Talk:2017 World Rally Championship/Archive 2

A new solution
@, @ &mdash; I'm continuing the above discussion in a new heading because the above one is getting very big.

Anyway, I think I have a solution. Rather than thinking of the entries in terms of manufacturers and non-manufacturers, we think of it in terms of "manufacturer entries" and "major entries", and then we define what a major entry is.

In order to be considered a "major entry" and be included in the driver table, an entry must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
 * They entered a 2017 World Rally Car.
 * They entered a pre-2017 World Rally Car in more than one event.
 * They scored drivers'/co-drivers' points (even if they only entered one round).

Importantly, we don't use the icon system. We focus solely on the 2017 World Rally Championship. If somebody is also competing for the WRC-2 title or the WRC Trophy, then they also appear in those season articles. Yes, that does involve some degree of duplication&mdash;but we can use that duplication as a thread tying all of the 2017 championships together. After all, they are recognised as separate championships.

(I also quite like this solution because it addresses the problem of drivers whose only appearance in the article is in a results matrix with no context.)

Once again, I have done a mock-up in my sandbox. It's just a draft version, but it gives you an idea of what it might look like. But importantly, it works on the idea that the 2017 World Rally Championship article ONLY addresses the 2017 World Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers and Manufacturers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're basically suggesting to keep the current tables, but merely glue them together? Fine, if you're that obsessed with having just one physical table. But I do think that it would be better to repeat the column headers in every section. And in the second section and third section the first column should be named "car". Having entries like MINI in a manufacturers column is confusing. They are not competing with their own team. Moreover I don't understand the need for distinguishing between non-manufacturer 2017-spec and non 2017-spec entries. The age of their car makes no difference whatsoever to their right to score driver/co-driver points. Now, THAT is an example of adding an unnecessary layer of complexion. Also the WRC Trophy drivers need to be addressed as well. They are competing in the 2017 World Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers as well and have just as much right to be included. You really need to ditch the dedicated article idea. Guidelines simply don't allow it. A subsection here is the maximum we can dedicate to it.


 * "You really need to ditch the dedicated article idea. Guidelines simply don't allow it. A subsection here is the maximum we can dedicate to it."
 * Please quote for me the relevant policy to justify this statement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ''"Also the WRC Trophy drivers need to be addressed as well. They are competing in the 2017 World Championships for Drivers, Co-drivers as well and have just as much right to be included."'"'
 * I see you have completely ignored the central idea at the heart of the table: namely that it focuses on the entries competing in the 2017 championships and treats every sub-championship as a separate championship. Like I said, there is an issue whereby drivers appear for the first time in the article in the results matrices, with no context as to how they got there. This proposal directly addresses that. Instead, this is what you chose to focus on:
 * "So you're basically suggesting to keep the current tables, but merely glue them together?"
 * You're so determined to see one article that you're blindly overlooking the merits of the system and focusing on purely cosmetic elements&mdash;which are not without precedent; look at earlier season articles, such as 2006. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you playing ignorant? I have already linked to the relevant page in the above section.
 * I just commented on the merits of the table I saw. If you're going to create a table which needs to be accompanied by an explanation of the philosophy behind it before readers can correctly understand it and its intentions, it really should be obvious that there is massive flaw with your proposal.
 * No, there isn't. In fact that's been one of MY greatest concerns all along. Your previous proposals and your insistence of removing the WRC Trophy entrants is what actually is going to create that problem. The only scope for it currently happening are WRC-2 and WRC-3 drivers. I agree that these should have a footnote explaining there presence here. Your latest proposal only constitutes an aesthetic change
 * No I'm not only focusing on this article. The "current" in my earlier post relates to the tables in the previous seasons' articles as well. You're the one only focusing on 2017. For instance, you made a change to the results key to accommodate a type of events new to this season, while completely ignoring the fact that the key is used in dozens of articles and that your edit caused a mismatch between the many tables and the key.Tvx1 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. In fact that's been one of MY greatest concerns all along. Your previous proposals and your insistence of removing the WRC Trophy entrants is what actually is going to create that problem. The only scope for it currently happening are WRC-2 and WRC-3 drivers. I agree that these should have a footnote explaining there presence here. Your latest proposal only constitutes an aesthetic change
 * No I'm not only focusing on this article. The "current" in my earlier post relates to the tables in the previous seasons' articles as well. You're the one only focusing on 2017. For instance, you made a change to the results key to accommodate a type of events new to this season, while completely ignoring the fact that the key is used in dozens of articles and that your edit caused a mismatch between the many tables and the key.Tvx1 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No I'm not only focusing on this article. The "current" in my earlier post relates to the tables in the previous seasons' articles as well. You're the one only focusing on 2017. For instance, you made a change to the results key to accommodate a type of events new to this season, while completely ignoring the fact that the key is used in dozens of articles and that your edit caused a mismatch between the many tables and the key.Tvx1 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No I'm not only focusing on this article. The "current" in my earlier post relates to the tables in the previous seasons' articles as well. You're the one only focusing on 2017. For instance, you made a change to the results key to accommodate a type of events new to this season, while completely ignoring the fact that the key is used in dozens of articles and that your edit caused a mismatch between the many tables and the key.Tvx1 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC
There are two issues:
 * Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?
 * What is the best way to represent the entry list?

