Talk:2020 World Rally Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Manufacturers table by car numbers vs. just three anonymous rows

I'm starting to think we should consider making the table more informative as there are now only three teams. IMO the current table has some flaws. Okay we see how many crews each team nominated for points. But it could also reflect information about each crew inside the team - like head-to-head (currently not easy from the driver's table, especially to somebody who doesnt know the team members or in the future has forgotten) or how each crew member contributed for the team. It's obviously important for the team in real life - which drivers are more successful etc. The drivers table does not cover everything well. Example of site where the table is bigger (lists every driver by points collected for his team): http://planetemarcus.com/saison-wrc/saison-wrc-2019/

So my suggestion is to go back to 2018 table with crew numbers with their seasonal numbers. And another question, do you think our page has enough of statistics? Every rally website has much more than us. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: as you have probably guessed, I am in favour of this. I don't think the "only show the results the count" approach has worked here. It works best in Formula 1 articles, where teams are limited to two entries and the results for team and driver are the same. If you finish sixth, your team gets the points for sixth. But here we have Gus Greensmith finishing Monte Carlo in 63rd, but M-Sport still gets the points for tenth

One of the main arguments for limiting the table to two rows per team is that it "shows the story of the championship"—but, as before, I'd argue that the number of entries plays a huge part in that. Toyota and Hyundai have the budget for three full-time entries, but M-Sport (and Citroën) do not. They have fewer opportunities to score points, which should be reflected in the results matrix. That's part of the story of their championship. Without including it, we're basically asking readers to cross-reference the entry lists with the results matrices just to understand how points are being scored.

Finally, I think there is an attitude that has been shaped by the bigger motorsport WikiProjects that I think is detrimental. First, it's a desire to make motorsport articles homogenous. This system of only showing the results thst counted, with the best result first might work for Formula 1 articles, and so this attitude of "it works there, so it should work for all championship articles". The problem is that this ignores the individual traits of a series like the WRC. Secondly, I feel that there is an attitude where tables become increasingly complex and are taking over from prose. MOS:TABLE makes it clear that tables should supplement prose, not replace it. But here, we've stuffed the results matrix with selected information, then stripped it of context and presented it as self-explanatory. I think that reslly hurts the articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood Pelmeen's proposal. What they propose is to add car numbers to the rows of the manufacturers' championship table's rows. They don't want to just add the row with the results that aren't counted at all. I really can't see the benefit of this proposal. When we had numbers for these rows in the past, that still didn't provide the information Pelmeen thinks's it did. The numbers were tied to the cars, no the crews. And most numbers were used by different crews throughout a season. At the time some crews drove with a different number at different rallies. So the numbers alone did not clearly tell which crew contributed which result to the manufactures' championship. With the new regulations since last season the numbers are more stable now, but both a number used by different crews and a crew using different numbers still happens even for the manufacturers' points entries. So adding these numbers would still not provide what Pelmeen desires. Moreover with the higher quantity of different numbers now being used it would blow this table out of proportion way beyond its scope. Don't forget where writing for a general audience here, not solely for WRC fans. It's not our duty to allow fans in-depth analysis of results and achievements. As for the story of the championship, that needs to be told in prose. The Manufacturers' championships' table merely needs to show the outcome of the championship and the essential facts that established it (=the results which were credited to it). And Pelmeen10, yes this article contains more than enough stats. See also WP:NOTSTATS. We differ from those rally sites in that we are not a "rally site" but a general-purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We can still refer to the in-depth rally sites in the external links for the rally fans who want more in-depth information.Tvx1 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What they propose is to add car numbers to the rows of the manufacturers' championship table's rows. They don't want to just add the row with the results that aren't counted at all.

Okay, there's two problems with this statement:

1. Different drivers score different results. Thierry Neuville was the best-placed Hyundai in Monte Carlo, but Ott Tänak is the best-placed Hyundai in Sweden. It's impossible to add the numbers column in and arrange things by best result first.
2. What do you propose doing if a driver who finished third for his team in one round goes on to score points in the next? Tänak retired in Monte Carlo—Neuville and Loeb scored points—but he's the best-placed Hyundai in Sweden. We cannot simply leave the Monte Carlo result blank because Hyundai have entered Craig Breen in Sweden, but did not enter him in Monte Carlo.

