Talk:2017 World Rally Championship/Archive 3

What to do with the WRC Trophy
Given the uncertainty and the lack of a definitive conclusion last time, I thought it was about time to try again. I've set a bot up to clear the page of old discussions, and hopefully we will get a few new, constructive voices this time. The question is as follows:


 * What should we do about the WRC Trophy?

The way I see it, we have three options &mdash; we can keep the article as it is, split the WRC Trophy off into a separate article, or delete the WRC Trophy content entirely as not being worthy of inclusion.

As before, I think the best way forward is to split, based on the following:


 * (1) The WRC Trophy is a separate event

Although the WRC Trophy is run alongside the WRC, it is structured as its own event. WRC Trophy crews are eligible to score points in the WRC, but not all WRC crews are eligible to score WRC Trophy points. Everything related to the Trophy should be moved to a separate article, and the entries here treated as WRC crews because this article deals with WRC eligibility.


 * (2) The WRC Trophy has its own unique rules

The Trophy has unique rules related to entry eligibility and points scoring that only apply to it. The WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC all have their own unique rules, and get their own separate articles. The WRC Trophy is no different in this respect.


 * (3) The WRC Trophy is a long-term project

Key figures within the sport anticipate that the Trophy will need to be run for several years before being phased out; this creates a need for a 2018 and a 2019 Trophy article.


 * (4a) The article is enormous &mdash; and is only going to get bigger

Based on the amount of content added after each subsequent rally, this article will comfortably grow to the point where a split should be considered. I full intend to keep developing it so as to achieve GA or even FA starus. Given its separate structure to the WRC, the Trophy is a prime candidate for splitting out into a separate article.


 * (4b) Trophy entries don't get coverage

The Trophy entries are mentioned in the entry table and their results matrices &mdash; and nowhere else. If we fully integrate them into the body of the article, the article size will only continue to grow, thus necessitating a split.


 * (5) The article is cluttered

Between the calendar, entry tables, summary table and results matrices, there are already nine tables in this article, which is far too many. Separating the Trophy content into its own article will ease this problem.


 * (6) Including the Trophy takes the focus off the subject of the article

This article is about the 2017 WRC. Including the Trophy here implies that the Trophy has equal weight to the WRC, which is not the case.

It has been noted that the sporting regulations state that if there are not enough entries over the course of the year. If this is the case, all content related to the Trophy should be deleted regardless of where it is on Wikipedia. In the meantime, we cannot be making decisions for this article based on what may or may not happen if certain conditions are or are not met at some vague point in the future. That's speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I ask if you have a source for (3)? I sincerely don't remember reading anything about a long-term commitment.


 * Nevertheless, going to the subject, I'm PRO giving every championship/cup it's own article. But this are my concerns about doing so:


 * (Concern 1) Is the new article will be a stub, with only tables and no prose as we have with This example? I'm trying my best to avoid this on the 2017 articles giving a season report in each one.


 * (Concern 2) Is it worthy? By now, we have only three entries, one of which is already driving a 2017-Spec car and thus, probably will not show up again in the trophy.


 * Keeping that in mind, and as you said "If this is the case, all content related to the Trophy should be deleted regardless of where it is on Wikipedia", we should take that same principle into account and leave it inside the main article. And if the Trophy grows in size, then we should think about moving it up. As it is right now, I would go with the fourth option that you omitted: Giving the Trophy a sub-section with some explanatory prose. MNSZ (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash;
 * "Can I ask if you have a source for (3)?"

Not right now, I'm afraid. It's in an Autosport source, and I have used up all of my article views for the month. It waa Malcolm Wilson saying that the Trophy will be necessary for a few years, given the availability of 2017 cars and the FIA's restrictions on driver eligibility.


 * "Is the new article will be a stub, with only tables and no prose as we have with This example?"

No, because we will have the opportunity (and responsibility) to expand it.


 * "Is it worthy? By now, we have only three entries"

Its notability is based on it being run separate to the WRC and having its own unique rules, not the number of entries.


 * "As it is right now, I would go with the fourth optionthat you omitted: Giving the Trophy a sub-section with some explanatory prose

That's not really an option. If we focus solely on the WRC for the moment, then given the current rate, the article will grow to the point where WP:SPLIT recommends splitting an article. Integrating the Trophy will only increase the size of the article. If we assume that there is a size limit and address both WRC and Trophy within it, it takes the focus off the subject of the article.


 * "Keeping that in mind, and as you said "If this is the case, all content related to the Trophy should be deleted regardless of where it is on Wikipedia", we should take that same principle into account and leave it inside the main article."

If the number of entries is that much of a concern for you, the content should be deleted entirely and only reconsidered if and when the Trophy is awarded. It shouldn't be shoehorned into an article that it is only tangentially related to for the sake of including it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not about the quantity of the Entries, but the size of the article. As you say, if the Trophy grows, and the article came to a position where it is recommended a split, well, maybe then is when this subject must be addressed. What I mean is that I don't see much changes in opinion (or events that can lead to one) since the last talk we have about it. As the "new article" didn't met consensus, and one of your addressed points is that the Trophy in this article is only mentioned in the tables, well, let's give them a little prose. And the best way to do it (in my opinion) is making a small sub-section which will contain all the information necessary. And when the time comes and the Trophy (and the article) grows, we may address again this case. MNSZ (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@
 * "I don't see much changes in opinion (or events that can lead to one) since the last talk we have about it"

It was never really resolved one way or the other last time. When no consensus is established, "just keep doing what you have been" doesn't become the consensus by default.


 * "if the Trophy grows, and the article came to a position where it is recommended a split, well, maybe then is when this subject must be addressed"

I completely disagree with this. The Trophy is independent of the WRC, even if drivers are eligible for both. The article will grow to a size where a split is recommended regardless of how much content is related to the Trophy.


 * "And the best way to do it (in my opinion) is making a small sub-section which will contain all the information necessary"

Which amounts to saying "we've got this thing and we don't know what to do with it, so we'll just stick it here because they're kind of related".


 * "You have included entries which are not WRC Entries on the basis that they have scored points."