Lengthy discussion has failed to come to a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is divided into two parts:

1) Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?

Through reliable and verifiable sources, we can demonstrate that the WRC Trophy:
 * Is recognised by the FIA (the sport's governing body) as a competition that is separate from the World Rally Championship.
 * Was created specifically and exclusively for a particular class of car. Nobody may score points in the WRC Trophy unless they are entered in it.
 * Has unique rules that distinguish it from other, similar championships.

These criteria have been used to justify the creation of other articles, such as the FIA R-GT Cup and J-WRC. Therefore, we can reasonably create standalone articles for the WRC Trophy, rather than including the WRC Trophy articles within the primary season article. It is also worth noting that in source #57, Malcolm Wilson (team principal of M-Sport) says that manufacturers will continue to operate customer programmes, building pre-2017 cars even after 2017 cars are readily available and that the WRC Trophy will probably need to be run for at least two years.

(Furthermore, long-standing consensus at WikiProject Motorsport says that the use of tables should be kept to a minimum. With the tables related to the WRC Trophy, 2017 World Rally Championship has nine individual tables, including five results matrices; many of these tables are also quite complex.)

2) What is the best way to represent the entry list?

I am of the belief that the entry tables at 2017 World Rally Championship are unnecessarily complex. By creating a separate article for the WRC Trophy, we can remove that complexity&mdash;the icon system used to denote WRC Trophy entries.

However, there is an added issue that I want to address, which is best demonstrated by Jan Kopecký. Kopecký is a WRC-2 driver who scored points in the World Rally Championship. However, the only place that he appears in the article is the results matrix for the drivers' championship. Because he scored points in the drivers' championship, I believe that he is notable enough to be included in the driver table for the rounds in which he scored points. Kopecký also scored points in the 2017 World Rally Championship-2 (and is a full season entry there). Conversely, Quentin Gilbert is a full-season WRC-2 entry. Although he scored WRC-2 points, he did not score WRC points, and so should not be included in the 2017 World Rally Championship driver table.

In short, what I am proposing is that the focus of 2017 World Rally Championship should be solely on the 2017 championships (driver, co-driver and manufacturer). If a driver is eligible for points in another championship (the WRC-2, WRC-3, WRC Trophy and R-GT Cup), then that should be detailed in the relevant article&mdash;they only appear in 2017 World Rally Championship if they score points in the 2017 World Rally Championship. In order to help visualise this, I have created a draft in my sandbox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment:

1) Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?


 * Agree.


 * To throw pros an cons, we have done both things. For example, as you mention, the FIA R-GT Cup received his own article, but, for example, the 2015 Production Cup did not. But, seeing how that turned out, alerts me to coincide with you: There where too many matrices of results in just one article. And that a little overwhelming for the reader. My point of view is that, in the main championship (lets say in this case the 2017 WRC, or the afore-mentioned 2015 WRC-2) should be a prose explaining that an "internal" cup is being held, with a link to the article.