If I have not understood Pelmeen10's proposal properly, I'm sure he'll be happy to go into more detail or provide a mock-up of what he is envisioning. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is no objection to this, I'll go ahead and apply it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the fourth row fifth row to the manufacturers' championship table? Showing who is the most successful driver in a team? Or how each crew member contributed to the team? No! The extra row adds nothing but make the table complex and negative comfortable. As I said last year, the manufacturers' championship table is the table that counts how a manufacturer scores points, not how a crew contributes to their team. I've already given WP:COMPROMISE at adding the third row. I cannot find any website says Toyota scores 25 from Evans, 15 from Rovanperä in Sweden. By contrast, almost every rally website only lists the total points a team score from a rally. The official website uses "A+B" layout, not "Evans score A pts, Rovanperä scores B pts"; e-wrc.com: total points a team score from a rally; even the website that Pelmeen10 provided as well. I fully agree with Tvx1 that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we add any kind of statistics, like what was proposed "a H2H", then wikipedia becomes a fan site. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the fourth row fifth row to the manufacturers' championship table?

It shows how a team's structure (two cars, three cars, part-time entries, etc.) contributed to their championship campaign.

As I said last year, the manufacturers' championship table is the table that counts how a manufacturer scores points, not how a crew contributes to their team.

And part of that is how the team enters a rally. If Team A enter three cars and one retires, they can still score a lot of points. On the other hand, if Team B enters two cars and one retires, they lose that opportunity. That's part of how they score points.

The official website uses "A+B" layout, not "Evans score A pts, Rovanperä scores B pts"; e-wrc.com: total points a team score from a rally; even the website that Pelmeen10 provided as well.

Where is the policy that says we must present content in exactly the same way that the sources do? We must have the content, but we are free to present that as we see fit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It shows how a team's structure (two cars, three cars, part-time entries, etc.) contributed to their championship campaign.

Nope, that is the duty of an entry list.

And part of that is how the team enters a rally. If Team A enter three cars and one retires, they can still score a lot of points. On the other hand, if Team B enters two cars and one retires, they lose that opportunity. That's part of how they score points.

Which nicely explains manufacturer points are scored by two cars, and the third car contributes nothing to a team, i.e. no points.

Where is the policy that says we must present content in exactly the same way that the sources do? We must have the content, but we are free to present that as we see fit.

Yes, no certain policies say so. But limiting to three (two) rows fully satisfies what you said "we are free to present". Unnamelessness (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You're last argument equally applies to Pelmeen wanting our table to match their sources'. And the rest of the concerns you mention are dealt with by the entry list. They show how they entered each rally. And additional context can be provided in the prose. Those things are no the duty of a results table. We went through all these arguments already when we had the discussion that led to the formal consensus for removal of the third rows. There is no point in just repeating them now.Tvx1 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that is the duty of an entry list.

So you're expecting readers to cross-reference the results matrix against the entry list just to understand it? That doesn't seem wise.

We went through all these arguments already when we had the discussion that led to the formal consensus for removal of the third rows. There is no point in just repeating them now.

You know perfectly well that consensus can change. You yourself tried to bring about change several times, but now that you've got your way, suddenly any new discussion is pointless. Why are you allowed to keep bringing the subject up, but anybody else who does is just wasting everyone's time? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Just what would they need to cross-reference with what? The entry list is self-explenatory as who entered in what capacity. The championship table is self-explanatory as to which manufacturer finished where through which results. And I didn’t claim we can’t discuss. I just pointed out that you were repeating the exact same arguments which were were already rebutted in the previous discussion, which is pretty senseless. Most importantly you’re not actually dealing with what Pelmeen proposed.Tvx1 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t claim we can’t discuss. I just pointed out that you were repeating the exact same arguments which were were already rebutted in the previous discussion, which is pretty senseless.

Which is a form of suppressing discussion. An editor may come into this talk page looking to contribute, but then see your comments and decide against taking part.

Most importantly you’re not actually dealing with what Pelmeen proposed.

