Talk:2017 World Rally Championship/Archive 1

Lappi
Is it really confirmed that Lappi will drive in any events? It sounds like he's just a development driver. http://www.wrc.com/en/wrc/news/december-2016/latvala-to-toyota/page/4136--12-12-.html --Lead holder (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have the same concern when I read the official wrc note (witch claim that Lappi is "expected" to drive a third Yaris), and how others notes already claims that he will be driving. But, if you read along the article witch you post, at the end says "is expected to drive a third Yaris WRC on selected events in 2017, although Toyota Gazoo Racing has yet to confirm when this will happen." So, that makes me understand that although he was pronounced "test drive", Toyota has yet to announce which rounds he will be driving the third Yaris. Basically, I think that it is ok to leave him in a "TBA" status, or taking him out of the table until there is a more concrete announcement and just make a reference in the "drivers changes" section. MNSZ (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Tommi Mäkinen has said that a third Yaris is being built, and will be ready in time for the spring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Entries Table
Hi There!

With just one round, I'm seeing that we may have a problem with the Entries Tables. We probably will end with 4 table (The Manufacturers entries, the "mayor entries" for 2017 cars, the Trophy entries and the "mayor entries" for 2016 cars). I think the article will be really messy and may confuse readers. I think maybe, we should think in creating the WRC Trophy it's own article, so this one can be cleaner. I know, seeing the Monte Entry List, that the 2016 specs car are in the same category as the current gen, but they will be having their own tournament, as the WRC-2 category.

What do you think? MNSZ (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a bit confusing, but I don't see why they shouldn't be included here. They are, after all, still WRC entries. I just took a page from other season articles and collapsed the two tables into one, with an icon to mark WRC Trophy entries. I think that's much neater than creating an entirely new article for something that may only last one season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah! I saw that your change did make it better! We will have to see how Ostergs and Prokop entries are shown on the Entry List of Sweden, because, my main concern is with the Ford Fiesta, as they didn't really changed the name of the car. The "RS" will be enough to not confuse people and differentiate the 2016-specs Fiesta from the 2017 ones? Maybe I'm addressing the problem too soon. Looks ok for now! MNSZ (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Fiesta RS WRC and the Fiesta WRC are two separate cars despite their similar names. We can't just treat the team as having entered the same car for both because it's convenient (although I admit some confusion as to exactly what Adapta/M-Sport are entering).


 * Remember, tables are a visual representation of information. They should always be supported by prose. If there is confusion about the Fiesta RS WRC and the Fiesta WRC, then it should be adequately explained in the prose (which I think it is). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the WRC-Trophy entries in this article are fine, they are tagged with a T and it's given an explanation of what it means. I haven't read too much about this trophy, but I assume the competitors for this trophy will have a seperate points table later? Kovpastish (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Breen's Monte Carlo entry
According to the FIA, only 2017 specification cars can score manufacturer points. However, the Monte Carlo entry list includes Craig Breen as being eligible to score manufacturer points despite driving a 2016-specification car. Given this apparent contradiction between sources, I think we should defer to the FIA until such time as proven to the contrary&mdash;ie, Breen scores manufacturer points in a DS3.

This rule change is directly tied to the new cars. The FIA was concerned about inexperienced drivers or pay drivers getting access to 2017 cars when they're expected to be at least as fast as the Group B cars (and we all know how that ended). Hence, they ruled that only manufacturers can enter 2017 cars, and only 2017 cars can score manufacturer points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Tagging @ and @, since they're both involved in debate. Also tagging @ and @ since they're regulars and might want to contribute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't overrule reliable sources with our own synthesis. We have to correctly reflect the reliable sources we cite. The Breen and Marlin duo is a manufacturer entry for Monte Carlo. We have that as a black-and white fact on the official entry list for the Monte Carlo rally and that's what we have to relay to our readers.Tvx1 23:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis. The FIA&mdash;the highest authority on the subject&mdash;has clearly said that the only cars which may score manufacturer points are 2017 cars. I have not seen any evidence to state that this has been reverted, and nor have I seen a source showing that the DS3 WRC has been homolgated to 2017 specifications.


 * In the event of a contradiction between sources, the FIA should take precedence. It's the same standard used on other season articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the Monte Carlo entry list is unclear. It lists Breen as "M", so does that mean he is scoring manufacturer points, or does that mean he is being entered by the manufacturer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * According to the Sporting Regulation published by the FIA, a Manufacturer "Undertakes to take part in all the rallies of the Championship with a minimum of two (2) World Rally Cars complying with the 2017 Appendix J, Article 255A." The Article 255A is the one with the new regulations (the 2017-spec WWRC). MNSZ (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "M" means "eligible for manufacturer points". Just look at all the entry list for last year's rallies. Entries eligible for points were always marked with an M whereas WRC entries ineligible for manufactures points were not marked with any letter. When the first version of Monte Carlo's entry list was published, Breen&Marlin were listed without the M. Hence we listed them in the second table. However, both their entry number and class have changed since then. And they were moved between tables here accordingly. Lastly, the entry list in question has FIA's stamp all over it just as much as the regulations you refer to.Tvx1 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But, as pointed out, it does not comply with Article 255A. Find a source from the FIA to demonstrate that Article 255A has been repealed or amended. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; do you have a direct link to those sporting regulations? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * here you can check both the 2017 Sporting Regulations and the Appendix J 2017 - Article 255A from the Technical Regulations. MNSZ (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with that. I see no reason why the entry list supersedes the regulations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't supersede the rules as such, but it does supersede a wikipedian's interpretation/synthesis of the rules. If an entry list lists a certain driver/co-driver combo to be enter in a certain category for a rally, then they quite frankly are entered as such. I don't know how to can be even remotely up for discussion. Show me one example of an entry that ultimately turned out not to be the sort entry as which it was listed on the entry list for a rally. I really don't see how that Appendix J 2017 - Article 255A disqualifies Breen&Marlin from being entered as a manufacturer entry.Tvx1 03:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Because they aren't driving a 2017-specification car. The regulations state that the only cars which may score manufacturer points are cars built to the 2017 regulations. The DS3 WRC is not built to the 2017 regulations. More to the point, it has not been homologated&mdash;in order to compete, a manufacturer must build a certain number of road cars of the model intended for competition, and then submit it to the FIA for approval. The DS3 WRC was never submitted for homologation as a 2017 car. Under the FIA's own definitions, the car is not a legal 2017 car, and the rules outlined above further disqualify it from scoring manufacturer points.


 * Also, it's not unheard of for entry lists to change in the lead-up to an event. An entry list is just a list of competitors who registered for the event. You can't enter after the closing date, but you can change the entry. It mostly happens with support categories and locals, but to my knowledge there is nothing that specifically prevents the top teams from doing it. Hyundai made a habit of shuffling drivers between cars last year, often with last-minute changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You have had ample opportunity to provide evidence to support your claim, and you have not done so. Given that several editors agree that Breen is not a manufacturer entry, I think we can all it a consensus, and so I have restored the original edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Several editors? The only other editor in this discussion has provided some link without stating an opinion for either side. I don't need to prove or provide evidence for anything. The sources states what it states, Breen&Marlin are a manufacturer entry. You are the one suggesting we completely disregard a reliable source, so the WP:BURDEN lies with you. Good luck proving that an entry has not been entered they way the entry list claims it is.Tvx1 03:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "You are the one suggesting we completely disregard a reliable source"
 * As opposed to you, who is suggesting that we disregard the entire rulebook and have not provided any supplementary evidence to support the assertion that said rulebook has been invalidated and instead give priority to a source that is unclear to the casual reader and which by your own admission is subject to corrections and revisions without any sort of notice. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the WRC is run the same way as Formula One, which it is not.