2) What is the best way to represent the entry list?


 * Disagree


 * I see no point in switching the entry tables as they are now (except for the proposed removal of the numbers on the non-manufacturers entries). As I say before, the championship started as a manufacturer only championship, and that is an important reason.


 * Looking at your proposal, I found too complex the regulation for a "major" entry. Only specialized contributors (lets say the three of us who are in this discussion) will only know how or who applies for a "major" entry. I think that, as it is now is the right way to go: Manufacturers entries, and all others entries with a WRC-Specification car. The case of Kopecký and all others R5 and under entries who score points, will be noticed in the prose. For example, the prose for the Monte rally section of the season report should address all scoring position, and that will include a mention to Mikkelsen, Kopecký and Bouffier scoring points while driving R5-Specification cars.


 * On a side note, I find that the discussion seems to be more of a "who have the reason" between User:Prisonermonkeys and user:tvx1. We have a third opinion (my opinion). We should have come to an agreement a time ago and not extend so much this. I have given a lot of proposals, and taken into account when they weren't needed. I think that there is no need for a big buzz. Just my opinion on the matter.


 * By the way, take into account that I would agreed also to a sub-section for the WRC-Trophy, but I think that the best way to go is give them their own article. MNSZ (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * "Looking at your proposal, I found too complex the regulation for a "major" entry."
 * It could be simplified to "drivers who scored points". It is, of course, open to discussion. But first, I think this needs to be answered:
 * "Manufacturers entries, and all others entries with a WRC-Specification car"
 * What does the FIA consider to be a World Rally Car? The 2017 cars are the fourth generation of World Rally Cars, but 2017 is the first season in which a previous generation of World Rally Cars has been allowed to compete alongside the new generation. So how does the FIA regard cars built between 2011 and 2016? I think we need to consider the sporting regulations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those listed as WRC/RC1 class on the entry and results lists. I really thought that was easy enough to understand. Has it ever come up to you that these tables are based on sources? We don't decide on the distinctions ourselves. We simple relay the distinction shown to us in the reliable sources. We also don't go making changes based on our own interpretation of the rules. As for your claim that this is the first season in which a previous generation of cars has been allowed to compete alongside the new generation, the 2017-is spec only the third major generation of WR Cars. This means we've only had one previous change of generation. That's not much info to draw conclusions from. If we should do. You're simply overrating the implications of having two generations of WRC's driving similtuanously. The FIA simply tells us what is a RC1 and what. All the RC1 class entrieshave the exact same eligibility to compete for the Drivers/Co-drivers championships.Tvx1 00:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1) Should the WRC Trophy be split into a separate article?


 * Disagree.
 * The WRC Trophy is merely a subcompetition for the WRC. Its entrants compete in the WRC's for drivers and co-drivers as well. It's no near notable enough to satisfy our notability guidelines to warrant a stand-alone article. It's very similar to the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark Trophies in F1, which are only dealt with in the main championships' articles. Regarding size there's no problem either that would require a split. I can understand the concerns regarding number of tables, but think it's a clear case of being overconcerned, because a)the number of tables currently is the exact minimum we need to present all the information (i.e. one per championship) and b)the article is going to be expanded with prose while the season progresses, reducing the percentage of space taken by the tables over time.

2) What is the best way to represent the entry list?


 * The way we have it right now
 * Currently all WRC/RC1 class entries which can appear in the results tables are currently presented in the entry lists in an easily understandable format. The basic information regarding them (which cars they drive, their teams, their tyres and the rounds they were entered for) is all present. Executing the proposal from question one will increase the number of names not appearing in the entry lists appearing in the results tables. I'm also opposed to including RC2/RC3 drivers which scored points (or simply WRC finishes) in the entry lists as this only creates confusion. Indeed the prose for the relevant rallies and footnotes should be able to deal with them. The current format has worked perfectly for years and still don't see how it allegedly has stopped doing so.