If I have misunderstood his proposal, I'm sure he'll be happy to correct the record. Speaking of people not dealing with things, you haven't addressed the fact that your suggestion of what Pelmeen10 is proposing is impossible. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is a form of suppressing discussion. An editor may come into this talk page looking to contribute, but then see your comments and decide against taking part.

No, it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies. I have never stated it's not allowed to discuss, so please just stop going on that. It doesn't help this discussion in any way. Comment on the content, not the contributors.

Speaking of people not dealing with things, you haven't addressed the fact that your suggestion of what Pelmeen10 is proposing is impossible..

Not true. I have addressed the fact that adding numbers does not automatically tie results to crews in my first reply in this discussion.Tvx1 22:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies.

Just apparently not to you. You raised this discussion multiple times over the years until you got your way. But as soon as someone else brings it up, WP:STICK suddenly applies.

I have addressed the fact that adding numbers does not automatically tie results to crews in my first reply in this discussion.

Your main point of contention seems to be that the numbering changed between 2018 and 2019, and that the permanent numbers take the focus off the teams and puts it onto the crews. That's little more than a quibble since all the same information would be in the table. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that WP:STICK says the following:

There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end.

Now, of the four regular participants in these discussions, we are evenly split—myself and Pelmeen10 are looking to see if changes can be made, while you and Unnamelessness are opposed to change. This is significant because until Pelmeen10 started this discussion, I was alone in calling for change. You then decided to invoke WP:STICK despite the fact that you raised thus subject multiple times in the past. It looks like you're trying to shut the discussion down before a new consensus can be formed. The fact that someone has changed their mind and is open to doing things differently is reason enough to re-open the discussion. And to make things worse, you go around demanding that people respect a consensus when you quite clearly don't respect the process yourself. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You yourself tried to bring about change several times

I don't know who on earth is the person that really brings about change serveral times. Lead images, entry lists, no flagicons, new rally page layout, etc.

Sure, consensus can change, but first where is the new consensus? Two support vs two oppose obviously not what a consensus is. Or you think there is a possibility to persuade one of us to change our mind? As far as I am concerned, continuing this debate shows you can't get over it.

What is consensus? I call this as a consensus. Whatever how small it is, it is still a consensus. It is a fact that you should respect. I said I've already compromised at the third row, so please do not, there is a Chinese idiom, 得寸进尺 (read: greedy). Unnamelessness (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness:

I don't know who on earth is the person that really brings about change serveral times.

Sorry, that was aimed at Tvx1. It should have read "you yourself tried to bring about this change several times". I was referring to several discussions in the past where Tvx1 wanted to limit the WCM matrix to only the top two results. Arguably he should have observed WP:STICK, but he kept raising it. Yet here he is, bringing it up almost as soon as someone else raises the subject of the WCM matrix. It's a double standard—he's allowed to keep raising the subject until he gets the change he wants, but nobody else can because they're beating a dead horse.

Sure, consensus can change, but first where is the new consensus? Two support vs two oppose obviously not what a consensus is.

I'm not claiming that there is a consensus. But evidently the status quo has changed. At this point we should be discussing alternatives, and that means compromise. At the very least, WP:STICK should not be invoked. I've only ever seen people use it to try and end a conversation. For Tvx1 to use it like this makes it look like he's trying to shut a conversation down before a new consensus can be formed. And considering that his only interest in rallying articles seems to be the format of a results matrix, I have to wonder about his motivations.

Or you think there is a possibility to persuade one of us to change our mind?

I'd like to think that's a possibility. But that means we have to talk about it, not trying to shut the conversation down. I think both sides have to stop treating this as a binary choice—one of the other—and look for a middle ground. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

New solution

@Mclarenfan17: I've just flick through some other wikis and got an idea that possibly fits all of us. We create three templates below.

1. Two-row layout, which is the layout that Tvx1 and I are expected.
2. Cureent layout (maybe not needed)
3. All-result layout, to which you and Pelmeen10 are wanted.

We make all (both) templates collapsible and add to manufacturers' standings section so that we can choose which one visible according to our personal preferences. This is the maximum compromise that I can offer. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: while I appreciate your willingness to compromise, I don't think this is a particularly practical solution—you're suggesting that we duplicate and entire table for the sake of one extra/one less row.

