearly a bad choice to incorporate here. 1.144.111.230 (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been only a year since the new table introduced in F1, it is very reasonable that some editors can't understand. People need time to read and get used to it just like a video game's bugs require time to fix. Btw, this is WRC, not F1. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pay too much attention too them. They were never supporting of the proposed change of the F1 table in the first place. And even though it was implented with clear consenus they have since tried everything at their might to reverse the changes. What they say here about the complaints is exaggerated and wrong. The people DO understand the tables, they just don't all agree with the presentation. But nearly none of them keep complaining after a response to their talk page post. Moreover, we haven't had any complaint for nearly two months.Tvx1 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been only a year since the new table introduced in F1, it is very reasonable that some editors can't understand. People need time to read and get used to it just like a video game's bugs require time to fix. Btw, this is WRC, not F1."

And yet, other widespread changes were introduced without a single complaint. They did not need a year for people to adapt to them. I suspect the problem on the F1 pages is far more extensive than we believe as the results matrices are in templates, not the article. This change was made to keep the size of the articles down and reduce vandalism, and has probably prevented people from restoring the original format because they do not know how to access the templates.

More to the point, I have documented a year's worth of problems that this change has caused. You yourself cited the F1 articles as a model for the change, so you can hardly argue that F1 has no bearing on the article now. What cause do you have to believe that the problems faced on the F1 articles will not be experienced here?

"Don't pay too much attention too them."

Or do pay attention to me. I've been editing WRC pages since 2012. I can't find the last time Tvx1 made a meaningful contribution to a WRC page. If this change goes ahead and my prediction of disruption comes true, will he be the one fixing matrices and explaining the format on the talk page? I don't think so. Would he even be aware of this discussion if you hadn't tagged him?

"What they say here about the complaints is exaggerated and wrong."

I just provided evidence of seven attempts to change the matrices and I was not even looking too hard. How is that an exaggeration?

"The people DO understand the tables, they just don't all agree with the presentation."

How about I quote some of the discussions that I linked to?

"I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment."

"I am just wondering if there was a change in the formatting policy or if the most recent seasons need to be brought in line with the prior way of doing things."

"The results for the German GP for the Ferrari boys have been erroneously switched."

"Pretty much every row in the WCC table is completely wrong."

These do not sound like the words of people who understand the changes. The one constant in these discussions is you telling people there is no problem.

"Moreover, we haven't had any complaint for nearly two months."