Those drivers scored points in the WRC, regardless of the class of competition they were competing in. You want to cut them from the article despite this, but at the same time, you want to keep all mention of the Trophy in this article even though the Trophy is a separate competition. Using your logic, either both should be kept or both should be cut. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, drivers who are eligible for the J-WRC are also eligible for the WRC-3. You have no issue with separating the articles thete, so why oppose it here? Surely consistency is in everyone's interests. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "so why oppose it here?"
 * You should read my statement. As I say before: I'm "PRO giving every championship/cup it's own article". I'm just lifting concerns about the best way to go through it and that satisfies contributors and readers.


 * "I completely disagree with this. The Trophy is independent of the WRC, even if drivers are eligible for both. The article will grow to a size where a split is recommended regardless of how much content is related to the Trophy."
 * I know, but you before said that one of the matters that will make the article grow is the Trophy information. Well, maybe when that time comes, Then we should reconsider this, not now when we have no consensus and there have been no changes since the last time it was discuss.


 * "Using your logic, either both should be kept or both should be cut."
 * Not at all, as the Trophy drivers are WRC-Cars Entries, and the others not. That's the big difference.


 * I Still think you should present a source for the statement (3), as I think that will help you to raise the notability of the Trophy to others contributors. MNSZ (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that yet again a discussion is opened with a lecture on what is the best course of action and not with a neutral request for opinions. 1) and 2) are only partially correct. The is trophy is not a full standalone competition. It runs along with the WRC using its calendar and the regulations are actually mostly the same. The points distribution is the same. The rally stages are the same and the cars have to oblige with the same technical regulations as the other non-manufacturer entries. The only difference is that drivers have to specifically enter themselves for the Trophy if they want to score points for it. I say it before and I will say it again: the WRC Trophy is very similar to the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark trophies in formula one. 3) is actually hilarious, throughout the above discussion other users are criticized for allegedly basing their decisions on the assumption of future events, yet here we have the person writing that criticism making a full argument for splitting out the WRC Trophy based on the assumption of a unsourced guaranteed future need of a separate article That's WP:CRYSTAL spelled out for you. I disagree entirely with 4a). The article has 21kB readable prose at the moment which is well below the 50kb at which a split could be discussed and not even close to the 100kb at which a split is generally necessary. We have plenty of room for expansion and with not even all of the first four rallies having WRC Trophy entries, that particular competition is not taking up a considerable place at all. Assuming that the size will become problematic is once again that assuming of the future we are criticized for. If there really is a concern about the current size, than maybe we should start questioning whether the current amount of prose is due? I, in particular, whether the rally-by-rally reports are too extensive. I'm wondering whether it would be better to move a considerable amount of it to the actual articles on those specific rallies. These articles currently barely have any prose at all (the Mexico and Sweden rallies' currently only have tables in them). 4b) Is actually not an argument in favor of a split but merely a reminder that we should start mentioning it somewhat in the prose. One or two sentences will suffice at the present time, so the effect on the article's size should be minimal. I disagree with 5) as well. There is far more prose in the article than there are tables. There simply isn't cluttering at all. Actually, there's a good balance currently. Besides, the Trophy only comprises two of the seven tables. 6) is just utter nonsense. As pointed out before. The coverage of the Trophy is minimal (it gets what it's due) and the focus of the prose and the tables is very very clearly on the world championships. So all in all I cannot see how anything has changed from the previous discussion to make a split justified. If there a problems with size or cluttering (and I don't think there are) the Trophy is not the enemy. I therefore disagree with splitting it out and if a change is needed, and I'm not even convinced of that, it support option 4 which is moving it into a subsection.

On a side note, could both of you please use the dedicated template when quoting other users? In the above replies it is really difficult to distinguish between the quoted paragraphs and your own opinions.Tvx1 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "It's disappointing to see that yet again a discussion is opened with a lecture on what is the best course of action and not with a neutral request for opinions"

This coming from the guy who shows up with a very particular idea of what he wants, refuses to budge from that position, and then criticises people for changing their minds, even after he just persuaded them to? Don't make me laugh. You outright rejected every proposal last time around, and your only "contributions" to this article have been to shoot down any proposal you disagree with om the basis of what other, unrelated articles do. Why are you even here? You don't do anything but show up, make a sweeping declaration about what is best for the article and expect that it is observed, then deliberately drag discussions out when people want to do something else.


 * "The is trophy is not a full standalone competition. It runs along with the WRC using its calendar and the regulations are actually mostly the same. The points distribution is the same. The rally stages are the same and the cars have to oblige with the same technical regulations as the other non-manufacturer entries. The only difference is that drivers have to specifically enter themselves for the Trophy if they want to score points for it."

Then by that logic, the WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC should not have their own articles, either because you just described them, too.


 * "I, in particular, whether the rally-by-rally reports are too extensive."

And yet, you have no issue with it elsewhere. You even argued that an extensive season report was not only justified, but necessary on other championship articles. At the moment it just looks like you're trying to find a reason not to split the articles.


 * "I say it before and I will say it again: the WRC Trophy is very similar to the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark trophies in formula one. "

I stopped reading after this. It's a prime example of a straw man argument. You claim that because you have refuted the need for the Chapman and Clark trophies to have their own articles, you have refuted the need for the WRC Trophy to have its own article. What you're ignoring is that the decision not to establish separate articles for the Chapman and Clark trophies was made in the context of their relevance to Formula One articles and was never intended to be applied outside those articles. While we can take into consideration the decisions made under similar circumstances, we cannot assume that a decision made elsewhere is binding.


 * "one of the matters that will make the article grow is the Trophy information"

Yes, it will. But the Trophy is not the focus of this article&mdash;and nor should it be&mdash;and the article will grow to the size where a split is recommended without any content related to the Trophy.


 * "Trophy drivers are WRC-Cars Entries, and the others not. That's the big difference."

Except that the Trophy regulations make it clear that they are a separate class of car.