3) General
 * I feel the RFC suffers from insufficient neutrality. The originator directly surmised the "best course of action".Tvx1 00:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * "The WRC Trophy is merely a subcompetition for the WRC. Its entrants compete in the WRC's for drivers and co-drivers as well"
 * By that logic, we shouldn't have separate articles for the WRC-2 and WRC-3, because they also compete in the WRC.


 * "It's no near notable enough to satisfy our notability guidelines to warrant a stand-alone article."
 * These are the notability guidelines.
 * Significant coverage&mdash;the formation of the championship is detailed in the article as a change to the sporting regulations, and the results have been discussed in secondary sources to the same extent as WRC-2 and -3 results.
 * Reliability&mdash;all of the sources used for the WRC Trophy are the same as the sources used for the other championships, and there has never been an issue with reliability.
 * Secondary sources&mdash;the article uses entry lists published by event organisers, results published by the FIA, and news articles from a variety of media sources.
 * Independence&mdash;uses articles from the likes of Autosport and Speedcafe.
 * Presumption&mdash;as outlined in my initial comment, we can demonstrate that the WRC Trophy is recognised by the FIA, was created exclusively for a particular class of car, and has unique rules.
 * So it meets all of the notability guidelines.


 * "Executing the proposal from question one will increase the number of names not appearing in the entry lists appearing in the results tables."
 * But then you go on to say the following: "Indeed the prose for the relevant rallies and footnotes should be able to deal with them." So why is it acceptable to omit WRC-2 and -3 entries from the table and include them in prose, but it's not accept to do the same for WRC Trophy entries?


 * "I'm also opposed to including RC2/RC3 drivers which scored points"
 * You're arguing that drivers who can potentially score points should be included in the table, but now you're arguing that drivers who do score points should not be included.


 * "I feel the RFC suffers from insufficient neutrality. The originator directly surmised the "best course of action"."
 * The original comment, which appears on the RFC page is very brief. The subsequent comment outlines the arguments so that anyone reading the RFC can understand what the issues are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * RC2/RC3 entrants are not directly entered for the WRC. WRC Trophy drivers are. They are directly entered for WRC for drivers/co-drivers as well with cars designed for the WRC (thus belonging to the RC1 class).
 * They don't primarily compete in the WRC. WRC trophy entrants do. Their primary concern is a position in the WRC for drivers/co-drivers. Also, stop treating the Trophy and RC2 and RC3 like they are at par. They very obviously aren't. RC2 and RC3 three are for more notable and significant. Just look that how much more entries there are in those championships in comparison to the Trophy. As I have said many times the WRC Trophy is like the Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Trophies in F1. It's participants main concern remained the World Championship.
 * No. I'm arguing that only the drivers entering RC1 cars should included in the WRC entries tables. The presence of RC2 and RC3 drivers can easily be dealt with with prose. They are not dedicated WRC(1) entries should not be listed in the entry list on this article creating the impression that they actually were.
 * Yes, but the subsequent comment does not only outline the issue, it also blatantly recommends a preferred course of action. That's not neutral by any means.
 * No. I'm arguing that only the drivers entering RC1 cars should included in the WRC entries tables. The presence of RC2 and RC3 drivers can easily be dealt with with prose. They are not dedicated WRC(1) entries should not be listed in the entry list on this article creating the impression that they actually were.
 * Yes, but the subsequent comment does not only outline the issue, it also blatantly recommends a preferred course of action. That's not neutral by any means.
 * Yes, but the subsequent comment does not only outline the issue, it also blatantly recommends a preferred course of action. That's not neutral by any means.
 * Yes, but the subsequent comment does not only outline the issue, it also blatantly recommends a preferred course of action. That's not neutral by any means.


 * Now, we have already made our positions clear enough. It's obvious that we won't agree and endlessly repeating that we don't isn't going to result in anything. You've requested wider input, so let other people now weigh in their views. The RFC process runs for 30 days, so let it run its course.Tvx1 21:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "They don't primarily compete in the WRC. WRC trophy entrants do. Their primary concern is a position in the WRC for drivers/co-drivers."
 * If you want that to be considered as part of the RFC, I think you will need to prove it. After all, the WRC Trophy was created for crews entering cars that could not compete for the premier titles on merit alone.