For a change that you introduced a year ago. So you've gone ten months dealing with the problem, then. That's hardly any better given that you're talking about a change to a table that people should immediately understand. 1.144.111.54 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A proper discussion with a RFC was held during the summer to evaluate whether the change should be made and no consensus was achieved to do so. As for your "template theory". The first four season article using the new system don't use templates and there was next to no editing on their constructors' standings. Your theory thus just doesn't hold water. You've had more than your say and your concerns were more than heard. It's way past the time to drop the stick now and stop acting so frustrated.Tvx1 12:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've given up trying to change things there. But I'll be damned if I just roll over and let you introduce a bad change to another article. You have consistently failed to address any of the concerns raised here; in which parallel universe is spending ten months explaining the format of a table good editing practice? And what gives you the right to burden an article with a problematic format when your contributions show that you do not actually contribute anything to that article and will likely leave it to others to clean up the mess? As far as I am concerned, if you're not willing to put in the work to explain your changes, then your words count for nothing in this discussion. And if the changes go ahead and you don't contribute to the ongoing maintenance, then that's grounds for restoring the original format. 1.144.108.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the "you don't contribute enough" nonsense again. This becomes more pathetic by the minute. What you write here is a clear case of a claim of ownership. You seem to believe that you the authority to set out conditions for changes and on other people's rights to edit a set of articles. You're really making a mockery out of yourself. Judging by this entire discussion, you appear to be literally the only one to see the proposal as a "bad change". And I'm not even introducing it. I didn't propose anything. I was pinged for my opinion and I gave it. That's how community works and after all those years it's about time you'd accept that.Tvx1 11:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're endorsing a change that editors have reason to believe may cause problems. If those problems come to pass, then you should at least take the time to fix it. But if you're not willing, why are you participating in the discussion? What you're saying is that you believe in the proposal, just not enough to see it through. Your words mean nothing if you aren't willing to resolve the issues that arise from it. That's how a community works: if you endorse a change, then you're expected to follow through. Don't make work for others and expect them to be thankful for it because the article is now "better". I have very low hopes for this because in the F1 articles, you're the only one who refuses to believe that seven complaints in ten months is indicative of a problem. That does not bode well for this article. You're happy to dictate how the article should be structured, but you leave it to everyone else to implement and maintain the changes, refuse to acknowledge the growing chorus of people saying "this is a problem", and you have the nerve to accuse me of breakng WP:OWN? I don't think so. Of the two of us, I'm the only one interested in the long-term shape of the article because I'm the only one who works on it. 1.144.107.255 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're trying to discredit other editors' opinions by imposing irrelevant conditions. Others have already explained before that the quantity of one's edits is irrelevant. Reader opinion is just as valuable as editor opinion. Moreover, the amount of work would not be negatively affected by this proposal. Quite on the contrary, the amount of updatable content would be reduced. And your accusations are just ludicrous. I have never stated any intention no to want to see this through. And I'm pretty certain the original proposer and the other supporters are more than willing to commit to the change long term. You are just inventing problems that don't exist.Tvx1 00:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Per previous entry, No. The number system has changed. They no are no longer related to the manufacturers. There is no point anymore in including them.Tvx1 12:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I lean towards no (but would be okay with numbers also, if there would not be too many drivers in one team), but I kind of still miss having the number of points next to position. wrc.com has both of them, while ewrc-results.com lists only points. Especially for new readers, number of points is the thing they would like to know, calculating them from position may be too complicated. In a driver/team article, position in the other hand is better choice. For anon/prisonermonkey: we can, and probably should add a sentence to explain the table. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if you have to explain the format of the table in the article, it's a bad format. 1.144.108.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: according to this edit, the numbers are so important that we can afford to include them in the entry table before we get an official entry list or before we know all of them. However, the same person is arguing that they are so unimportant that they can be cut from the manufacturers' results matrix lest they threaten to confuse the reader as to the purpose of the table. I don't understand this logic at all. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, are they the same concept? Removing the numbers from the manufacturer table equals they are not important? I say once again: The manufacturer table is the table that SPECIFICLY counts points for each manufacturer, not for each driver. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And organising the matrix to include the car number does not fundamentally change that. Can you please cite a single instance of someone who has not understood or misinterpreted a results matrix because of that column? Because I can cite seven examples of people who have been confused by a matrix without it. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If all five drivers of Citroën selects their own number in 2018, with the old table, it would be like:

Pos.	Manufacturer	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
4	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT	A	4	Ret	3	7	6	Ret	WD							237
		B			5	8								1
		C		5				6	5	2	Ret	8	7		3
		D	7	2			Ret	5	6	7	7	Ret	4	8	7
		E					8			NC		7		NC
Pos.	Manufacturer	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Compared with previous tables，you call this "organising the matrix to include the car number does not fundamentally change that"? Are you serious?

And don't cite any examples because none of them read it carefully. I firmly believe that anyone who read the table with attention can easily understand how the entire table works. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with that. It still shows everything that it's supposed to show and, as you put it, "anyone who reads the table with attention can easily understand how the entire table works".

Citroën's 2017 campaign is also a very poor choice to cite as an example considering that Meeke was fired mid-season. If you did it for Toyota or M-Sport, the results would be far less dramatic. It's the same as citing Toro Rosso's 2017 carousel of drivers as the reason for changing the F1 matrices—you just don't like all of the white spaces. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation has changed. Under new regulation, old table doesn't fit and we need a new one. That's the reason why I started this discussion, not beacuse of your so-called "I don't like it". I've alreday put my point serveal times here, and everytime you just don't accept it beacuse of the so-called "confusion" in F1 — you just refuse to get over it.