Since this discussion hasn't attracted any other voices and because I think that Tvx1 is just going to deliberately drag the discussion out, I'm going to be proactive and tag some editors who I think might make more meaningful contributions because they're actually invested in improving the article: @, @, and @. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. I have the right to post my opinion and I have. MNSZ has posted theirs as well and neither agrees with you. You are still operating on the overconcern that the article is guaranteed to grow to a size which necessitates a split. That is the same sort of speculation you are berating us for. It's absolutely not certain that will be the case. Just look at the 2016 article. That one is well within the size limit and would still be if you add WRC Trophy information to it. Also your comparison with WRC-2 and WRC-3 is, in your own coveted words, a logical fallacy. WRC-2 and WRC-3 have specific technical regulations for the cars that may enter it, the Trophy has not. Also I have never said I'm not up for a season report. In fact, I'm very much up for it. But currently we don't have that. We have detailed reports of every rally. And that's what those rallies' report articles desperately need. The F1 season article you continue to complain about has been promoted to Featured Article and is the only season article holding that status. Clearly the extensive season report was a positive innovation. And I'm sorry but I think that the people actually assessing wether a FAC actually meets the FA standards know better what such articles need than you do. So if you want to make this article a Featured one like you stated, a season report is certainly warranted. And for the umpteenth time, please use the dedicated template when quoting someone. In the above reply, it's really difficult to see who you are quoting.Tvx1 12:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reboot
Since Tvx1 has clearly decided what he wants with no regard for what others have considered, I think we need to hit the reset button. Firstly, this is what Wikipedia says about consensus:
 * "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal."

It's quite clear that there is a willingness to do something about the WRC Trophy. While there may be some resistance, flatly rejecting every proposal is not an appropriate line to take. So, rather than simply rejecting everything and refusing to accept alternatives, how about we work together to figure this out. Because if you cannot work with other editors, you have no place being here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't flatly rejected every proposal. I have merely pointed out the big holes which are present in your arguments, in addition to the ones MNSZ had already revealed. That you accuse me of having already decided the outcome is utterly ludicrous, considering that you openend this discussion with a complete lecture what the only agreeable way forward is. Your entire opening statement is nothing but a "please accept my proposal". I would really help your argument if you'd actually read other contributors' comments. I have show my willingness to do something: I supported 's proposal 4 of using a subsection. So clearly, there is only one user here utterly refusing to consider other users' opinions and proposals and unable to work with other editors: you. And your reactions to other people disagreeing with you are utterly appalling. Why we need a reboot not even four days after you start a discussion and only two persons had the opportunity to respond goes beyond me.Tvx1 12:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "I supportedMNSZ's proposal 4 of using a subsection"
 * And I outlined why it doesn't work, but to refresh your memory, creating a section would require the following:
 * An entry table, but this would only repeat content already introduced in the primary entry table. It wouldn't add anything new except to say "these are the Trophy entries", making it completely redundant.
 * A season summary table to indicate separate Trophy results. It's fair enough to include it, but the article has seven tables without the Trophy; the matrices make nine, and the addition of the entry and season summary tables makes eleven.
 * The results matrices, but we already have those.
 * As you can see, this is almost all of the infrastructure that is required for a separate article; the only thing missing is the calendar, and it's only missing because it already uses the existing calendar since the Trophy contests the same rallies and stages as the WRC&mdash;but so too do the WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC, and it's not an issue for them to have separate articles.


 * Furthermore, you haven't addressed the arrangement of the other articles. Creating a separate Trophy article is justified because it has unique rules related to entry eligibility and points. Elsewhere, entries in the J-WRC are also eligible for the WRC-3, but the J-WRC gets a separate article because it has unique rules related to entry eligibility (drivers must be under the age of 21) and points scoring (a new winner is declared every second round, with a WRC-2 guest appearance being the prize). So why does one get an article, but the other doesn't? If you still want to argue the Clark/Chapman trophies, then let me ask you what is in the interests of the article: following a precedent established within the WRC articles which has been observed for years, or following a decision made by other editors for other articles in another context with no consideration for applying it to other articles outside the immediate scope of the decision?


 * Finally, I direct your attention to comments made by Jarmo Mahonen&mdash;the rally director, the WRC's equivalent of Charlie Whiting&mdash;who said that when the World Rally Championship Trophy was created, it was intended as an intermediary step between the WRC-2 and the WRC. However, the FIA very deliberately avoided naming it the WRC-2 and rebranding the current WRC-2 because they didn't want to marginalise the current WRC-2. For all intents and purposes, the FIA regard the Trophy as a separate championship.


 * And for the record, I would be willing to retain the split table format for the entry tables if we separate the Trophy out into its own article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the limited number of participants the Trophy has, I'm doubting It would actually need all of those tables. I'm starting to think that prose would be much more efficient way to deal with it. Certainly the summary table could be avoided that way. I still see no reason why we couldn't make a subsection work.Tvx1 02:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because if we're talking the time to point out who contested which round as a Trophy entrant in the driver table, and if we're taking the time to expand on which entries scored which results with the matrices, we are drawing the reader's attention to the Trophy as being significant. We're not including it for the sake of incliding it, we're including it because we think it's important. And to my mind, if something is important enough to require its own entry table and results matrices, then it's important enough to have its own article. If you want to remove the icons from the driver table, take out the matrices entirely and just discuss the Trophy in prose&mdash;maybe a paragraph as a season summary&mdash;then we can discuss that further. But so long as there are dedicated tables for it, we are pointing it out as something of importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than willing to agree to reduce its coverage to a simple paragraph of prose in the season report.Tvx1 02:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This would mean that the WRC-Spec drivers registered to compete in the Trophy would be cut from the main article?
 * This would mean that the WRC-Spec drivers registered to compete in the Trophy would be cut from the main article?


 * I don't know, but this as the previous quote sounds like you're putting conditions on everyone else to go further.
 * I don't know, but this as the previous quote sounds like you're putting conditions on everyone else to go further.


 * To help us more on defining the notability of the Trophy, I've been reading the subsequent guidance, in which I will recall a couple of points I would like to have your own views:


 * General Notability Guidance:
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * Basic Criteria: This is towards more to people and not a season, but lets see it:
 * A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.
 * Individual seasons:
 * Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.
 * Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
 * In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.


 * I haven't been able to find any article from the media that talks about the Trophy season besides pure statistics. So maybe this doesn't apply the sufficient notability for an individual article. But, as put in the last statement, when a single season does not meet the sufficient notability, we may proceed with a multiple season article (So, instead of having a 2017 Trophy article, we could have a Trophy article that is composed by the 2017 season and further more, if is the case). This is a proposal going on on the WikiProject.


 * I would also like to us give some time to the other contributors that Prisonermonkeys attached to comment. Not all are able at the same time. MNSZ (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash;
 * "This would mean that the WRC-Spec drivers registered to compete in the Trophy would be cut from the main article?"

No. They would appear in both articles. They would appear in 2017 World Rally Championship as a WRC driver, and in 2017 WRC Trophy as a Trophy driver as they are eligible for both championships. However, neither article would mention the driver's role in the other championship.