 * "The RFC process runs for 30 days, so let it run its course."
 * I agree. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Toyota GAZOO Racing WRC Entrant Nationality
Hi there!

Is it ok to list the Toyota GAZOO Racing WRC team as a Japanese one? Since the creation of the "Teams" championship (instead of just Manufacturers), they are being listed as where they are based (and thus where are they licensed to run the team). For example, Hyundai Motorsport is listed as a German-based team instead of Korean. The same with M-Sport when it was still backed by Ford. The Ford World Rally Team was listed as a British team (where M-Sport is based), and not an U.S.A. one. Shouldn't Toyota be listed as a Finnish team? MNSZ (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We tend to follow the information on the official site. It's listed as Japanese over there. On the other hand, no flags are present at all in the official standings, which makes me doubt whether we should have them.Tvx1 17:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The official standings aren't the only source available. If there are other sources that support their inclusion, they're perfectly acceptable.


 * The nationality used is not necessarily the country in which the team is based, or the nation the parent manufacturer is from. It's the nationality that the entrant registered with the FIA. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The FIA doesn't list manufacturers/teams nationalities on its entry lists or in its results tables. Neither do the rallies' organizers. I can find little usable information in the independent reliable sources.Tvx1 01:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WRC.com used to use them before they gave the site an overhaul late last year. I admit that I haven't checked it out since, so I don't know if they're still there, but I don't see why that would invalidate their use. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Top-level article
While we wait for the RfC to be addressed, I have had a brainwave that means we might be able to resolve this on our own: a top-level or meta article.

I'm taking inspiration from 2015 Formula Renault seasons. It's one article which addresses each of the Formula Renault championships at once, but without going into the level of detail used in an individual season article. It essentially acts as one article that anchors and provides an overview of all of the content that is too extensive and detailed to be compressed into a single article.

Similarly, the Supercars Championship articles use these top-level articles to address things that happen during the season outside the main championships. There is a non-championship round at Albert Park in support of the Australian Grand Prix that is not included in the championship article because it is not a championship round, and so it is included in the top-level article.

As it stands, we have four championships and three supplementary competitions that run alongside the championships:


 * Championships
 * WRC
 * WRC-2
 * WRC-3
 * J-WRC


 * Competitions
 * WRC Trophy
 * R-GT Cup
 * Drive DMACK Trophy

That way, we can have individual articles for each championship, and a top-level article where we can include the supplementary competitions that run alongside the championships.

So, @,, what do you think? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's a solution looking for a problem.Tvx1 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The WRC Trophy, R-GT Cup and Drive DMACK Trophy are all awarded independently of the WRC championships. How on earth is shoehorning them into articles that they are only tangentially related to the best possible solution? Especially when there is a precedent within the wider scope of WP:MOTOR to do exactly what I am proposing here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, there is enough of a consensus to justify splitting the WRC Trophy entries out into a separate article. Consensus is by no means a vote, but sometimes it comes down to which idea has the majority support. All of these suggestions and proposals that I have come up with have been attempts to accomodate your point of view. I have gone out of my way to conceive of multiple means of addressing the issue, and I am the one who has made concessions to the other point of view. You, on the other hand, are the one who has been unwilling to work with others, has insisted that the article is fine the way it is despite being in the minority, and has refused to accept any alternatives. How about you start working with others for a change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I was re-reading the Sporting Regulations and, in the Appendix XII (The WRC Trophy) says that "2.1.4 If fewer than 5 competitors have been classified at the end of the FIA WRC Trophy, the FIA reserves the right to suspend the Trophy.". Knowing this, I would not go for a full article as for now there could easily be no trophy at all.