Consider the following. This is the current matrix (up to Sweden):

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	2	1	73
		3	3
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

We're representing the results as positions and the points as a value, so we're either asking the reader to trust us that we got it right, or manually add everything up themselves. So what if we respresent the positions as a points tally? Like this:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	18	25	73
		15	15
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

Or we could even take it a step further and ignore the individual cars, but instead provide the total points for each round:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	33	40	73
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

Or even get rid of the matrix entirely, like this modified version of what Pelmeen10 suggested:

Pos.	Manufacturer	Cars	Entries	Wins	Podiums	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	3	39	8	14	361

Think about it—why do we use the matrices? Because when Wikipedia was created, there was a lot of work that needed to be done. The quickest and easiest way to do that was to use the matrix design across the scope of motorsports articles. We've always done it that way, but does that mean it's the best way of doing it? The problem with a one-size-fits-all approach is that it overlooks the specific needs of an individual subject such as the WRC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a definitely no for the fourth one as it misses important information of the whole championship picture. So, considering how manufacturers approach to the championship, I believe using matrix (I call it table) is a must.

Quite a few rally sites use the third layout to list the championship, but I think it is a bit problematic, to be honest. How do we know which manufacturer wins which rally, espaecially considering there is a possibility of level on points (e.g. 25 (1st) + 0 (ret.) = 15 (3rd) + 10 (5th))? e-wrc.com boldfaces the winning manufacturer, should we follow them? Moveover, if two manufacturers do score level points, how do we use the background colour?

Considering these, we need to represent the results as individual cars, but there is another question. Sure, today we know 10 points mean finishing fifth, but in the pre-2010 era, that could mean a victory. So, I think we still have to represent the results as positions. If we do have to represent points, I suggest to organise like what Pelmeen10 proposed last year:

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

Given that there is a request on adding seasonal numbers, maybe points in the columns can be replaced by their corresponding seasonal number. That would be like this:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1 3													324
		6 4
		NC 44
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Unnamelessness (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: the second one works better for me. WRC points are scored differently to other championships because of eligibility requirements—Gus Greensmith finished 63rd on the road in Monte Carlo, but was 10th in the WCM. On the other hand, if you were to finish 7th in another series, then your team scores points for 7th place as well. You can't cross-reference the WCM table against the driver/co-driver table because they don't line up, so the numbers offer some context here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Quick guiding

Just want to put together a quick mock-up of what this might look like over a whole year:

Pos.	Entrant	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	2 11	3 8	4 8	1 11	1 9	3 11	2 8	1 8	4 8	3 16	3 11	2 9	1 9	C	380
		4 9	4 9	6 11	4 8	2 16	7 8	7 11	3 11	6 9	4 11	5 16	6 8	3 11	C
		NC 8	NC 16	Ret 9	Ret 9	NC 11	Ret 9	Ret 9	Ret 16	WD 16	Ret 8	NC 8	NC 11	NC 16	C
Pos.	Entrant	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

I think we can do this because there are only three or four teams, unlike other championships where there are ten or twelve teams, so it won't be as big as it could be otherwise. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I will accept it as a new consensus if there is no other voices within 24 hours as per WP:SILENCE. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: if we do adopt it, then I suggest that was also apply it to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 articles—all articles where the "best two of three" rule applies. Although this is a product of the new numbering system which only came in last year, I think it would be a mistake to have inconsistent formats. While I dislike having identical formats year on year for the sake of it, I also dislike having different formats for no good reason. Yes, the post-2017 format will be different to the pre-2017 format, but it is justified because of the rules. And if we really want homogenous formats, we can always go back to the pre-2017 articles and apply this change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is quite consistent as the new numbering system was introduced last year, so I temporarily apply to the 2019 and 2020 articles. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd support the version with both position & points. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be working with 24h deadlines here. Certainly considering how long it took to achieve a consensus last time. We should have a proper discussion with a proper consensus to overturn that. In all honesty I really don't see how this proposal would improve the article. I really don't see how this would make it easier to understand how each manufacturer finished the championship where they did. I think that this proposed table is really hard to understand for the lay reader, mainly because there is no explanation whatsoever what the second row of numbers in the rows mean. You can't expect a lay reader to know what the crew numbers are and how they work. And the way they are implemented in this proposal creates accessibility issues. I also really don't understand why this proposal needs they "results" that simply are not credited to be returned. Surely you can have such a table without the results that don't count at all. If I understood Pelmeen's proposal correctly, I envisaged they want something like this:

Quick guiding 2

Pos.	Entrant	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	6			6	4			7	1		4	5		3	C	380
		11	2	3	4	1	1		2	3		3		2	1	C
		19	4					3			6					C
		89		4			2	7			4		3	6		C
2	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	5		6	5	8	4	8	1	7		2	7	4		C	362
		8	3	1	2	6		1	6	5	1	1		1	2	C
		10	5				5				3		6		4	C
3	Citroën Total WRT	1	1	8	1	2	3	2	3	8	5	5	1	3	7	C	284
		4	Ret	2	7	7	Ret	6	Ret	6	2	6	2	8	Ret	C
4	M-Sport Ford WRT	3	6		Ret	5	6	5	4	2	7	8	4		6	C	218
		7	7	7									8	7		C
		33		5	3	3	Ret	4	5	4	Ret			5	5	C
		44										7				C
Pos.	Entrant		MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

I have my concerns with that too. My main problem is that it still wouldn't tell which crew scored which result, because some numbers were used by more than one crew and some crews used more than one number. In any case it would help if Pelmeen10 would give some feedback here.Tvx1 19:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1, that was my first proposal. Wikilinks to crew numbers, and obviously there would be NC's for the non-scorers. This would make the manu champ more understandable. It would be a different story when a number is used by different drivers - which we don't know yet. The other version, table with points makes it more clearer how the points were scored. I'm pretty sure every reader doesn't know how many points 6th place gives etc. Plus, to know how many points M-Sport got from Sweden, it would be much easier to check some other website. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be a different story when a number is used by different drivers - which we don't know yet.

Can you name any examples of where this has happened?

Also, I posted a solution to this in the above discussion on Jocius' numbers. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the following. Tvx1 has previously said this:

it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies.

But in reverting Unnamelessness's changes, he included the following in his edit summary:

It's better to let the discussion run its proper cause before implementing anything

You can't have it both ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that this proposed table is really hard to understand for the lay reader, mainly because there is no explanation whatsoever what the second row of numbers in the rows mean. You can't expect a lay reader to know what the crew numbers are and how they work.

My main problem is that it still wouldn't tell which crew scored which result

Which is why the numbers would be linked. Click the number and it takes you to the corresponding number in the entry list. Or we could change the markup to so that clicking the number takes you to the driver name in the driver results matrix. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thought I should illustrate what I mean. This markup goes in the entry list (using Ogier as an example):

style="text-align:center" id="17"|17

And this markup goes in the teams' matrix:

[[#17|17]]

That id markup allows the markup in the matrix to connect to the entry list. You can see an example of it in action here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, we do know what happens when a number is used by more than one crew. In the table I posted above relating to the 2019 championship, the number 33 for instance was used by multiple crews. That's why liking to the crews directly wouldn't work either. And the problem with changing positions into points is that positions are actually important. They are used to break the ties if competitors finish the season with the same number of points. That's the main reason why we list the positions in the first place. Else we would be using Mclarenfan17's proposal. Lastly, there is table showing which position yields which amount of points above the group of results tables, so this information is very much clearly present.

You can't have it both ways

I'm not having "it" both ways. Me referencing WP:STICK referred to rehashing the exact same arguments as in the previous discussion event though they were clearly refuted back then. I never did anything close to objecting a new discussion with new arguments or new evidence. And we should not be enforcing a new change while this discussion is still ongoing. That's neither constructive nor collaborative. I really don't understand why there is such an immense rush to change things here. The article isn't any worse keeping the existing consensus in place until this discussion has properly concluded.

Can you name any examples of where this has happened?

Number 33 for instance last year was used by multiple crews.

Also, I posted a solution to this in the above discussion on Jocius' numbers.

Which deals with an exact opposite situation, one crew using different numbers. Here, we're talking about different crews using the same number.

Which is why the numbers would be linked. Click the number and it takes you to the corresponding number in the entry list. Or we could change the markup to so that clicking the number takes you to the driver name in the driver results matrix.