To draw a parallel, Sebastian Carrega is competing in both the J-WRC and WRC-3 this year. He appears in the J-WRC article as a J-WRC driver, and he appears in the WRC-3 article as a WEC-3 driver. The J-WRC article doesn't mention his role as a WRC-3 driver, and the WRC-3 articles doesn't mention his role as a J-WRC driver.


 * "I don't know, but this as the previous quote sounds like you're putting conditions on everyone else to go further."

No, that's me saying it's a discussion that I am willing to have, if other people are willing to have it. The previous quote is me showing a willingness to negotiate, since I have been accused of not being willing to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @, @? You just made a proposal&mdash;to limit Trophy-specific content to prose&mdash;and I'm happy to talk about it, so what's going on? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't made that proposal, but, besides of that, I ask you both and in general (before I proceed expanding my opinion or advancing with a proposal) what do you think about the notability of the Trophy taking into account some points I extracted from the guidance. Besides, I'm also giving a little time to other contributors if they want to leave their opinion. As I said in my last message, not all are available all the time. MNSZ (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; to be honest, I wasn't sure where you were going with it, so I refrained from comment for the time being.


 * The short version of what I am about to say: if the Trophy is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it belongs in another article.


 * Assuming that the Trophy is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, I don't think that this article is the most appropriate place to put the Trophy content. As I have pointed out, it has specific entry requirements (pre-2017 cars only) and unique rules (best six of seven results count). None of the other championships use those rules, and the Trophy was created for a specific purpose. It is because of these unique rules that I feel the Trophy has notability.


 * As for the most appropriate place to put it, I am as open to the idea of a Trophy article covering all Trophy seasons as I am to the idea of individual Trophy season articles. I simply feel that the WRC article is the wrong place for it because the Trophy and the WRC are not the same thing; Trophy drivers can score WRC points, but WRC drivers cannot score Trophy points in the same way that WRC-2 drivers can score WRC points, but WRC drivers cannot score WRC-2 points.


 * At the moment, the Trophy content feels like it is shoehorned into the WRC article because of sone degree of commonality between the articles and because we don't have anywhere else to put it, which flies in the face of precedent elsewhere within the project and prioritises a decision made elsewhere (and which was never intended to be applied here) over the needs of WRC articles.


 * As for the issue about statistics, I can see how it would be of concern. However, I would stop short of dismissing it outright, since we draw on a wide range of sources. If anything, it makes the case for a Trophy article covering all seasons, rather than omitting Trophy content outright. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not what the policies state. In fact is quite the opposite. If something is notable enough to be on wikipedia it most certainly does not automatically being in its own article. In fact something needs more notability for its own article instead of for just being mentioned in an other. An as has pointed out this subject does not have enough independent notability to warrant a standalone article on each edition of it. A more general article on all of the history of the Trophy is certainly worth discussing but is a different point. Most importantly, it is way to soon to have that discussion simply because it barely has any history yet. We barely three rallies into its first edition. It's very similar to the size issue. It simply not an issue yet at all. And the notability issue remains with the general article. As for the rules. Those differences are actually minimal. For the most part, the Trophy's rules aren't unique at all. The cars aren't purpose-build for this completion, but merely conform to the same technical regulations as those making none-manufacturer entries. On every official document they are clearly listed as RC1 class, and not a separate one.Tvx1 15:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "If something is notable enough to be on wikipedia it most certainly does not automatically being in its own article"

It certainly doesn't belong in another article, then. This is a championship article, not a season article. It only deals with events that affect the outcome of the championship, and the Trophy is awarded independently.


 * "it is way to soon to have that discussion simply because it barely has any history yet. We barely three rallies into its first edition"

If you're that concerned about it, it should be deleted entirely until its relevance is established.


 * "The cars aren't purpose-build for this completion, but merely conform to the same technical regulations as those making none-manufacturer entries"

Not true. Østberg and Bertelli were entered in the Ford Fiesta WRC, a 2017 car, but were not entered as manufacturer entries because they were not eligible to score manufacturer points.


 * "On every official document they are clearly listed as RC1 class, and not a separate one"

If that were the case, why have the Trophy at all? The Trophy was created as a separate championship to encourage privateer entires in cars that do not comply with 2017 or Group R regulations. We can demonstrate through the technical and sporting regulations that the 2016 cars are significantly different to everything else, and that this difference was used as justification for the creation of the Trophy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "If you're that concerned about it, it should be deleted entirely until its relevance is established."
 * Given that there has been no further discussion about it, I think this is the best way forward for now&mdash;deleting everything related to the Trophy until such time as its notability is established. If and when the Trophy is awarded, we can revisit the issue then. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe the problem is that we are talking ONLY about the WRC Trophy, and not about every competition that the WRC had that is not a championship. The problem is that the WRC Trophy it still not notable enough (in my case, until there are at least 5 entrants that ensures that the title will be given). But if we see the higher spectrum, we can analyse what to do in every case (and have a precedent for future cases). For example, why are we discussing the WRC Trophy and not the RGT Cup? Moreover, why it was ok to create articles for the DD Trophy and not for this one? or why we have a separate article for the WRC-2, 3 and JWRC and not for the S-WRC, P-WRC and previous JWRC? Maybe if we discuss what to do with all supports championships and cups, we will get to a resolution, that will include the proper response of what to do with the WRC Trophy. As I mentioned a couple of time before, I'm trying to go forward with this discussions in the project talk page.


 * Also, remember that not everyone is available at the same time. Maybe some of the editors only have time to respond or comment on weekends. Be a little more patient. :) MNSZ (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)




 * Project-wide changes are always harder to implement. And WikiProject World Rally is not a particularly large WikiProject to begin with, so it will take a long time to get the conversation going&mdash;as evidenced by the way that conversation petered out. I don't think that it's going to get much (if any) more participation than it already has. There comes a point where sitting around and waiting for input becomes counter-productive. Given that we're the three most active editors and that others have had the opportunity to participate but have chosen not to, I don't see why we cannot decide for ourselves.


 * The short version is that anything classified as a World Championship should get its own article. They are, after all, World Championships, a title awarded by the FIA. That includes the WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3, J-WRC, P-WRC and S-WRC. However, it's going to be an enormous job bring every article up to the same standard, and I suspect that reliable information will be hard to come by, especially for the older ones. I would suggest that we go for a thorough approach to the WRC, WRC-2 and WRC-3 (we already do) and do the best we can with the rest, but accept that for all practical purposes we may never get them up to the desired standard.