 * Now, about the proposal, I think it would be better to discuss it in the WikiProject World Rally, as it has more to do with the overall arrangement of all the articles and not just this year's. I even consider that we are making too much focus on the WRC Trophy, when we have (in my opinion) a mayor problem of consistency, as we are changing practically every year the way we show the information. Please check the last few years up until the 2010, and you'll find out that the entries, calendar and reports sections are not consistent. I think that we have a good "template" now, but for the reader we must go backwards and work with previous articles. But as I say, that is a discussion for a more "widther" plain that just the 2017 article. I even presented there an option to divide all championship (including the S-WRC and P-WRC). If you want, please check the Talk page of the project.


 * But going back to the WRC Trophy, I think that we can work in the sub-section option that was previously presented. It would be a "meet me half-way" kind of solution. If you all care to check my sandbox, I worked in this "sub-section". Please check not only that sub-section, but how I would work the "non-manufacturer" entries also. I think that it looks much more cleaner that way.


 * I will also tag here @. I see that he had made some contributions/editions to the articles and maybe wants to have some words on the matter. MNSZ (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Knowing this, I would not go for a full article as for now there could easily be no trophy at all."

I understand the concern, but I think that it's speculating on future events. We can demonstrate that there are Trophy entrants right now and that the FIA is open to receiving more entries. Removing them because the competition was abandoned would require a source to say that it is happening.


 * "I even consider that we are making too much focus on the WRC Trophy, when we have"

I think that we are simply by including it in this article. It doesn't have the same weight as the WRC championship.

That's why I am proposing this top-level article as a place for everything that is happening parallel to the nain championships. Off the top of my head, it would go something like this:


 * "The 2017 World Rally Championship seasons were a series of rally racing championships held in 2017. They consisted of the World Rally Championship, recognised by the FIA as the highest class of international  competition; the World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3, which served as the primary feeder series for crews competing in Group R cars; and the Junior World Rally Championship, a one-make series for drivers under the age of twenty-one. The 2017 season also saw crews contest a series of competitions run alongside the championship including the WRC Trophy, which was open to crews competing in World Rally Cars built prior to 2017; the FIA R-GT Cup, a competition for crews competing in GT cars adapted for rallying under Group R regulations; and the Drive DMACK Fiesta Trophy, a young talent programme sponsored by tyre supplier DMACK."

This would then be followed by a calendar showing which championships and which competitions ran at which rounds, links to the four main championships (WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC), entry lists for the three parallel competitions (Trophy, R-GT Cup and Drive DMACK), and finally results matrices for the parallel competitions.

The wording could be adapted depending on the season in question and the championships and competitions being held within it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Drive DMACK Trophy does not exist anymore since M-Sport and DMACK supply with cars and tires to JWRC starting this season. Also WRC-2 and WRC-3 have the same calendar as the main category, while WRC-T entrants are just World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points. Thus I don't see a need for separate WRC Trophy page.


 * R-GT Trophy is independent from the WRC as it shares rounds with the European Rally Championship and Tour Europe Rally.


 * Thus I don't see the need for top level article as neither WRC, WRC-T, WRC-2 and WRC-3 have individual calendars like in the past when PWRC and SWRC had their own fixed calendars. While this idea works for some franchises like the afromentioned by @ Formula Renault and the TCR Series since the series are separate one from another but are under the umbrella of an specific franchise.Ivaneurope (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That doesn't invalidate the point that the WRC Trophy is run independently of the WRC. Trophy drivers are eligible to score WRC points, but WRC drivers cannot score Trophy points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at 's proposal, I agree that that is the best forward. I really can't see how one can genuinely argue that mentioning something as part of an other article is giving it more attention than dedicating a stand-alone article to it.Tvx1 14:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is naturally going to be some degree of cross-over between related articles; you have to show that there are connections between them. But there is a big difference between mentioning something as part of an article, and dedicating subsections to it&mdash;especially when they are not of equal weight. The World Rally Championship is a world championship title awarded by the FIA, but the WRC Trophy is a secondary competition that only some drivers are eligible for. They do not have the same weight, and the Trophy was specifically created in such a way that it does not threaten the position or status of the likes of the WRC-2. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * While that subsection looks manageable now, it will only grow in size. There will be a lot of duplicated (and redundant) content, especially if we are including Trophy drivers in the primary driver table and in their own, separate table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed
The RFC has run its thirty days, and has closed without additional comment. However, from the discussion and subsequent related threads at WikiProject World Rally, it is clear that editors support removing the WRC Trophy content from this article and creating another one for it. I have moved the WRC Trophy content to 2017 WRC Trophy, but the final form that this will take remains to be seen, pending the outcome of further discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC has not been closed at all. It has expired, but there is no closing template wrapped around the discussion and there is no assessment of the consensus. A request for closure has been posted, per standard procedure, and we should wait until it has been handled. Anyway, I don't see any clear support for the standalone article at all. Myself, and  (all the other contributors to the discussions) have stated there preference of keeping the content here during the RFC and the subsequent "Top-level article" discussion. The preference seems to be for a subsection. I can't find the additional support or editors at the WikiProject World Rally talk page you speak of either. The contributors are the same ones who contributed here.Tvx1 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