 * "I don't need to prove or provide evidence for anything."
 * I explained to you the importance of homologation. It is a mainstay of the sport, and has been for decades. The FIA does not change homologation rules lightly, as it can have serious consequences for the sport. You don't just build a car and show up and expect to compete. You must submit that car for a technical review and demonstrate that the car has a road-going equivalent and that you are building an annual production quota before the car can compete. You have so far ignored this point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know full well how entries work, so don't go around lecturing me. In all FIA-sanctioned motorsports drivers and cars have to be subjected to scrutineering before entries can be accepted. The publishing of an entry list is the acknowledgment of this process having been completed.Tvx1 17:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From an article published yesterday on wrc.com : Craig Breen drives a 2016-specification DS 3 WRC and while he can score driver points, he is not eligible for points in the manufacturers’ championship. Does that settle it? Wild8oar (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion
The following is a summary of the issue being discussed above for the purpose of seeking a a third opinion.

The dispute focuses on Craig Breen's entry for the Rallye Monte Carlo. He is currently listed as a manufacturer entry and thus eligible to score manufacturer points, and he is listed as such because he appears on the entry list published by event organisers. However, this source appears to contradict other sources, specifically those published by the FIA, the sport's governing body:
 * Article 255 of the sporting regulations states that only 2017-specification cars may score manufacturer points. This is further supported by Appendix J. Breen is entered in a Citroën DS3 WRC, which is a 2016-specification car.
 * In order to be considered legal for competition, a car must undergo homologation, a full technical review to ensure that it complies with the regulations. The Citroën DS3 WRC was not homologated as a 2017 car; the Citroën C3 WRC was. Furthermore, manufacturers may only homologate one car under the WRC regulations.
 * It is also worth noting that homologation has been a mainstay of the sport for thirty years. Any changes would significantly affect the sport, but there is no evidence to show that changes have been made.

In addition to this, the validity of the entry list as a source to supersede the technical and sporting regulations is questionable:
 * The entry list may be changed at short notice, and with little or no explanation; Breen was previously listed under a different entry.
 * The entry list has contained errors in the past; Breen was originally listed as driving car #12, a number reserved for another manufacturer entry.
 * It was noted that the current entry list had the FIA stamp of approval on it&mdash;but so too did the old, out-dated version.
 * The entry list currently includes Breen as "M" for "manufacturer", but the purpose of the column in which this appears is unclear to the casual reader. Is he listed as "M" because he can score manufacturer points, or is he listed as "M" because he was entered by the Citroën factory team?

In short, the question is this: with two contradictory sources, which source do we give priority to? The entry list is more recent, but its accuracy is in question, and is not supported by any other sources. The rulebook comes from the sport's governing body, but it has been argued that this relies on synthesis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer lies within Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Read WP:Due. Also, why do you continue to describe an aspect as unclear despite the above discussion already having disproving that claim. Stroll through every entry list of the past years and you will see that every entry listed as "M" was eligble to an the majority of them did score manufacturer points.Tvx1 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have read DUE. Please tell me which part of it says that a self-published source should be given priority when its claims cannot be backed up by a single secondary source, has been demonstrated to change on short notice, and least of all when it contradicts reliable and verifiable sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. This is not a self-published source and you know it. It might be a primary one, but that's not a problem in this case. We have always followed entry lists for all our articles on motorsports, so I can see no good reason to disregard it in this particular instance. Don't you even remotely realize what sort of poor precedent we would be creating?Tvx1 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In This news about the Monte Entry List, the own promoter of the series claims that "Craig Breen will drive a 2016-spec DS 3 WRC on the Monte but is expected to take the team's second manufacturer-registered C3 in Sweden.", giving the understanding that the DS3 Entry is not registered as a manufacturer entry able to score points.


 * Yes, maybe Citroën twitched the rules to it's favour, as it says "with a minimum of two (2) World Rally Cars complying with the 2017 Appendix J, Article 255A.", not that all of their entries must be 2017 WRC cars. But I fails to find any other source that claims Breen as a Entry eligible to score Manufacturer Points. If so, shouldn't he be #9? as is the number reserved for the third entry on the Citroën team. For example, this site corrected Breen's numbering (as the should #12 corresponds to the third entry of Toyota), but not listed him as a Manufacturer Entry, corresponding to the Sporting Regulations.


 * As I say before, maybe Citroën was able to twitch the rules, but I think for now and until the rally itself happens or the FIA publish their own entry list here, Breen's entry should be kept outside of the Manufacturer's Entries Table. MNSZ (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't, because if we would we would be having tables which would be contradicting the source used to support them. The never has been an issue with these entry lists before, we have always used them. Just look at last year's table. Why should we ditch that in favour of someone's personal opinion of what the rules states the entries should be? Even mores considering the entry list is authored by the FIA.Tvx1 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank for your input. I will indeed that assert that this is a small issue and that any scope for confusion will undoubtedly disappear with time when more information gets published and when the events eventually takes place. Therefore I would like to ask my co-editors to exert some patience.Tvx1 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My patience is already running pretty thin given that you steadfastly refused to address points that we raised. You never demonstrated that the DS3 was homologated as a 2017 car and have instead insisted that a single source, unsupported by any secondary sources and having been demonstrated to be unreliable in the past, is somehow a more accurate source that regulations that have been set in stone for months. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You requested a third opinion, you've got it, it doesn't agree with you. Exactly when has the source been demonstrated "to be unreliable in the past"?? Quite on the contrary, I have actually told multiple times that these entry lists have been proven to be reliable in the past years.Tvx1 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Exactly when has the source been demonstrated "to be unreliable in the past"??"

When it was updated to its current form. Breen was originally entered in car #12, but as has been pointed out, that number is set aside for Lappi when he joins. The entry list was updated and now Breen is in car #14. If the entry list was incorrect before, why is it suddenly correct now? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Manufacturers Entry provided by FIA here shows that the Citroën Entry IS with the C3 as their sole car and not with two cars as we are showing it right now on the article table. MNSZ (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was simply updated. There is no mention of correct/incorrect. I'm starting to think that Breen/Marlin driving a DS3 might be the error on the list, not their entry status.Tvx1 22:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash;
 * "I'm starting to think that Breen/Marlin driving a DS3 might be the error on the list, not their entry status."
 * Citroën have said that they will only have two C3s ready for the start of the season. A third won't be ready for a few rounds; Corsica or Portugal seem most likely. If they were a manufacturer entry, they would be car #9. The numbering system works the same way as the old Formula One system; the teams are assigned three numbers for the manufacturer entries (M-Sport are 1, 2 and 3; Hyundai are 4, 5 and 6, Citroën are 7, 8 and 9, and Toyota are 10, 11 and 12), with the numbering picking up any additional entries from #12. Given the tradition of not using #13, #14 is the first number assigned to additional entries.