And there is an advice for you — Why don't you create another new account? Because now you look like a puppy editor. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Per previous entry, no. As pointed out, numbers are not linked to manufacturer anymore. M-Sport will also have multiple drivers which will then have its own number and would make the table worse. Kovpastish (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion from last season:

• I would suggest removing the "winning time" column, though. Unlike Grands Prix, the rally length is not fixed; Monte Carlo is nearly a hundred kilometres longer than some events. It also has a very slow average speed compared to the likes of Sweden and Finland. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not to mention that winning time isn't even included in the results tables on the grand prix season articles.Tvx1 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree. Unlike Formula One’s “one racing driver against another racing driver” mode, rally is a motor-racing aganist time. So, time is an important factor. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not for the season summary. Rally time isn't used as some sort of tie-breaking when two or more competitors end up with the same number of points.Tvx1 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Anyway, winning times are quite pointless.-Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Speaking of the summary table, if you all think that the time should be removed, then the minority is subordinate to the majority —— OK, remove it. — Unnamelessness (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, consensus is reached. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would only suggest removing it if it were replaced with the power stage winners, since they get points independently of their rally result. They're also included in the drivers/co-drivers' results matrices. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking back over some previous championship articles looking at ways of trimming them in places, and I noticed the following:

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

To my mind, this just looks unnecessary—it's far too wide. So what I suggest that we do is treat the number in the rounds column as the number of rounds a crew contested, rather than relating to the specific rounds. The above table would look like this:

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

Sure, it's a little change, but I think we're relying far too much on the tables to do things that should be done in the prose. If need be, we can add footnotes to indicate which round(s) part-time drivers contested, but the nature of their part-time roles should be discussed in the prose. 1.144.108.118 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain neutral on this proposal. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamelessness — I'm just looking for ways to make the article more effective whilst reducing clutter. For example, why do we need two entry lists, one for manufacturers and one for non-manufacturers? All it took was one sentence at the start of the entry list and we've removed the need for multiple tables. Why do we need to indicate which rounds were contested in a column when we can use prose to explain it more effectively? Why do the results matrices indicate positions rather than points, requiring readers to cross-reference the matrix with the points table to manually calculate the total?

I have felt for a while now that a lot of the conventions we observe are hold-overs from the early days of Wikipedia when there was a lot to do and decisions had to be made that may not have been discussed because of the volume of work that had to be done and probably have not been revisited since. They may have been the best choices to make at the time, but do they continue to suit the needs of the articles? I think some of these things—like the rounds column and matrices showing positions rather than points—are inherited from WP:MOTOR and WP:F1. Others, such as the split table format, are a hangover from the early 2000s when the WRC had a mess of rules about points eligibility.

I think what we really need to do in 2019 is critically look not at what we're doing, but at why we're doing it. Some of these things are small: it is only recently that we have started emphasising the role of co-drivers in articles; it would used to be that we would mention Ogier as World Champion with no mention of Ingrassia. A newcomer could be forgiven for thinking that there was only one person in the car.

There are a lot of things that I would like to do with the article, and if I was given a blank cheque to restructure it, it would look very different a year from now—but I don't think people could argue that it would be worse. For example, the article always discusses crews before teams, but for some reason the entry list names teams before crews. This might be an alternative:

No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Rounds
7	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	All
11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	All
18	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	All
25	Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	7

It uses simple markup, gives equal weight to drivers, co-drivers and manufacturers, and reflects the entry list format used in individual rally articles. I'm not suggesting this by any means (I prefer the format we currently use), just putting it forward as an example of how we can approach things differently. 1.144.108.151 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should more effective, but it may also take us from one extreme to another. I'm worried that if we over-simplify the page, it may reduce the fluency or consistency of information. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamelessness — there is no way to tell if we do not experiment. If not in the article, then on talk pages and in sandboxes. 1.144.108.151 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just on talk pages. And give me an hour to make it more organized. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly built at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally#Multiple proposals. All discussions should be there. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert the table format, you need a new consensus. 1.129.105.55 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally. Read it over! Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against. This is not consensus. The problem is, that in 2018 and 2017 seasons You add your key and add manufacturer entries in the table, but You DO not add the private entries (Valeriy Gorban MINI), but in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers! If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers.

Table as it is works well. Media and people are interested manufacturers drivers. All media writes is about which team hired which driver. So it is logical to have manufacturers entries in the main table and private entries in the other table! --Klõps (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to stop edit-warring. Secondly, you need a consensus.

"Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against."