One-table format
I would like to move the team and driver section to a one-table format if it can be managed. I think it's a bit of a mess to have two separate tables with different layouts, and that they could be merged into one table with a layout that addresses all of the issues that arise, such as points eligibility. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not support that change. I think it is ok as it is right now. We have some articles in which they are semi-combined, and the amount of info makes the reader loose track. For example, the 2011 (the non-scoring point entries for manufacturers are included with the others). As we talked before in the A radical idea, Manufacturers are notable enough to have their own table.


 * In fact, I was about to open a discussion to see the possibility of eliminating the numbers column of the non-manufacturer entries. I think that numbers in non-manufacturer entries are not important and does not affect in any way the championship (only one driver have a "promotional" number - Bertelli - All others are designated individually in every event and does not comply any recurrence method). This would support maintaining both tables, as in the Manufacturers, they DO have a meaning. MNSZ (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I just notice that you changed the table without having a consensus for such change. You have included entries which are not WRC Entries on the basis that they have scored points. We already have this discussion, and no consensus was given, as in the prose we can explain that they scored points. Tagging @ as he was part of that discussion too.MNSZ (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read BRD. Editors don't need to establish a consensus before making changes. And I have no idea why you're tagging Tvx1 because he doesn't contribute to the actual articles and makes his decisions based on a consensus that was established by other editors on other, unrelated articles that were never intended to be applied outside the article that they were established for. Plus, he has a history of arguing for things that are in the interests of another article first and the current article second. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're concerned about manufacturer eligibility, there are ways around that, like an adaptation of the icon system:

Or, if you would prefer, the system used by MotoGP and WEC:

Or just do what the Formula One articles do and treat the entry table as a table of entries and use other parts of the article to discuss who scores points, under what circumstances and when because those other parts are the most appropriate place to put that content.

The short version: there are options. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, to put it in your own words: "There is no solution to be found because there was never a problem in the first place.". I don't see the problem with the current table, and so, I don't see any improvement on those presented. We have a good system for the tables, and I don't see a need for a change. MNSZ (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "I don't see the problem with the current table, and so"
 * It's unnecessary and redundant. One table is always better than two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with here, your proposals don't constitute an improvement. The current system is very clear and has worked for years with little complaint. All I can see is one user having arrived demanding that the article be shaped to their preferred layout. Also, as a red-green colorblind person you should know full well that the your second proposal is not agreeable as if contains color as the sole means of conveying information. Lastly, I didn't need to be pinged as I regularly visit this talk page. This means I was aware of the discussion even before MNSZ's post. This also means that I can obviously your completely unfounded accusations of bad faith. I can only assume the first one deals with my removal of the word "will" a couple of months ago. Your accusation is completely wrong, since that had nothing to do with a consensus for an other article, but with a policy which obviously applies to ALL articles. The second accusation simply nonsense. I never argue for things that are in the interests of another article than the one the talk page I argue on belongs to, unless I'm arguing on a WikiProject discussion in a more broad discussion. Bottom line, you really have stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you has the intention to make wikipedia worse.Tvx1 21:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Also, as a red-green colorblind person you should know full well that the your second proposal is not agreeable as if contains color as the sole means of conveying information."