 * In light of the source provided, which is also used as a source in the table, Breen's manufacturer status seems to be the error. The organisers probably mislabled him because his car is being prepared and run by the Citroën World Rally Team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The publishing of an entry list is the acknowledgment of this process having been completed."
 * Not in rallying. Entries for Monte Carlo closed on 16 December 2016, but the event will not take place until 20 January 2017. Scrutineering for the rally will take place in the week before the event, which means that this entry list is just that &mdash; a list of crews that lodged the necessary paperwork and paid the entry fee.


 * The process of homologation is completely separate. It's when the FIA conducts a technical review of the road-going base model of the car to ensure that it can comply with the regulations, and carry out an audit of the car's production to ensure that the minimum quota is met. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If #12 is a Toyota manufacturer number, then why was it originally assigned to Breen? If Breen&Marlin's entry turns out to be mislabelled, it's something we should become aware of in due course. Until more information emerges, it's fine to keep the article as is, per the Third Opinion.Tvx1 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Because it was clearly wrong. If it was correct, it would not have been changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The WRC Promoter (through WRC.com) may bring clarification on the matter, as today they have published a interview with Matton. The note, also clarifies that Breen will not score manufacturer points in monte. The note here. "Craig Breen drives a 2016-specification DS 3 WRC and while he can score driver points, he is not eligible for points in the manufacturers’ championship." MNSZ (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; that's good enough for me. Yves Matton is the Citroën team principal, so if anyone should know for sure, it's him. I'm sure that @ will agree. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

C Label
, I noticed you just added a "C" label, meaning eligible for drivers' championship points, to some entries in the tables. I'm not sure this i such a good idea. Firstly, C is not an actual official separate class. Secondly, this has never been done before and it feels like it's done simply to fill the blanks in the second table. Thirdly; it creates lots of confusion. In reality, all the drivers in both the tables are eligible for points for the drivers' championship. In fact even the drivers who driver the lower classes of cars are eligible for drivers' championship points.Tvx1 23:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I had mixed opinions on whether I should include it, but the focus of the table is on drivers who cannot score manufacturer points, with some of them eligible to score points in the WRC Trophy. It occurred to me that the casual reader might wonder why drivers are competing if they can't score manufacturer points or points for the WRC Trophy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but C is not an official class and those who are currently labelled T fit into the C category as well.Tvx1 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; that can be fixed with a tweak of the wording. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, but now it just looks big and impractical.


 * My main concern is what happens when a driver previously eligible for WRC Trophy points enters a round without nominating it as a scoring round. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't feel right to add that "class". I think it will confuse more the reader who doesn't follow the category on a daily news basis. I think that the previous version was the best one:
 * The title of the table clarifies that this are entries that drives WRC, but can't score Manufacturers points.
 * The "T" Class indicates that those entries are also eligible to score in the WRC Throphy. MNSZ (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling as well.Tvx1 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@, @ &mdash; there has to be some way of combining the two driver tables and eliminating redundancies. I have a few ideas so far, but nothing I am happy with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have one idea in my sandbox&mdash;User:Prisonermonkeys/sandbox/part1&mdash;but I'm not happy with it. It's looking too complex. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * They look ok (Primarily the "Type 1" which contains the full information), but I think the best way to not confuse people, is as it is now: One table for the more important info (the Manufacturers entries), and other for the rest. Combining the two tables, at the end of the year, will be really a mess. If a solution is needed to separate the WRC Trophy, I'm still open to give them their own article. MNSZ (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's a radical and possibly controversial proposal: we cut the second table entirely. Instead, we have just one table, and we limit its contents to 2017-specification cars. The entire article is geared towards teams and drivers who will contest the entire championship anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturers' championship
Just wondering what the best way to handle the manufacturers' championship matrix is. Under the rules, manufacturers can nominate as many as three cars to score points; however, only their best two results will count. I think that the best way to address the third car is to use "NC" (not classified) as all three cars may complete a rally. This would also work to explain why the WDC and WMC results are not the same. If a driver fails to complete the event (Paddon/Kennard are out of Monte Carlo), then "DNF" should be used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the DNF nomenclature for retirements of drivers, would it not be best to maintain consistency with the previous season's articles? Therefore, I propose either modifying all preceding pages to say DNF rather than Ret, or to modify the keys on all pages to say Ret instead. Ret is used in most other motorsport pages, so perhaps this would be the preferred option? Wesutf1 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible to retire and restart under Rally-2 regulations. DNF means "did not finish" and they cannot restart. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, the legend does nothing to explain the difference.Tvx1 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How could we? If you retire, you can re-enter, finish the rally and record a result. Unless you want to introduce a new colour for retirements who restarted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a subtle difference between retiring from a day of the rally, and the rally itself. As the table only shows final results the fact that a driver restated under Rally-2 would not be shown in the table and is irrelevant. If you visit the WRC website and look at event results, there is a section titled retirements which contains drivers who have retired from the entire rally, rather than those who are still eligible to restart under Rally-2. Wesutf1 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If we use the legend to explain Ret=retired entirely from the rally, the need of using DNF instead disappears and we needn't change Ret to DNF in decades worth of articles.Tvx1 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are free to use our discretion as to how we represent information. If other sections, such as the season report, use "retired" to refer to drivers who retire and restart, then using "retired" elsewhere in the article is potentially confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then don't use the word retired in other sections when referring to drivers who restarted. Go for the easy solution, rather than for the solution that is actually looking for a problem.Tvx1 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you always assume that one change has to be retroactively applied to every article within the purview of a WikiProject? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you change the code in a key, you have to retroactively change all the tables it accompanies or they won't match anymore. I thought something like that was self explanatory. Look at the table below. The table and its key don't match regarding the purple colour.Tvx1 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Update, I've reinstated the original code in key. The tables and the key now match once again.Tvx1 16:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I find "NC" not fitting, as the driver is in fact classified. How about putting the result in paranthesis, or removing the background color or graying it out? Wild8oar (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I remember re-doing all the tables of the championship, and for the 2002 Championship I worked it this way:

But, seeing it now, I think we can spare the parenthesis and leave the position in the colour we use when a car finish the rally but non in a scoring point position. MNSZ (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to leave the finishes which don't count out altogether. Don't forget they don't count at all. If we're including them it looks like they can still be used as tiebreakers, which is not the case. NC is technically correct but I'm not to keen to use it. We can easily use the prose to explain the difference between the championship tables.Tvx1 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "I find "NC" not fitting, as the driver is in fact classified."
 * They're classified in the overall standings, but they're not classified in the manufacturers' championship&mdash;and that's important because we're only talking about the manufacturers' championship matrix. We're not saying that the drivers weren't classified at all, but rather that they weren't classified in the manufacturers' championship for that round.


 * "I think we can spare the parenthesis and leave the position in the colour we use when a car finish the rally but non in a scoring point position."
 * But that's just plain confusing. We would have two drivers finishing in, say, third place, with only the colours to explain the discrepancy (which is no explanation at all).


 * "If we're including them it looks like they can still be used as tiebreakers, which is not the case."
 * I can't find anything to suggest that they will be used as a tie-breaker. As far as I know, the usual countback system applies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I mean. Those non-counting results are not taken into account for a count back. That's why it's confusing to include them.Tvx1 22:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why including NC makes it confusing. It acknowledges that the crew completed the event, but that their result did not contribute to the manufacturers' result, especially when the result contributed to the drivers' and co-drivers' standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so, back to the Sporting Regulations, it says that a manufacturer "Will be awarded points according to Art. 5.3 of these regulations. For any one Manufacturer, a maximum of three (3) nominated drivers may be eligible to score points of which only the 2 best placed (see Art. 7.2.6) will score points according to their relative position. The third placed cars may neither score nor detract points from the other cars."