 * As for cups, trophies and competitions, they should get one article each that outlines all seasons there within. No content should be included in the championship article. If I may borrow some terminology from the Formula One discussions, there is a difference between a "season" article and a "championship" article. A "season" article focuses on all competition that happens within a calendar year for a category, whereas a "championship" article only focuses on the events of a championship. This is very definitely a championship article; to make it a season article would mean including everything on the WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC in one article, which is completely impractical. This article is written as a championship article, but including the Trophy content treats is as a season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that we need to have the reader in mind when we do a change. If we look at the 1973 championship, it has nothing to do with what we have now. Obviously, at that article we can't have an Entry List, but look at everything else... it's completely different. And we doesn't need to go so further back, check the season summary of the 2014 championship. It's totally different at what we have now. So what I'm saying, is that every time we change something, it should apply backwards as far as possible (some championships have their uniqueness, and must have some differences), so the reader can have a sense of sequence between articles. So, it doesn't matters if we are discussing the overall, or just the Trophy, if we decide something, it must apply for the whole. I know it will be difficult to find info about the 2002 Production World Rally Championship, but if we check again the 1973 championship, there is practically nothing more than statistics.


 * BTW, I get your point, and as I claimed before, I'm more toward tacking out the Trophy from the Championship article (I still don't know which would be the perfect way to go between a sole season article, or a whole competition one). But, as I say, I'm afraid that we don't meet the enough notability proposed by the guidance. MNSZ (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@
 * "I'm afraid that we don't meet the enough notability proposed by the guidance."

In that case, it should be deleted outright rather than tacked on to another article (such as this one) that it is only partially related to. In fact, I would even be do bold as to say that we have a consensus to remove it from a article right now. We can keep the content in my sandbox so that we don't lose it should we decide to do sonething with it later.


 * "if we check again the 1973 championship, there is practically nothing more than statistics"

Those articles can&mdash;and really should&mdash;be developed, but it will take time and I think it's a separate issue. If you're concerned about applying retroactive changes consistently, let's decide what we want this article to be first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)




 * I think so too. But again, we should (maybe in another threat) develop what we can do with the cups. that would include, for example the R-GT Cup. If we get to a consensus about all of them in terms of "consistency" then we will know what to do with the WRC Trophy.MNSZ (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; alright. If there are no further objections, I think we can say that the consensus is to remove the Trophy content with further discussion on its presence on Wikipedia to come. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true. No that particular way of handling. If we remove it first, the Trophy standings won't be included anywhere on Wikipedia until we decide where to put it (and who knows when that will be). That's doing our readers a disservice. I think's better to discuss and decide first where to put it, and that execute whatever action we decide on (if any).Tvx1 03:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hang on, what? You just built an entire argument on the grounds that it fails notability guidelines because of a lack of third-party sources or media coverage outside statistics. Now you're arguing that it should be kept despite this lack of notability? What exactly are you trying to achieve here? And where is it written that once removed, content can never be restored? The information is not critical to the article's integrity, and removing it will not have a negative effect on the article in any way. And "we should keep it because we already have it" is not an argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, since you don't have an answer for that, I'm going to go ahead and remove the Trophy content from the article. It will be stored in my sandbox for the time being. The discussion on what to do with the Trophy and other, similar completely should be moved to WikiProject World Rally. In the meantime, if you want to temporarily restore Trophy content to the article, I think you will need to establish a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have said before it's better decide first what to do with it and then make edits regarding it. If you remove it now our readers can't find the information anywhere until we decide where to put it. A sandbox is not an acceptable alternative. Regarding the notability argument, how many times do I have to explain to you that the notability requirements for a stand-alone article are higher than for be mentioned as part of an other article? My argument related to creating a standalone article for a specific edition of this Trophy. I never mentioned notability as an objection to presenting the information here. Please don't claim I have written things which I haven't written. I really don't get why you are so offended by its presence here. I suggest we go to the project page now and start the discussion on what to do with all those side-competitions.Tvx1 12:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "As I have said before it's better decide first what to do with it and then make edits regarding it."
 * And you don't get the final say. If a consensus is established that you disagree with, you're still expected to observe it. You know perfectly well that a consensus is not obligated to satisfy everyone.


 * "I really don't get why you are so offended by its presence here."
 * Because this article is about the championship, and the Trophy is not a part of the championship. The championship will be awared regardless of what happens in the Trophy. Where is the imperative to keep it?


 * "If you remove it now our readers can't find the information anywhere until we decide where to put it."
 * Your arguments have changed so frequently that at this point it looks like you're trying to circumvent a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not changed arguments. They remained the same across multiple posts. Also I can't be criticized for not observing an agreement, let alone a consensus, which does not exist. You have already run to the administrators once during this discussion when you wrongly believed you had a consensus in your favor, so advice you to read the discussion more thoroughly this time. I really think we ought to go to the project talk page and initiate the disunion suggested and focus our effort on deciding on what to do with the side-completions. In the mean time we can leave the information in this article, so as to allow our readers to find it somewhere.Tvx1 14:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Page break
(We've exceeded the maximum number of characters the my device can handle, so I need to stick a subsection in.)
 * "I have not changed arguments. They remained the same across multiple posts."

You insisted that they didn't deserve their own article because of the Chapman/Clark decision that was made elsewhere. Then you pointed out that it failed general notability guidelines because of a lack of third-party sources. Now you're claiming that it is notable after all, but a different threshold applies. It's called moving the goal posts&mdash;every time we come close to making a decision, you change the frame of the discussion and try to invalidate the decision being made.


 * "I can't be criticized for not observing an agreement, let alone a consensus, which does not exist."