First, I can see the green just fine. My condition is red and green together, usually in the presence of a third colour. The only prople for whom it would be a genuine problem would be people with monochromatic vision, and even then, they would see shades of grey.


 * "This also means that I can obviously your completely unfounded accusations of bad faith"

Oh, but it's true:
 * "Tvx1 [...] doesn't contribute to the actual articles"

When was the last time you contributed to this article?


 * "Tvx1 [...] makes his decisions based on a consensus that was established by other editors on other, unrelated articles that were never intended to be applied outside the article that they were established for."

Case in point, your repeates assertions that we should do what Formula One editors did with the Chapman and Clark trophies, even though that decision was made solely for Formula One articles and doesn't take into account this particular situation.


 * "Tvx1 [...] has a history of arguing for things that are in the interests of another article first and the current article second."

Case in point, the Formula One season articles where you said that the name of the current season article must be kept as "20XX Formula One season" because changing it would be bad for seasons with non-championship rounds.

So why the insistence that WRC articles should just do exactly what Formula One season articles do without considering the needs of the WRC articles? After all, you rejected the idea of renaming Formula One season articles to bring them in line with the naming conventions of other World Championships&mdash;the WRC, WRC, WEC and WTCC&mdash;so why are Formula One editors allowed to act in the interests of the articles, but WRC editors must observe the conventions of other articles before acting in the interests of the article?

This has nothing to do with the needs of the article and everything to do with you getting your way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the above directly relates to the proposed one-table format. I have given my arguments why I think that would not be an improvement and so has MNSZ. Comments on the contributors are not going to help your stance even a tiny bit.Tvx1 12:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't make any contributions to the article. The last thing you did was to fill out a reference in late January. Other editors have no idea what your editing history is like, but here you are making judgements about what is in the best interests of the article. Don't you think that other editors should know about your track record? Especially when you argue that one rule should be applied to two unrelated articles, but then argue that those unrelated articles should observe two separate rules, and all with no clear indication of when articles should follow which rules. The WRC and Formula One are not the same, and the first priority for WRC editors should be to do what is best for WRC articles, not to copy Formula One articles with no consideration for the specific needs of the WRC articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing that relates to the one-table format proposal, regarding which I agree with MNSZ that it is not an improvement. That a user who has been blocked countless of times berates another user who has never been blocked at all (in fact not even been even put under any administrative sanction ever) about their track record is absolutely ludicrous. I have also missed the Wikipedia policy which dictates that eligibility to contribute to a discussion is dependent on having made a specific number edits on the subject.Tvx1 02:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Every registered user should be able to comment. For example, I follow on a daily basis the F1 articles, but there is people contributing so often that I simply don't have anything to do. That doesn't mean that I should have no saying on the discussions. Even if someone it's not a contributor or a follower to an article, a comment from someone with a different view or more perspective (as those who work on the article every day), can bring light on a discussion (or a new point of view).


 * So lets try go back on the subject (if there is anything more to say), and keep the who or why on the margin. MNSZ (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I think, so I would like to focus on the subject as well.Tvx1 03:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove numbers on non-manufacturers entries
Hi there!

Seeing that Valery Gorban received a new number for his third outing this year, can we consider removing the numbers from the non-manufacturers entries table? As different with the manufacturers entries, in here numbers are given randomly, and there is no meaning to it (Only one driver is using it as a promotional aspect - Bertelli - and so he keeps it for the rest of the season, but it doesn't add anything else). MNSZ (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it's just Gorban, I don't have too much of a problem with it. If another driver starts using multiple number, or if Gorban gets a fourth number, then I would take issue with it. But for now, I'd rather have as much common content between the tables as possible. I think that takes a much greater priority than the aesthetics of the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking back over previous season articles, we did this in 2012, but we applied it to the entire table. From memory, we only did it after a driver used his fourth number. It seems like a pretty extreme measure to take because of one driver.


 * With a bit of markup manipulation, I've managed to kludge this solution together:


 * But it's not as neat as I thought it would be. I had hoped that the drivers in the privateer table would not be so far over to the left. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)