And I supported it. With no significant opposition at the time and no opposition since it was introduced, edit-consensus applies.

"in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers!"

And clearly distinguishing between which entries are eligible for manufacturer points and which are not.

"Table as it is works well."

Except that it's full of redundant markup used to build the second table, the content of which never appears anywhere else in the article.

"If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers."

Not at all. There is nothing in the table that says "this is the manufacturer table". If Gorban enters a Mini, it will be clear to the reader that he is not competing for manufacturer points. If you took ten seconds to actually read the table, you would see that quite clearly. But instead, you revert the article on sight, then come in here and make these broad statements that show you don't understand what you're reverting. 1.129.107.50 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years. Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion. As it stands now, the WT:Rally discussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change. Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do.Tvx1 00:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years."

I have been lobbying for a single-table format for years and you know it because you have always opposed it.

"As it stands now, the WT:Rallydiscussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change."

It does not demonstrate a consensus opposed to the change, either. Indeed, some of the people who were non-committal have contributed to the single-table format instead of reverting it.

"Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do."

While I have a form of colourblindness, I also understand how colourblindness works. The shading presents no problem; it is combinations of colours that are a problem. Red alone is fine; red and green presents difficulties. You should know this because I have explained it to you in the past. The use of flagicons throughout an article is more problematic than this system. 1.129.107.201 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion."

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that I participated in the discussion, which Klops was remiss in doing; based on his comment, a reader could be mistaken that only three editors took part. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Your Horses!

1. Create an account. You are on a dynamic IP. We can't follow you and see what you have said before.

2. There is no consensus. You can't claim edit consensus for an edit on system that has been used for years over a number of articles on edit that has been made few days ago. In the discussion at WRC project Someone in a lengthy discussion made a suggestion. One user was neutral one was against. You (IP) did not give your opinion at all! For consensus the question must be clear and it must have some support.

3. Your edits are inconsistent. In 2018 season You only moved Sordo and Serderidis to the entries eligible to score manufacturer points table adding the key and colour background note that they after all aren't eligible. That's why I reverted them back to before Your edits! But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!

4. You are edit warring. I will restore the table. Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before! --Klõps (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no consensus."

There was no opposition. Editors do not need to establish a consensus in advance of making a change.

"You are edit warring. I will restore the table."

That's the very definition of edit-warring.

It is quite clear from some of your comments that you don't even understand what you're reverting given that you have repeatedly incorrectly described what the table is doing.

"But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!"

It was discussed at the WikiProject, but again, you didn't read the discussion. An example of what a colour-coded table would look like was put forward, but you thought it was just for non-manufacturer entries put forward by manufacturer teams.

"Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before!"

Here's one: you should stop editing the article. It's clear you either don't understand what is being discussed, or you are not trying to and are simply revertimg edits you don't like on sight. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am going to be enabling you with this, but here is an outline of what the table is: the table should be for all RC1 entries—all World Rally Cars, both pre- and post-2017 designs. Cars that are eligible to score manufacturer points have a white background in the rounds column; cars that are ineligible have a shaded red background.

This change was put forward because there was no value in having two tables. The markup required to create a second table is extensive and redundant and the content of the table is rarely brought up again elsewhere in the article.

More importantly, the split table format is a bad hangover from years like 2006 when there were complex rules regarding entry eligibility. Those complex rules no longer apply, so there is no need for a split table format.

One table for all RC1 entries suits the needs of the article. If there is a distinction that needs to be made, such as manufacturer points eligibility, it can be done within that table. A second table for the purposes of making that distinction is totally unnecessary. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus. Edits that You are making were not discussed. The discussion was about Sordos situation (at one rally he was entered by Hyundai as non manufacturer driver). No one told that same would be done with private entries (Tuohino, Miele, GRX Team). You are edit warring to make things the way You wish. I have been restoring the edit consensus that has been with the tables for years. The tables have been so for Years. So If You wish to change something start a new thread and make short and clear post about what you wish to change. Now You are making different changes on different seasons. --Klõps (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit consensus restored. Do not change it without discussion. --Klõps (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find a solution Here. Klõps (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus."

Actually, it is: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

"The tables have been so for Years."

That's not an argument. 1.144.105.6 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]