My concern is that you won't acknowledge the existence of a consensus, much less observe it. There is a clear agreement in this discussion on what to do with the Trophy content and you're already claiming that no consensus exists. By insisting on further discussion it looks like you're stalling, trying to delay the conversation as much as possible so that no consensus is formed and the content kept where it is. To be blunt, I don't trust you to observe and respect a consensus that you personally disagree with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop telling blatant untruths about my arguments. I have never claimed that it isn't notable at all. I (and for that matter) have only argued that it isn't notable enough to start having standalone article for every edition of it. I haven't "moved any goalposts at all". Throughout the discussions I have merely stated and reiterated what the guidelines about notability are. And as I have stated before, you already have incorrectly claimed a consensus before so what you think is clear might actually not be correct all. I don't see that clear agreement at all. I'm not trying to stall anything. In fact I have twice stated that we should do as suggested and move to the project talk page and actually start discussing  how to go forward. You're the one unnecessarily dragging this out with unfounded bad faith accusations (for the record, I have never failed to adhere to a consensus). Nothing of what you have written in your last three post contains anything that can move this discussion forward. So once again, let's get to the project page and start the discussion already.Tvx1 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "I don't see that clear agreement at all."
 * Only because you personally disagree with it. Both MNSZ and I feel that removing the content from the article is the best way forward. You know as well as I do that while a consensus should satisfy everyone as fully as possible, it cannot always absolutely satisfy everyone&mdash;sometimes, a decision has to be made. Disagreeing with a consensus doesn't invalidate that consensus. --PM, posting from a public computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.224 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So in short, you're saying that my opinion doesn't count. Nice. As said I said before, we should be on the project page trying to get sowhere.Tvx1 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I said that sometimes a consensus will be made despite outstanding opinions. We try and accomodate them as best we can, but it's not always possible. If consensus was obligated to fully accomodate every opinion, nothing would ever get done because all it would take is one person disagreeing to block changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a new discussion at WP:WRC. Hopefully we can have a speedy resolution on this.


 * -- PM, posting from public computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.108 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean you get a trump card to claim consensus in your favor whenever you assume fit though. In the mean time, I got thanked for my revert by so I'm getting the impression it wasn't that out of place.Tvx1 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturer nationalities
I'm wording what we are basing our flags for the manufacturers' nationalities on. I always it was their racing license/nationality they compete under. However, this article use a German flag for Hyundai, while the South Korean national anthem was played during the podium ceremony following their victory in last weekend's Tour de Corse. So what are basing our flags on?Tvx1 23:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right&mdash;they're Korean. They were originally registered as German because they took over the old Team Toyota Europe and Toyota F1 facilities in Cologne. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, in the WRC.com page (the official promoter's page as I understand - correct me if I'm wrong-), shows Hyundai as German based, and Toyota as Japanese. The racing licence is where they have their base? Because if it's not necessary, then maybe Hyundai has a German licence, but Toyota have a Japanese one (instead of a Finish one). I failed to find any information about the nationalities on the FIA webpage. MNSZ (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, base location is not necessarily the same as racing license nationality. Hyundia obviously have a South Korean racing license or otherwise the South Korean national anthem wouldn't have been played following their win in France.Tvx1 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Official nationality is German not South-Korean--Louis.attene (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise they would play the German national anthem for the winning manufacturer when Hyundai wins. Their base location is Germany, the manufacturer's nationality is South Korean.Tvx1 12:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the source of what you're talking about? In the WRC official site, there's a German flag for Hyunday Motorsport N team...--Louis.attene (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, on the WRC's site there is a German flag for the team's base.Tvx1 13:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines
The manual of style guidelines only say the following:
 * ''"Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table."

These column headers are not being put in the middle of a table to visualky separate it. We are treating this as two completely separate tables, as per discussion elsewhere on this page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, guidelines are just that&mdash;guidelines. They are not absolute rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, they should not be ignored just for the sake of it. Do you have a good reason why we should not adhere to it?Tvx1 11:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we are treating them as separate tables. As has been pointed out in other discussions, they split the content out into manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries, which has a significant impact on other parts of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The technology which requires us the follow that guideline doesn't go by our philosophy however. It goes by the coding and it has problems with full row column headers hence why we need to avoid them.Tvx1 13:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ''"it has problems with full row column headers"
 * The guideline makes it clear that this only applies when a full row is used within a table, not when it is used at the top. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; get a consensus before you make changes. Assuming that you can prove it, what you are proposing potentially affects hundreds of articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR, but for some reason, you're only applying it to this one article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No you need a consensus to ignore a guideline. And I fully intend to apply it to the other articles as well. I still haven't seen any coherent argument from you as to what is the problem with this version.Tvx1 12:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline specifically says that they should not be placed in the middle of a table, not that they should not be used at all. Your entire argument is based on an incorrect assumption, and even if it were correct, you have made no attempt to bring the issue to the attention of the relevant WikiProjects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; Here is the full text of the guideline:
 * "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table. Assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one."