 * as by saying "the third placed cars" is mentioning a classification. E.G. if M-Sport takes places 1, 2 and 3, and Hyundai take place 4, M-Sport will get points for 1 and 2. The third car will be classified, but cant score nor detract points from the next one, so Hyundai, with it car placed 4 will take 15 points (instead of 12).


 * But, if I want to hit myself with a contradiction, in the 2015 Rally Argentina, Ott Tanak finished 11 in the classification, but the FIA sees him as the 10th placed car. Although that was a different situation, because the 10th classified car was not regulated by the FIA.MNSZ (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; I think you're looking at that from the perspective of the overall classification without really taking into account the impact that it has on the manufacturers' standings. In your scenario, M-Sport place first, second and third, and a Hyundai is fourth. What that effectively means for the manufacturers' championship is that M-Sport are classified first and second and Hyundai are third. The NC would not be saying that the third M-Sport car was not classified, but rather that it was not classified in the manufacturers' championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but as I read the Regulation, all cars are classified (including the 3rd car), they just don't get points. We could use the prose to explain why Hyundai (in the example) would obtain points for third and not for fourth.
 * Nevertheless, given the two options, I prefers the "NC" remark and not the "blank" option, as that would mean as if the car didn't run at all, and will not differentiate them-self with the real ones that didn't run (as the #9 of Citroën and #12 of Toyota for Monte-Carlo). MNSZ (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The other alternative would be to add an entirely new field to the key, such as "NE" for "Not eligible for points", but that makes the table more complex when we want simplicity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Seeing how it came up, I think it is ok with the "NC" label. MNSZ (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Made one slight tweak to it&mdash;I changed the blue to light blue. The reason is that the legend was borrowed from Formula One season articles, where both non-points finishes and non-classified finishes both use blue backgrounds. However, non-classified finishes are rare in Formula One; I can probably count the number of NCs from the past ten years on one hand. However, here NC finishes are going to be used frequently, since they're built into the rules, so I thought it worthwhile to change the colour to better-distinguish from non-points finishes. It's currently light blue, but we could change it to something else (pink?) if need be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, my mistake. There would need to be 15 cars eligible to score points before the problem I am envisioning becomes an issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A radical idea
This is spun out from an idea that I posted above. Since it's a fairly radical and possibly controversial idea, I think a separate discussion space is warranted in the interests of managing the conversation.

My idea is this: we remove the second driver table entirely, and limit the top driver table to 2017-specification cars ONLY.

My reasoning is this:
 * Tables should only be used in articles to arrange information in a visual manner. They are not a substitute for prose. As it is, there is a lot of detail in the prose to begin with, but a lot of the drivers from the second table (ie Solberg, Gorban, Bertelli) are not discussed in the prose at all&mdash;the only places they are mentioned are the driver table and results matrices.
 * A key focus of the article is the drivers', co-drivers' and manufacturers' championships. In order to be able to win those titles, drivers must contest the full season (or close to it). Any notable exceptions, such as Breen in Monte Carlo, can be detailed in prose.
 * It is not uncommon for WRC-2 drivers to score drivers'/co-drivers' points. We don't include them in the WRC season article.
 * The WRC Trophy could be spun off into a separate article. The reason why WRC, -2 and -3 all got separate articled was to stop the WRC article from getting bloated.
 * On the subject of table bloat, it's entirely possible for single-entry crews to rapidly fill the table&mdash;like Henning Solberg, who usually only ever does Sweden. It's not uncommon for WRC-2, -3, ERC and the old IRC season articles to select which entries were included in driver tables (usually crews who contested multiple rounds and/or scored points). I see no reason why we cannot do the same here.
 * When a constructor (such as M-Sport) enters more than three cars, as they will in Sweden, we can use the icon system to denote points-nominated drivers.

The short version is that I think there's a real danger that we won't be able to see the trees for the forest&mdash;that we'll be so busy including all of the detail that we'll lose sight of the important parts. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with presence of the second table. It's been there for years. Listing those who enter with a WRC car an thus can score drivers and co drivers points seems logic to me. If the table gets too big we can always make it collapsible.Tvx1 23:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to spin the WRC Trophy out into a separate article. The only real anomalies are Breen and Lefebvre in the DS3s, but that can be explained in prose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; the WRC Trophy is separate to the World Rally Championship, just like the WRC-2 and WRC-3. I've created 2017 WRC Trophy for it since it is its own title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to support it's independent? Otherwise I cannot see much justification to dedicate a whole seperate article to what's simply two-and-a half extra tables on this one. It would only serve to make things more complicated. I also don't think it's comparable to WRC–2 and WRC-3. Those championships use cars from different classes. The WRC trophy use the same class of cars as the WRC championships and don't forget that these drivers can also score points for the WRC Drivers and co-drivers championships. That's why I think it's better to keep things at one place.Tvx1 00:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Do you have a source to support it's independent?"

The first WMSC source confirming its creation. It's exclusively for pre-2017 cars, which is independent enough for me. No driver of a 2017 or Group R car is eligible for points.


 * "don't forget that these drivers can also score points for the WRC Drivers and co-drivers championships"

So, too can WRC-2 and -3 drivers. Andreas Mikkelsen, Jan Kopecky and Bryan Bouffier are currently eighth, ninth and tenth in Monte Carlo. If they score points, they'll go into the results matrices, even if they're not in the driver table. It's happened before.


 * "The WRC trophy use the same class of cars as the WRC championships"

In name only. Every source on the 2017 specification cars has emphasised how radically different they are to pre-2017 cars. In fact, the 2017 cars are fourth-generation WRC cars; the class was first introduced in 1997, revised for 2004, revised again for 2011, and once more for 2017. Each generation has been radically different to the previous ones. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Going to tag @ here, as he has previously expressed the idea of creating a WRC Trophy article and might want to contribute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, we can see how previous seasons of the WRC-2 worked with an internal Cup (for Production Cars). For Example, in the 2014 season we have 5 tables for results, which will be the same case in discussion here. I see more a problem with that than with the entries table. So, in my opinion looking for more understandable articles, I see two solutions:


 * 1- Make a separate article for the WRC Trophy (My preferred one):
 * In the prose of the main article we can mention it with a link.
 * as we do in the WRC template for external links, we can add a "group" of cups, which would include the DDFT, the 2LT Cup and all other cups outside the championships.
 * 2- Simply remove the numbers of the non-manufacturers entries:
 * For example, las year Lefebvre used 4 different numbers, and Gorban used 3 different ones. If we remove the numbers, in those cases, we reduce 7 rows into only 2.


 * In this case, the second option resolves the problem with the entries table, but not for the results tables. The thing is that, even choosing to create a separate article for the WRC Trophy, I would not eliminate the non-manufacturer entry list, but definitely would make it simpler (no "Class" column, and no "Number" column). MNSZ (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; Option 1 is the best, but the second table would have to be removed. Keeping it would just duplicate information in the WRC Trophy article, making it redundant. Then we'd just have Breen and Lefebvre in the second table, and that will be useless once the third C3 is ready.