As I explained before that doesn't always work because even with the current rules the same number can be used by multiple crews.

Also, I still don't see any argument justifying reinstating the non-credited results. I don't see any thing that explains how they make it easier to understand the table.Tvx1 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As I explained before that doesn't always work because even with the current rules the same number can be used by multiple crews.

Actually, it does because following the "33" link takes the reader to #33 in the table, which shows everyone who drove car #33.

I don't see any thing that explains how they make it easier to understand the table.

That doesn't invalidate the views of editors who support the change and feel that it does make things easier. You, personally, may not be persuaded, but we don't need to persuade you in particular to form a new consensus. It's quite obvious that you're trying to stall and prevent a new consensus from forming. After all, you demanded that the discussion be allowed to run its course before changes were applied, then ignored said discussion for two days. When you finally did post something, it amounted to "I don't think it's justified". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please leave bad faith accusations out of this discussion, it's not going to lead us anywhere. I did ignore anything, I simple have a life and I don't always have time to contribute to Wikipedia discussions everyday. I you claim that this change makes it a table easier to understand then at the very least you could provide an argument as to how it actually does that. And why are you rushing to implement a format instead of taking the time to view what possibilities there are. For instance, why is it so important to list a crew number under each results. Why not just list the numbers once at the start of the row, which is much clearer and doesn't have accessibility issues like your proposal has. And how does this change justify reinstating the results which aren't count. These are two separate issues and adding crew numbers does not require those non-counted results by itself.Tvx1 19:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

And why are you rushing to implement a format instead of taking the time to view what possibilities there are.

Because we have discussed the table format and found a compromise that we can agree on. If there is another format out there that you think works, perhaps you could share it with us.

Why not just list the numbers once at the start of the row, which is much clearer and doesn't have accessibility issues like your proposal has.

That's my preferred solution (and always has been), but if I recall correctly, you were the one who insisted that column had to be removed in the first place (or at least supported its removal). You have never voiced any support for it until just now.

And how does this change justify reinstating the results which aren't count.

Because they are results. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we have discussed the table format and found a compromise that we can agree on. If there is another format out there that you think works, perhaps you could share it with us.

I have provided one above.

That's my preferred solution (and always has been), but if I recall correctly, you were the one who insisted that column had to be removed in the first place (or at least supported its removal). You have never voiced any support for it until just now.That's my preferred solution (and always has been), but if I recall correctly, you were the one who insisted that column had to be removed in the first place (or at least supported its removal). You have never voiced any support for it until just now.

If this is the discussion you're referring to, then yes I supported the removal. But I was not a major participant, nor did I start that RFC. In fact, save for yourself, all the editors requesting the numbers being included here supported removing the numbers back then. So why are you only taking offense to my opinion?

Because they are results.

Which are not counted for the manufactures' championship. So what's the point of listing them in that championships' table.Tvx1 22:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have provided one above

And yet, no-one has discussed it. No-one has supported it. That should tell you that no-one is interested in it.

then yes I supported the removal. But I was not a major participant, nor did I start that RFC

I wasn't aware that editors got a bigger say in things depending on how much they contributed to a discussion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been ample opportunity to discuss further examples, but there have been no takers. I have re-introduced the agreed-upon table format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet, no-one has discussed it. No-one has supported it. That should tell you that no-one is interested in it.

I don't know why the others have refrained from providing further comments. But it would help if at least both Pelmeen10 and Unnamelessness would reply to the recent comments. It's clear that the two of us are not going to achieve a mutual agreement. More input is warranted.

I wasn't aware that editors got a bigger say in things depending on how much they contributed to a discussion.

When did I claim that? I said the exact opposite, namely that I was just a minor contributor to that discussion. You're the one that claims that change was al my doing. None of this is of much importance though, since we should comment on the content, not the contributors.Tvx1 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to prevent a consensus from being formed. Please cite a Wikipedia policy that states every editor who participates in a discussion must comment on every proposal before a consensus can be formed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, your edit summary:

That's not for you to decide upon yourself.