Firstly, it only says "in the middle of a table". It's not an outright ban. Secondly, with regards to the assistive technology, the guideline specifically states that the technology runs into difficulties after the first use of a header. It is quite clear that you have not understood this particular guideline. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The in the middle table clearly refers to within the table's coding and not actually only one put smack in the middle of the table. Those headers could potentially appear at multiple spots within the table. You glued the tables together with multiple headers within it and I made it guideline compliant. You still haven't given any justified argument against how it is currently presented. What is so bad about how it looks like right now?Tvx1 12:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The in the middle table'' clearly refers to within the table's coding and not actually only one put smack in the middle of the table."
 * Not at all. The guideline specifically says "after the first one". It clearly refers to the inclusion of a second table-wide header because the second header confuses the software&mdash;it doesn't know which individual columns apply to which header. If it was a blanket ban on table-wide headers, why does the guideline make that specification?
 * ''"You glued the tables together with multiple headers within it and I made it guideline compliant."
 * And the consensus on this page is to treat them as separate tables, not as two halves of one table. Each of the tables has been coded as a separate table, so the problem is averted.
 * ''"What is so bad about how it looks like right now?"
 * Nothing, but my argument has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with the fact that you want to make wholesale changes based on a guideline that you don't understand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They weren't coded as separate tables when you glued them together. If you think there is nothing bad about the current version, then why on earth are you making such a fuss about it? If you think it's fine then why don't you just leave it and focus on more important matters? Why is this even disputed?Tvx1 17:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fine. Aesthetically, there is nothing wrong with it, but like I said, my issue has nothing to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with this:
 * ''"And I fully intend to apply it to the other articles as well."
 * Your entire argument for it hinges on an incorrect understanding of the guidelines. You want to apply that change across hundreds of articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR. That's a whole lot of work for an unnecessary change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; since you have taken on this role elsewhere, could you please weigh in on this? What, exactly, is this guideline directing us to do: is it a blanket recommendation against table-wide headers; or is one permissable at the top of a table, with a second causing software issues? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume that we are talking about this edit and this reversion? I've looked at both versions of the article and don't see that either one is better than the other at presenting the information - which brings us to the accessibility issue. knows more about this sort of thing than I do, but I'd say that if there is an issue with accessibility, then the version that does not cause an issue is the one to go with. Guidelines are just that, but usually a damn good reason is needed not to follow them. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; thank you.
 * ''"I've looked at both versions of the article and don't see that either one is better than the other at presenting the information"
 * If it comes down to presentation, we can figure that out for ourselves. What we need to figure out is if it is presentation or accessibility.
 * ''"if there is an issue with accessibility, then the version that does not cause an issue is the one to go with"
 * And if there is such an issue, then I am happy to go with it. But these table-wide headers are frequently used in articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR and associated WikiProjects&mdash;possibly hundreds of articles&mdash;and so changing them is a pretty big job. If we have to go through with it, then I want to make sure we go through with it because it is necessary and not because someone misinterpreted the guidelines:
 * "Assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one."
 * If I am reading this correctly, one table-wide header is acceptable; it is the presence of a second that causes problems. As every table in this article is coded as a separate table, it is not an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, it would help your argument if you would actually do some research into those other articles "hundreds of articles which are affected". A quick search tells me that none of 2017 Formula One season, 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship, 2017 FIA World Endurance Championship, 2017 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, 2017 IndyCar Series, 2017 NASCAR series or 2016–17 Formula E season have row headers within their teams and drivers tables. This means they are not affected. The only ones that I have found so far to be affected are 2017 World Touring Car Championship and 2017 Supercars Championship. In both of those cases they have multiples row headers within those tables, so they are a must change. If "a lot of work" is your only objection, I'll be happy to do it all myself.Tvx1 12:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ''it would help your argument if you would actually do some research into those other articles "hundreds of articles which are affected"
 * I wasn't just talking about season articles. 2017 Australian Grand Prix, 2017 Chinese Grand Prix, 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix and 2017 Russian Grand Prix all do it. As do the hundreds of race report articles. And that's just off the top of my head. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; are you going to respond to this or not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm certain that this is an accessibility issue, so I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. But my own opinion is that is preferable to . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverting edit is best practice for accessibility, because it allows assistive technologies to summarize the table (allowing readers to skip them if they so choose). It's also a best practice (ignoring web accessibility implications) to provide summaries to tables in this fashion, as it visually highlights the table's summary. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a screen reader user, I agree with Redrose64; the caption method makes the table much easier to navigate for me, and it also handily provides a title to the table, making it easier to find on the page. Graham 87 14:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, you have had multiple opportunities to address the implications of your proposed changes, and you have not done so. Given the scale of the changes you have proposed&mdash;really any article with a table that uses a table-wide footer for sources, including (but not limited to) championship and individual race articles for multiple racing categories&mdash;I think that the most appropriate course of action is to get a consensus for these changes at WP:MOTOR and/or WP:F1 before doing anything else. Until then, the original versions of the tables should be restored in the interests of maintaining consistency across articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Three users have now weighed in the discussion in support of the guideline version. Your reverting is now starting to be disruptive. As for the articles you linked to, those footers can simply be dealt with by changing them from a header cell to a normal cell in the coding and by coding in the text-alignement, the background and the boldness of the text. I'll have a crack at it tonight (in CEST that is).Tvx1 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, at this point it just looks like you're pissed off that you didn't get your way with the WRC Trophy and you're just looking to be disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; stop ignoring this conversation. You have had days to demonstrate your case, but have not done done so; at the same time, you revert changes to the article within hours of them being made. And what ever happened to this?
 * ''"I fully intend to apply it to the other articles as well."


 * You said that a week ago, but have made no attempt to actually do it. Since you're so insistent on the necessity of it, I fully expect you to make good on this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Use your sandbox before making changes. Your edits are creating visibility issues on mobile devices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring the conversation??? What kind of nonsense is that. Your the one that flatly ignored that even a person who actually uses a screen reader has written here that the guideline version is much better for them and reverted it again. Now, you're being utterly hypocritical. And stop assuming bad faith. I'm not "pissed off" over anything. We agreed on a solution regarding the WRC Trophy, didn't we? I'd appreciate if you'd strike that ridiculous personal attack. And yes I intend to make the other articles compliant as well, but I'm not going to start that big task as long as its obvious that there is an editor who will revert those changes on sight. And you don't have to indent each time you add a comment to your own post.Tvx1 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ''I'm ignoring the conversation??? What kind of nonsense is that."

I pointed out to you that your edits affect hundreds of articles&mdash;namely Formula One race reports&mdash;and you never bothered to reply.


 * ''"yes I intend to make the other articles compliant as well, but I'm not going to start that big task as long as its obvious that there is an editor who will revert those changes on sight"

I'm not going to revert your edits on sight. I'm not going to do anything. You're the one who insists on the necessity of it, so I'll let you do it. Don't expect any help from me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that is very collaborative. That still doesn't show your assuming good faith on my side. What visibility issues on the mobile site are you complaining about? The picture on the right shows the mobile view and I really can't see the problem.Tvx1 12:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever seen that optical illusion that is a white grid on a grey background with a series of black dots in the lines of the grid? It doesn't matter which dots you try to focus on; the image gives the illusion that the dots are moving around. That's the effect that I'm getting with the three different shades of grey (two in the cells and the third in the lines). And it's not just my eyes&mdash;a friend who isn't colour-blind is getting the same effect.

Also, why are you using two different markup solutions for the same thing?
 * ''"I'd appreciate if you'd strike that ridiculous personal attack."