 * I think it's best to consciously limit the table to 2017 cars, and explain any anomalies in the prose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there is third option:
 * 3. Leave things as they are.
 * We have been presenting these article like this for years with little complaint. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the numbers from the second table, but that's the only proposal with a hint of improvement I can see here. I really can't see how creating seperate articles for each sort of sub-competition (especially for one with just three competitors) makes things easier to understand an maintain as well. Keeping things in one place does. Don't forget we're not on simple en wiki here. And no, removing the WRC trophy entrants from the second table most certainly does not only leave Breen and Lefebvre. We already have Østberg and Solberg entered as non-manufacturer non-WRC trophy WRC car entries for Sweden. And they aren't driving Citröens. And you do realize that there another eleven rallies which are yet to have to complete their entries do you?Tvx1 12:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "We have been presenting these article like this for years with little complaint."

And 2017 represents a significant change in the sport. It's not like the FIA made a few tweaks to the cars here and the 2017 are otherwise indistinguishable from the 2016 cars. Think of it like this: if 2017 cars are the equivalent of Formula One, then 2016 cars are like GP2 (it's not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea). Whereas previously everyone had the same machinery, be they manufacturer or privateer, now there is a significant difference between them. Enough that the FIA saw fit to create a new competition specifically and exclusively for the old cars.


 * "I really can't see how creating seperate articles for each sort of sub-competition (especially for one with just three competitors) makes things easier to understand"

It's being treated as a separate competition. We can't just ignore that because it's inconvenient for us to observe it. Besides, as you point out, there are still eleven rallies that are yet to complete their entry lists, so while there might only be three entries for now, that number can grow. If you compare it to previous season articles, it almost certainly will&mdash;privateer entries tend to avoid Monte Carlo and Sweden unless the crews are specialists because of the unique surfaces.


 * "Keeping things in one place does."

Not when that one place is an inappropriate place. If you're trying to argue that it's in our interests to keep things simple and direct, then surely having two separate tables with unique criteria to define them defeats the purpose of your argument. Especially when we can demonstrate through reliable and verifiable sources that the WRC Trophy is being run as a separate competition within the World Rally Championship, just as the WRC-2 and WRC-3 are.


 * "We already have Østberg and Solberg entered as non-manufacturer non-WRC trophy WRC car entries for Sweden. And they aren't driving Citröens."

The driver table gives too much weight to the manufacturers' championship. It seems to be an unintended consequence of sorting the table by manufacturer (which was done to tidy the table up otherwise it would be full of redundant information scattered everywhere). Ideally, it should address all competitors who entered 2017-specification cars. That's its function; it really shouldn't be discriminating as to who could score points and when. That's for the results matrices to address. The driver table should be an umbrella table: a list of competitors; nothing more and nothing less. Since we can't include every entry for every rally (because that would make for an enormous, unwieldy list and rended the WRC-2 and -3 and potential Trophy articles redundant), we use the 2017-specification cars as a discriminator. Anything else can be omitted or moved to a separate article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of this is merely your view of what you think what the article should like based on what you think is important. Pure subjective. The WRC Trophy is a minor, low importance sub-competition and dedicating a separate article to it is just overkill. WRC(-1), WRC-2, WRC-3 are all full World Championships, while the trophy isn't. It's just like the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman trophies in Formula 1. We don't have separate articles for them either. Size isn't an issue either. We're well inside the limits before needing to consider a split. It's entirely appropriate to keep all things here.


 * Regarding the entries, if you're claiming that it is to manufacturers championship-centric then limiting them to the 2017-specification cars is only going to make things worse because you'll throw out everything but the manufacturer entries. Now we are listing all the entries who primarily enter for the WRC championships, with the first table listing those who compete in the whole package (manufacturer, driver and co-driver), while the second table list those who only do the driver/co-driver part while also noting those who compete in the WRC trophy.


 * We have had this layout for years without any problem and cannot see any justification for a major overhaul like this. A major rule change is in itself not enough. Major rule changes are not that uncommon in motorsports. We have already had some in Rallying before, none of which necessitate a major overhaul of the articles. So why execute one now?Tvx1 17:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, keep doing what we've always done because we've always done it that way? You know that attitude doesn't work on Wikipedia because articles are written in the way that best represents their content, and that can change.


 * "It's just like the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman trophies in Formula 1. We don't have separate articles for them either."
 * So the WRC Trophy is not important enough to merit a separate article, but it is important enough to be included in the primary WRC season article? That just sounds completely contradictory.


 * "limiting them to the 2017-specification cars is only going to make things worse because you'll throw out everything but the manufacturer entries"
 * I'm arguing that the current table format over-emphasises the manufacturers' championship. I think we can cut the WRC Trophy entries (or put them in a separate article) and merge the likes of Østberg and Solberg into the main table. And as for Breen and Lefebvre in DS3s, we can simply do what the European Formula 3 season articles do and use a footnote to explain that they also entered a DS3 at selected events.


 * "the second table list those who only do the driver/co-driver part while also noting those who compete in the WRC trophy"
 * The entire second table is being sustained by the WRC Trophy entries. Take them out, and it becomes redundant because everything that remains can be merged into the first table. As for the driver and co-driver championships, WRC Trophy entries can only theoretically win them&mdash;they would need to win every rally they entered and have every 2017 entry fail to score to have any impact on the championship.


 * "We have already had some in Rallying before, none of which necessitate a major overhaul of the articles. So why execute one now?"
 * First of all, the creation of the WRC-2 and WRC-3 were major rule changes that necessitated article overhauls, as were the introduction of Group R and the phasing out of Group N. So rule changes can and do bring about article overhauls.


 * Secondly, there hasn't been a major rule change like this since the introduction of World Rally Cars in 1997. There have been tweaks to the formula, such as the move to shorter-wheelbase cars in 2011, but that was not as extensive as this change. When World Rally Cars were introduced, Group A was discontinued and Group N introduced as its replacement, which saw the creation of the Group N Cup for Production Cars (which later became the P-WRC). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No not simply because "we've always done it that way". Because it has been a good, well working way of doing it and there's no evidence it doesn't work anymore.
 * Not even remotely contradictory. Quite on the contrary, it's logical and in line with the guidelines. The conditions something needs to meet to warrant a stand-alone article are considerably higher than they are for simply including it as part of an other article.
 * Right from the start I can see the unnecessary problems which arise with this proposed merger. For a start, how would we integrate the MINI in the first table with its constructor/manufacturer column?? Mini/BMW are not competing in this year's championship themselves. The car is entered by a privateer. Similarly we already have some privateer Citroën and Fords. And that's with just two of the thirteen scheduled rallies having completed their entries. The clear benefit of the table is that we can provide a clear distinction between the manufacturers' own entries with and the privateers.
 * Utter nonsense. These articles have had these tables for years. Well before a WRC Trophy has even remotely considered. Similarly we have
 * As you say World Rally Cars were introduced in 1997. That's well before Wikipedia was established. You can't claim there was a major overhaul of season articles' layout because of that rule change. Similarly there's no evidence that the introduction of Group R provoked a complete overhaul of the season articles.
 * Right from the start I can see the unnecessary problems which arise with this proposed merger. For a start, how would we integrate the MINI in the first table with its constructor/manufacturer column?? Mini/BMW are not competing in this year's championship themselves. The car is entered by a privateer. Similarly we already have some privateer Citroën and Fords. And that's with just two of the thirteen scheduled rallies having completed their entries. The clear benefit of the table is that we can provide a clear distinction between the manufacturers' own entries with and the privateers.
 * Utter nonsense. These articles have had these tables for years. Well before a WRC Trophy has even remotely considered. Similarly we have
 * As you say World Rally Cars were introduced in 1997. That's well before Wikipedia was established. You can't claim there was a major overhaul of season articles' layout because of that rule change. Similarly there's no evidence that the introduction of Group R provoked a complete overhaul of the season articles.
 * As you say World Rally Cars were introduced in 1997. That's well before Wikipedia was established. You can't claim there was a major overhaul of season articles' layout because of that rule change. Similarly there's no evidence that the introduction of Group R provoked a complete overhaul of the season articles.
 * As you say World Rally Cars were introduced in 1997. That's well before Wikipedia was established. You can't claim there was a major overhaul of season articles' layout because of that rule change. Similarly there's no evidence that the introduction of Group R provoked a complete overhaul of the season articles.