So, I'm not allowed to decide whether or not a consensus has been formed, but you are? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, please leave accusations of bad faith of this discussion. This not going to achieve anything. Please comment on the content. I think it's simply basic respect to the other participants to hear their opinion. So yes, I will reiterate that it would be helpful if at least Pelmeen10 and Unnamelessness would provide more input. After all, you chastised me for not having ignored previous participants during the discussion that led to the current format being adopted. So I'm genuinely trying to do the right thing here. Comments from others are welcome as well.Tvx1 18:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit histories of both Pelmeen10 and Unnamelessness show that they have been active on Wikipedia since they were pinged in this discussion. They have evidently chosen not to participate here. There comes a point where, if they continue to stay out of it, then we have to accept that this is by choice and we need to move on and implement the consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah well, I don't understand why Pelmeen10 and Unnamelessness aren't responding. Can't understand the objection to having a constructive and collaborative discussion.Tvx1 23:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

First, they are under no obligation to take part. Their contributions are valued, but that does not mean that they have to comment. Secondly, did it occur to you that they do not want to take part or that they have said everything they want to say? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Gosh. This is the reason why I said I would rather to pull myself out from these endless discussions early in the year. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it went nonsense pretty fast. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Why did you start edit warring @ 2019 World Rally Championship? We did not form an actual consensus here. It would be logical to atleast start an Rfc. +This discussion is in 2020 article, changing older articles should be discussed in a bigger circle. Would you try to act like a member of community? I for example are supporting something different, but I'd like to see more people with their opinion. I could possibly change mine afterwards (go back to supporting old consensus), while the change in this matter is not 100% needed. And in an Rfc, please be brief, not go Tom&Jerry with Tvx1. Thank you both in advance! Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you remember the last RFC we did? We spent months working on it, coming with new ideas and generally working collaboratively ... and then someone came along and said "there might be a consensus that this is the best option, but there is no consensus that this option is better than what we have", which effectively killed months of work. Do you want to go through something like that again? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if it would reaffirm the consensus for the current version, it wouldn't be a waste of time because we would something well supported to rely on. I'm willing to take part in a RFC, as was suggested we should do more on the ArbCom case. My only concerns is that there is chance that we still wouldn't gather considerable input.Tvx1 14:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We had a consensus a month ago. It was perfectly valid. But then you came along and started insisting that we observe a non-existant policy of waiting for all editors to contribute before ruling on a consensus. The whole thing dragged out for weeks and nothing got done. Earlier this year, we had the numbers debacle where you spent six weeks refusing to provide sources for a claim and ignoring no less than four perfectly-valid sources that refuted your claim. Last year we had an RfC where editors spent three months resolving issues, only for you to come along and claim that even if there was a consensus for Option X, there was no consensus that Option X was better than the existing format.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Once is an accident and twice is a coincidence, but three times is a pattern—and here we have three cases where you have deliberately dragged things out to prevent a consensus from being formed. Given that your only contributions to rallying articles are the format of tables (you were very active dealing with the effects of coronavirus on F1 races, but ignored its effects on the WRC) and the way some of your comments on the subject show your lack of understanding about it, I have to wonder why you are here at all. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mexico note

Regarding this edit:

1) Where is the Wikipedia policy that says articles must be formatted in identical ways? 2) What is is about the 2013 article that makes it inherently better than this format? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is you that said we need consistency. The similar situation applies here. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: we should aim for consistency when consistency is possible, but that does not mean that we should prioritise it over everything else. Furthermore, just because something was done in 2017, that does not mean that it is automatically the best way of doing things. I (and I am sure you) have learned new markup in the time since then; if I had known then what I know now, I may well have done things differently.

Also, I find this edit problematic. The source applies to the entire table, but then note only applies to one column within it, so they should not be grouped together like that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but it doesn't need to cite twice. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why creating a separate row for notes is necessary. I also don't see why having it in two places is a problem. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Apart from reducing from two to one, a very good reason is that it meets the aesthetics criteria — it keeps every column in the same width — as well as not compromising "applying to one column". It is a bit "one step closer". Unnamelessness (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be prioritising aesthetics over practicality. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The Swap Seat Special Stage

I am completely shocked when I see this regulation. Is that true? Or just an April Fool's joke? Unnamelessness (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a new regulation, but only for today. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a joke. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)