What am I supposed to think when you ignore a conversation (despite attempts to draw your attention to issues), misrepresent the scale of the issue (you're a regular Formula 1 editor; how did you miss the way every race report would be affected?), and make no attempt to so much as draw the issue to the attention of editors at WP:MOTOR and WP:F1 (if only to alert them to the issue and make introducing a widespread change significantly easier), but revert edits you disagree with on sight? You might say that you're only interested in improving the article, but your actions suggest otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, then what solution do you suggest? Headers and footers need to be dealt with differently, obviously because they are different. Headers need to be formatted as such so that screen readers know they're readers. Footers, on the other hand, should not be formatted as header cells because otherwise screenreader will think they're headers which is the problem we are trying to solve.Tvx1 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I found the correct color which is used for the header cells on wikipedia. Does the table below look ok to you?Tvx1 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's much better, but if it fixes the reader issues, then I don't see why we can't use it for headers, too. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See the comments from the other editors, in particular the one using screen readers, as to why the guideline method is the best for headers. If you format a header the other other way, the screen reader will no longer now it's a header.Tvx1 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still two solutions to the same problem. If the software can't distinguish a header, I don't see why it can suddenly distinguish a table-wide cell by virtue of it being under the first line of markup. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the difference between coding a cell as  or  . That's how the screen reader distinguishes what's a header and what's not. And that means it's not the same problem. The top cell is intended to be a header the bottom cell isn't.Tvx1 13:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So why not use  for both header and footer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because then the screen reader wouldn't know the header is a header. I've already said that.Tvx1 23:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though it does know that the footer is not a header and does not get confused despite using identical markup? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Accessibility concerns are not something that you can opt out of. For some situations, there are acceptable workarounds; but when tells you that there is an accessibility problem, you can bet your ass that there is, and it's major. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just struggling with the logic here. We changed the markup from  to , so that should fix the issue. Now I'm being told that it doesn't fix the issue at all. Why is it that a table-wide cell at the top of a table cannot be read, but a table-wide cell in the table or at the bottom can be read? Especially since the markup |style="background-color:#EAECF0; text-align:center" is designed to work around the issues caused by the markup. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How HTML tables work is handily explained at this entry at w3schools. An exclamation mark,, is a wiki-markup alias for   while a vertical bar,  , at the start of a line is a wiki-markup alias for  . As the entry says, there are two types of tabe cells, header and data cells. Header cells, here represented by  , should only be used in table headers and are the only types of cells that semantically signify that a cell is a header. All other cells are data cells, here represented by  , which only represent data. The two cell types have their own specific purposes and are not interchangeable. Graham 87  07:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And what Tvx1 has figured out is a way to make a data cell have the visual appearance of a header cell. It's a data cell with the text alignment and background colour of a header cell. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And that works fine for a footer. That needs to be formatted as data cell so that a screen reader does not think it's header. However, you can't do that for an actual header, because if you don't format it as header the screen reader won't read it which is the exact opposite of what we want to happen with headers. They have to be read as headers by screen readers.Tvx1 10:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Some errors adding "Vodafone Rally de Portugal" (round 6) entries
see official entry list --Louis.attene (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ott Tänak co-driver will be Raigo Mõlder
 * Elfyn Evans co-driver will be Craig Parry
 * Khalid Al Qassimi will be able to score manufacturer points for Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT
 * ✅. Thanks for pointing this out.Tvx1 12:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we are in the present of another mistake in an entry list. Te same with the MonteCarlo one, in which Citröen have an extra car nominated (Then because of a DS3 entry, now because it exceeds the maximum amount of nominations). The regulation says:


 * 7.2.3 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.


 * But before we start discussing the same, let's wait for the event to start. MNSZ (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the entry lists, do we have one for Argentina? It's missing from the sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right . Regulations "seem" to talk clearly...Maybe a mistake in the Portugal official entry list? Maybe. Let's see--Louis.attene (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , take a look at the official wrc site, you will find it certainly. Cheers from Sardinia--Louis.attene (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It had already been added in the mean time.Tvx1 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; since the eWRC source lists Jarveoja as Tanak's co-driver, the entry list published by the organisers evidently has a mistake. What does it say about Khalid al-Qassimi? Is he eligible to score manufacturer points in the eWRC list? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Image comparison
I've replaced the image of Gorban with a comparison of the 2016 and 2017 Fiestas. I've been wanting to do this for a while now, but I'm not entirely happy with it. Would it be possible to crop an image of the 2017 car to make it larger in the frame? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove numbers on non-manufacturers entries
Hi there!

I bring back again this subject from the archives. Right Now Gorban has 5 different numbers on the entry list table. I know that only is one driver (as the other 3 with multiple lines will still have multiple lines for the co-driver or the tyres), but I really believe that the table will look more readable if we remove the numbers.

Again, I make a difference with the manufacturers entries, as in there the number represents the team, and have a meaning. But with non-manufacturers, the numbers are random (except with promotional purposes, like Bertelli).

This would be the final product:

What do you think? MNSZ (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. Adding the numbers to non-manufacturers entries add no value.Rpo.castro (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why we can't use the Template:Abbr to show the last number and others in the note? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that these drivers tend to use a different number every time they enter a race, I really can't see a point in emphasizing their latest number.Tvx1 16:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not for emphasizing their latest number. The key point is a reducing of the size of the table without removing the numbers and I think that it will be more logical to show current/last number. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that a) it implies Gorban has used the same number at every round and b) Gorban has used a different number at every round; it's not like he regularly uses one number and occasionally uses an alternative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't imply "a)". Rounds column implies that he competed these rounds. While the tooltip shows that he used different numbers in different rounds: 21. The fact that he haven't regular number is a problem, but I think it is less evil than removing numbers at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC) If you don't like tooltip than we can use footnote . Corvus tristis (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Tooltips aren't visible on all devices. Secondly, footnotes should only be used for supplementary information that expands upon the article's content.


 * But more importantly, the table is already geared towards who competed in which round with whatever car. Take, for instance, Mads Østberg. He competed in some rounds with Michelin tyres and others with DMACK. The table reflects which rounds he used those tyres in. The rounds column does not function independently of everything else in the table. Everything works together. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point. It appears to be for purely cosmetic purposes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a cosmetic purpose, but rather as a readability purpose. Besides, we are doing this exact thing in all the support categories, as they don't use regular numbering. So it would be to be in line with the rest of the season articles. MNSZ (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it fixes readability. It's actually pretty simple compared to other parts of the table. But more importantly, the article should be intenally consistent before we try to make it consistent with other related articles. If you remove the number column from one table, you have to remove it from the other, and that opens up a string of other issues like how to order the table and how to manage the results matrices. There's already some degree of difference across the articles, since this article accounts for the manufacturers' championship. WRC-2 has compulsory rounds that other championships do not, while the J-WRC has its own rules that are reflected in the structure of its tables. Removing the number column here because of some extra white space around Gorban's entry opens up a whole range of issues that aren't really worth bringing up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)