 * So, with all due respect I cannot see how any of your proposals will actually serve to improve the articles. I'm sorry but sometimes you simply have to accept that something that you propose is not the only way forward.Tvx1 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@
 * "Right from the start I can see the unnecessary problems which arise with this proposed merger."

Only if you keep the parameter that the table outlines entries eligible for manufacturer points. But if we present it as an entry table, the problem is solved.


 * "For a start, how would we integrate the MINI in the first table with its constructor/manufacturer column??"

All entries are driving a car built by a manufacturer, regardless of whether or not they are scoring manufacturer points. But the Mini in question is a WRC Trophy entry, and I would argue that the WRC Trophy entries can be removed. There was a WRC Trophy entry in Monte Carlo, and yet for all the coverage of the event, I haven't found a single mention of it. If it weren't for the entry list, you wouldn't know that it existed.

Look at the WRC-2 and WRC-3 articles. There were cars entered in the Monte Carlo Rally that would have been eligible for points in those championships if the crews had nominated for points. Since they didn't, they're not included in the article. I see no reason why we cannot do the same with WRC Trophy entries&mdash;the crews can score points, but they cannot win the drivers' or co-drivers' championships.


 * "Similarly we already have some privateer Citroën and Fords."

I have already outlined how we can address that.


 * "The clear benefit of the table is that we can provide a clear distinction between the manufacturers' own entries with and the privateers."

If you cut the WRC Trophy entries from the table and integrate the remainder into the main table, it's not a problem&mdash;provided that the single table is a table of entries, not a table of entries eligible for manufacturer points.


 * "Similarly there's no evidence that the introduction of Group R provoked a complete overhaul of the season articles."

Except that Group R entries are the only entries eligible to score points in the WRC-2 and-3. Those championships were created for Group R cars.


 * "I cannot see how any of your proposals will actually serve to improve the articles."

By removing superfluous information of questionable notability and condensing two tables into one that is easy to read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with the problems I see arise.
 * Only if you assume that the MINI will only be entered for the WRC trophy. There is no reason to assume it won't be entered as non-manufacturer, non WRC Trophy entry (thus driver/co-driver championship). It was many times last season alone.
 * Sure they can. They are perfectly eligible to do so. They just have to score enough points. Regardless, this article isn't only about the winners of the championships. It deals with the full results of the championships. And you're suggesting we bluntly remove some drivers and their co-drivers whose primary concern is to achieve a position in the World Rally Championship for drivers/co-drivers. Can you not see just how poor that proposal is??
 * No you haven't. You only referred to the non-manufacturer championship entries by the manufacturer teams. You haven't talk about the privateer Citroëns and you haven't discussed the Fords at all. You've been ignoring Østberg, Solberg and Bertelli completely. Moreover you keep acting like the contents of the second table is already final despite many entries still having to be made. See that's another issue I have. This just a very bad moment to considering an overhaul. We should wait until we have the final content. At this moment we have no way of knowing the hypothetical problems you want to solve will actually come into existence.
 * It is a problem, and it's clearly visible in the proposals in your sandbox. You're listing a number of entries as if they were entered by the constructors in question, when in reality they aren't at all. They're privateer entries. Moreover, using simply the same word with a different background color as a key, and this something that you as a colorblind person should know, is a very poor practice.
 * I've already given more than enough explanation why it doesn't make it easier to understand the information at all.
 * On a side note, if you quote someone's talk page posts, please use the appropriate templates for that action. That will make the discussion easier to follow.Tvx1 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. You only referred to the non-manufacturer championship entries by the manufacturer teams. You haven't talk about the privateer Citroëns and you haven't discussed the Fords at all. You've been ignoring Østberg, Solberg and Bertelli completely. Moreover you keep acting like the contents of the second table is already final despite many entries still having to be made. See that's another issue I have. This just a very bad moment to considering an overhaul. We should wait until we have the final content. At this moment we have no way of knowing the hypothetical problems you want to solve will actually come into existence.
 * It is a problem, and it's clearly visible in the proposals in your sandbox. You're listing a number of entries as if they were entered by the constructors in question, when in reality they aren't at all. They're privateer entries. Moreover, using simply the same word with a different background color as a key, and this something that you as a colorblind person should know, is a very poor practice.
 * I've already given more than enough explanation why it doesn't make it easier to understand the information at all.
 * On a side note, if you quote someone's talk page posts, please use the appropriate templates for that action. That will make the discussion easier to follow.Tvx1 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already given more than enough explanation why it doesn't make it easier to understand the information at all.
 * On a side note, if you quote someone's talk page posts, please use the appropriate templates for that action. That will make the discussion easier to follow.Tvx1 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@
 * "There is no reason to assume it won't be entered as non-manufacturer, non WRC Trophy entry (thus driver/co-driver championship)."

There is no reason to assume that it will be, either.


 * "It was many times last season alone."

The WRC Trophy did not exist in 2016, do what happened last year is not representative of the situation this year.


 * "Sure they can. They are perfectly eligible to do so. They just have to score enough points."

They can win, but only in the most theoretical sense. They would need to win every rally, and have all the 2017 entries fail to score.


 * "And you're suggesting we bluntly remove some drivers and their co-drivers whose primary concern is to achieve a position in the World Rally Championship for drivers/co-drivers. Can you not see just how poor that proposal is??"

We already do it. Andreas Mikkelsen Jan Kopecký and Bryan Bouffier all scored points in Monte Carlo&mdash;but they're not in the driver table. If a WRC Trophy entry scores points, we will of course include them in the results matrices. But that doesn't mean that they should be included in the driver table by default.


 * "You're listing a number of entries as if they were entered by the constructors in question, when in reality they aren't at all."

No, I am grouping the entries based on the marque&mdash;the company whose badge appears on the car. Then I am grouping them based on who actually entered them.


 * "You haven't talk about the privateer Citroëns and you haven't discussed the Fords at all."

Privateer Citröens entered in WRC Trophy can be removed. As for the DS3s entered for Breen and Lefebvre, a footnote can be used, explaining that they contested selected rounds in an older model.


 * "You've been ignoring Østberg, Solberg and Bertelli completely."

Østberg is being entered by M-Sport because only manufacturers can enter 2017 cars. Solberg is listed as the entrant, but he is entering a 2017 car and has no co-driver yet, so that entry will have to be updated. Bertelli is entering a 2016 Fiesta in the WRC Trophy and can be removed.


 * "Moreover, using simply the same word with a different background color as a key"

It's only a rough draft of what I had in mind.


 * "this something that you as a colorblind person should know, is a very poor practice"

Why do you think I used high-contrast colours?

Also, monochromatic vision is very rare.


 * "I've already given more than enough explanation why it doesn't make it easier to understand the information at all."

And I don't think you have adequately made the argument. You're ignoring very valid points that I have raised. When we were discussing Massa's retirement, you pointed out that a subject is notable if there is sufficient media coverage of it. But here, you're insisting that the WRC Trophy entries should stay in the article despite an absence of media coverage. I have not seen a single mainstream media article discussing the performance of the WRC Trophy entries in Monte Carlo. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made a sample of my preferred version in my sandbox. It's basically returning to the system last used in 2000. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're being petty. We have to take the possibility into account. We have to take a long-term view on this matter. Suggesting an overhaul which only works between now and the next rally (or the one after that) is simply ridiculous.
 * Why on earth do you keep claiming that the 2017 entries would have to fail to score at the same time? Just imagine that say Bertelli wins all the remaining rallies. Surely he would have then scored more points than anyone behind him. Even if they score points?
 * Those drivers don't enter with WRC(-1) cars and don't have the primary concern isn't achieving in the WRC(-1) for Driver/Co-drivers. You can't make that comparison. Footnotes or prose can explain their presence in the results tables.
 * And in doing so, you're making it look like BMW/Mini is participating as manufacturer when they aren't.
 * Again you're unjustifiably assuming that no other Citroëns will be entered this season. We must ensure that our articles can deal with it, if other ones should be entered.
 * Same as before. Other ones can be entered as well. This list is by no means final.
 * That doesn't mean we should ignore it. Why does it need fancy colors in the first place. Why can't we use the same style as the FIA and the rallies' organisers: M for Manufacturer entries, T for WRC Trophy entries and D for Driver&Co-driver championships-only entries?
 * Which even more suggest that a stand-alone article isn't justified by any means.
 * Now, we can keep this going eternally, but there's no point at all. There's no evidence that any of your proposals will make the articles provably better. If have explained the many problems with them more than adequately. Sometimes your proposal just isn't the only (and certainly not the best) way forward. Moreover, I think your being seriously over concerned. Already the entry tables only fill a small part of the article which is only going to expand over the year. So please drop it and let's focus on what really needs some attention. For instance, the rally reports. They all are nothing but a collection of results tables. They could all do with the addition of actual reports presented in the form of prose. And please use the dedicated templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your "preferred version" and I can't see how that is any improvement from what we have. It removes any way of finding out who was entered in which of the three categories we've been discussing. That makes it even worse than your other proposals.Tvx1 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same as before. Other ones can be entered as well. This list is by no means final.
 * That doesn't mean we should ignore it. Why does it need fancy colors in the first place. Why can't we use the same style as the FIA and the rallies' organisers: M for Manufacturer entries, T for WRC Trophy entries and D for Driver&Co-driver championships-only entries?
 * Which even more suggest that a stand-alone article isn't justified by any means.
 * Now, we can keep this going eternally, but there's no point at all. There's no evidence that any of your proposals will make the articles provably better. If have explained the many problems with them more than adequately. Sometimes your proposal just isn't the only (and certainly not the best) way forward. Moreover, I think your being seriously over concerned. Already the entry tables only fill a small part of the article which is only going to expand over the year. So please drop it and let's focus on what really needs some attention. For instance, the rally reports. They all are nothing but a collection of results tables. They could all do with the addition of actual reports presented in the form of prose. And please use the dedicated templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your "preferred version" and I can't see how that is any improvement from what we have. It removes any way of finding out who was entered in which of the three categories we've been discussing. That makes it even worse than your other proposals.Tvx1 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which even more suggest that a stand-alone article isn't justified by any means.
 * Now, we can keep this going eternally, but there's no point at all. There's no evidence that any of your proposals will make the articles provably better. If have explained the many problems with them more than adequately. Sometimes your proposal just isn't the only (and certainly not the best) way forward. Moreover, I think your being seriously over concerned. Already the entry tables only fill a small part of the article which is only going to expand over the year. So please drop it and let's focus on what really needs some attention. For instance, the rally reports. They all are nothing but a collection of results tables. They could all do with the addition of actual reports presented in the form of prose. And please use the dedicated templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your "preferred version" and I can't see how that is any improvement from what we have. It removes any way of finding out who was entered in which of the three categories we've been discussing. That makes it even worse than your other proposals.Tvx1 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@
 * "Suggesting an overhaul which only works between now and the next rally (or the one after that) is simply ridiculous."

That sounds like crystal balling to me. You're assuming that there will be an entry list which proved the need for two tables at some indeterminate point in the future.


 * "Just imagine that say Bertelli wins all the remaining rallies. Surely he would have then scored more points than anyone behind him. Even if they score points?"

WRC Trophy entries can only take part in seven rounds. Bertelli could only score 210 of the 390 (now 360) points on offer.


 * "Those drivers don't enter with WRC(-1) cars and don't have the primary concern isn't achieving in the WRC(-1) for Driver/Co-drivers."

Neither do WRC Trophy entries.


 * "Why can't we use the same style as the FIA and the rallies' organisers: M for Manufacturer entries, T for WRC Trophy entries and D for Driver&Co-driver championships-only entries?"

Because it's an entry list. It should only be concerned with who entered and when. Who scored points and when is the concern of the results matrices.


 * "So please drop it and let's focus on what really needs some attention."

You don't get to declare the discussion to be over and settled in your favour because you've had enough.


 * "Which even more suggest that a stand-alone article isn't justified by any means."

So it's not notable enough for its own article, but it is notable enough to be tacked onto the most important article associated with the 2017 season?


 * "It removes any way of finding out who was entered in which of the three categories we've been discussing."

It's not trying to. And nor do I think that it should. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I'm really ok with the table divided into Manufacturers entries and the non-manufacturers entries. I think that, for a reader that doesn't follow rallies news and just want to inform them-self, it's quite explanatory as a driver who is entered by a Manufacturer receives a backpack that any other driver can. Besides, the WRC started only for manufacturers. Later they added a cup and a championship for drivers. In my opinion, that's shows that, in this sport, Manufacturers entries should be noted. And the best way that I found is with two tables instead of just one. If we look at the 2000 table, it's really complicated to distinguish witch entries are backed by a manufacturer, or even score points for them.


 * To address another problem, lets imagine this: Lorenzo Bertelli enters the WRC Trophy with a Fiesta RS. Then, he enters others rounds with the same car but not on the Trophy. Then, he enters others rounds with a '17 car. Yes he can win the championship (not only by winning all of his WRC Trophy entries), so he is notable enough to be addressed as a non-manufacturer entry (as, in my opinion, everyone else who enters a WRC). But now, we have the problem of having 3 rows for only 1 driver (and not to talk about the changing numbers in each entry). So, how I find that we can address this possible problem without altering the way we have been working these articles for the last years?, I see fitting two solutions:


 * To create the WRC Trophy article. This would help to remove the "T" clarification from the non-manufacturer table.
 * If you don't see the Trophy notable enough, we can make a sub-section for the Trophy with their own Entry List as the 2012 did with the support categories.


 * This, plus removing the numbers from the non-manufacturer WRC entries, will give us a clearer table. I know that this would "duplicate" some info in one table and other, but it would be more understandable for the reader: "We have THIS drivers who have entered a WRC-Specification car. But also, if you're interested enough, you can keep reading this section in which you will find out about a trophy created by the FIA for drivers who runs an old WRC".




 * I would say that the supports categories articles needs the same treatment and are more urgent than the rally report. But this would be a discussion for the wikiproject.




 * But he can also enter every other round in other car and still win. MNSZ (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not assuming anything by any means. I'm merely taking a longterm view by preferring to have tables which can deal with whatever future development we get. You're the one assuming that the current entry list is final (something you probably picked from your time contributing to the F1 articles where 99% of the drivers are already entered at the start of the season) and as result only roughly looking a week ahead.
 * Quite on the contrary. WRC Trophy entries do.
 * Nothing prevents him from entering the other rallies as a drivers/co-drivers championship-only entry for the other rallies and thus from scoring there as well.
 * Because of the nature of the sport, it should also be (and it currently) concerned with what they are entered for. Contrary to say F1, cars and their drivers aren't entered for all the championships by default. Our readers have to be able to understand that. And currently they can. You want to deny them that possibility.
 * You missed the point completely. No matter how many words you are going to put on this page, now matter how many times you're going to repeat your arguments, it's not going to change the fact that your proposals do not constitute any improvement to this article. That's why it's time to drop the stick.
 * Exactly. The notability bar for a stand-alone article lies much, much higher than it does for including that content in an existing article. Here it fits nicely in the story. As said before, it only comprised a small part of the article. Not even remotely enough to make such drama as if it would constitute a major barrier for the rest of the content, when it doesn't all. You're assuming hypothetical problem into existence which obviously don't exist.
 * Of course it should convey who and what is entered for which championship. That's the most elementary information of a motorsports season.
 * And for the third time, please use templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm not the only who sees the dual table situation as the better version. I have already stated that I'm not opposed to removing the numbers from the second table. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the WRC Trophy to its separate, but short subsection.Tvx1 02:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You missed the point completely. No matter how many words you are going to put on this page, now matter how many times you're going to repeat your arguments, it's not going to change the fact that your proposals do not constitute any improvement to this article. That's why it's time to drop the stick.
 * Exactly. The notability bar for a stand-alone article lies much, much higher than it does for including that content in an existing article. Here it fits nicely in the story. As said before, it only comprised a small part of the article. Not even remotely enough to make such drama as if it would constitute a major barrier for the rest of the content, when it doesn't all. You're assuming hypothetical problem into existence which obviously don't exist.
 * Of course it should convey who and what is entered for which championship. That's the most elementary information of a motorsports season.
 * And for the third time, please use templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm not the only who sees the dual table situation as the better version. I have already stated that I'm not opposed to removing the numbers from the second table. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the WRC Trophy to its separate, but short subsection.Tvx1 02:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And for the third time, please use templates when quoting someone else.Tvx1 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see I'm not the only who sees the dual table situation as the better version. I have already stated that I'm not opposed to removing the numbers from the second table. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the WRC Trophy to its separate, but short subsection.Tvx1 02:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@, @ &mdash; Alright, let's hit the reset button. My issue is this: the tables should express the most important information in the simplest form. It should be a record of who entered which rallies in which cars. As soon as we start trying to distinguish between who was scoring points in the different championships, it adds a layer of complexity that I find to be unnecessary. Especially when the results matrices already do that (and indeed are dedicated to it).
 * ''"To create the WRC Trophy article. This would help to remove the "T" clarification from the non-manufacturer table."'"

I would be willing to accept this; indeed, it's why I created 2017 WRC Trophy in the first place. In fact, I think its creation is completely justified: it is a championship created and ratified by the FIA specifically and exclusively for a particular class of car (the only reason why it is not a "championship" is because the FIA didn't want it to usurp the WRC-2). If a Trophy driver scores World Championship points, they will of course be included in the results matrices here&mdash;but I don't think that they should be included in the driver table because their primary concern will be the WRC Trophy; the WDC is a secondary concern.

But whatever we do, I think that the driver table in this article must be kept in the simplest form. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just you personal view on what you want these articles to look like. Myself and MNSZ half already expressed our disagreement with that view. What they are entered for is equally important. It certainly doesn't add complexity. That's just you being over concerned. It merely provides our readers with the basic information pertaining to the nature of this sport. As with other motorsport season articles. The result matrices should serve to present which result each entry yielded. Having result matrices of which half of the names it contains only appear there doesn't give clarity to anyone.
 * I still feel creating a dedicated article is undue. As you said before it's not that important. Moreover, creating a separate article results in unnecessary duplication of a lead, the info boxes, the map and the calendar (even though we're not even sure that every Rally will see WRC Trophy entries). All that can be avoided by simply having a due but short subsection here. And WRC Trophy position being a primary concern is just your opinion.
 * The problem is you have a subjective and very strict view of what constitutes "simple". Me and MNSZ think that the dual table situation is the simplest way of relaying all the necessary information. And don't forget we're not on simple wiki here.Tvx1 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still feel creating a dedicated article is undue. As you said before it's not that important. Moreover, creating a separate article results in unnecessary duplication of a lead, the info boxes, the map and the calendar (even though we're not even sure that every Rally will see WRC Trophy entries). All that can be avoided by simply having a due but short subsection here. And WRC Trophy position being a primary concern is just your opinion.
 * The problem is you have a subjective and very strict view of what constitutes "simple". Me and MNSZ think that the dual table situation is the simplest way of relaying all the necessary information. And don't forget we're not on simple wiki here.Tvx1 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is you have a subjective and very strict view of what constitutes "simple". Me and MNSZ think that the dual table situation is the simplest way of relaying all the necessary information. And don't forget we're not on simple wiki here.Tvx1 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "As you said before it's not that important."

My position is that it's not important, but if it is to be included then it should be in a separate article. If the WRC Trophy is a separate championship and we continue to include it here, then why keep bothering with WRC-2 and WRC-3 season articles? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Will you please top comparing the trophy to the WRC-2 and WRC-3. More WRC-2 drivers were entered for the Monte Carlo rally alone than Trophy drivers for Monte Carlo and Sweden together. WRC-3 drivers were also in a greater number than the trophy drivers in Monte Carlo. The WRC Trophy is clearly not at par to WRC-2 and -3 and not a complete separate independent championship. It's a subcompetion to the WRC for drivers who don't possess the state-of-the-art, current technology, just like the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark Trophies were to F1. That's why mentioning it here it's the most weight it merits.
 * And that's in direct contradiction of WP's guidelines. Something needs to be more important to merit a stand-alone article than it does to merit mentioning in an other article. Not the other way round.Tvx1 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's in direct contradiction of WP's guidelines. Something needs to be more important to merit a stand-alone article than it does to merit mentioning in an other article. Not the other way round.Tvx1 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's in direct contradiction of WP's guidelines. Something needs to be more important to merit a stand-alone article than it does to merit mentioning in an other article. Not the other way round.Tvx1 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)