Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 2

WRC non-manufacturing entries (until 2010)
When I checked some of the Wiki pages for some WRC seasons like 2004 or 2005, I've noticed that some entries that were not registered as eligible for points in the manufactures championship are listed as such. Should I move them to the Major entries not registered as manufacturers or create a new list for Manufacturer entries that weren't nominated for pointscoring in the manufacturer standings? Ivaneurope (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think those articles need that improvement. We should keep as a template the current table. If you do it, remember that there where some seasons where manufacturers entered more than two entries, but only their best two counted toward the points. MNSZ (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I tested a new template that I wanted to distinguish the non-scoring manufacturer entries from the privateers. I've consulted with Hakulin about it and the feedback was that it's too confusing. I'll post my idea here so I could read your oppinion. (The prototype was first tested on the 2004 season) Ivaneurope (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to distinguish the non-scoring manufacturers entries from the privateers ones, as neither are able to score manufacturers points. The difference is on the "team" name, as we've been using on the last years. This is ok as you present it, but I would not use a different table for privateers entries, but combined it with the non-scoring manufacturers for a "Major entries ineligible to score manufacturer points" table. MNSZ (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, however the current template that is used (The 2012-present) can't be used well for some older seasons. For example - Škoda used in 2003 both the Octavia and Fabia. Some privateer entries have used different cars and/or models like the two generations of Ford Focus (and the yearly incarnations). I've seen an alternate template, which is used in the ERC seasons, so I plan to use it for the pre-2011 seasons. Ivaneurope (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I think this template of yours shall work. Ivaneurope (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New layout for pre-2011 WRC season
Earlier in this talk page I've mentioned the issue I have with the pre-2011 WRC entry lists. After days of thinking of new layout that will distinguish some entries, entered by manufacturer WRC team, that were ineligible for scoring points. I present the provisional layout based on the 2005 WRC (not complete) for review as I've asked other member of this WP and his oppinion was that this may confuse some (for example here Skoda Motorsport is presented in both tables). What do you think? Ivaneurope (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it looks ok this way. MNSZ (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, now the thing is that I have some issue with the arrangement non-scoring entries - until 2006 the private entries didn't had a fixed car number like now some non-scoring entries have (like for example Bertelli always uses number 37). Should I add car numbers to the entries, or keep them the way they are in the template? If the second choice is more convenient IMO the the driver arrangement alphabeticaly looks messed and maybe I'll change the arrangement according to these criteria:


 * 1. Where was the first round they entered
 * 2. The number of races entered
 * 3. By letter

Ivaneurope (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that you should not add the numbers to the entries. Without that, I think the best way to arrange the table, is still in alphabetical order, by Manufacturer -> Team/Entry -> Driver. MNSZ (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

New look for 2016 calendar and summary tables.
Hi Everyone!! I'm looking for opinions on a new look for the 2016 pages. Prisonermonkeys make some changes that I think improves the pages (and, as he said, it looks more alike to other motorsport seasons' pages), but I think we can keep improving it. You can comment in here. MNSZ (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

China Rally 2016
The 2016 China Rally which is a WRC round will be in Beijing and the rally is different from the China Rally that was run in 1999. Is there a need to create a new page for the China Rally, Beijing? Ivaneurope (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, as it is normal for a rally to change it base, but still being recognized as the same rally. I don't see this as being a case of San Remo/Sardegna as in those cases, the name of the event changes. MNSZ (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Category's Revamp
Hi There!

I know that what I will propose will sound like much, but I see that articles like the 2012 World Rally Championship is overwhelmed by tables because of the supports championships, and no prose that states how those championships went. Only Tables. So I would propose to take the same treatment as the article from 2013 onward and separated all the supports championships in their own articles. I worked in an navigation box to describe was we would have at the end:

Besides on how much work seems to be, do you think it will help the reader to have all the championships and cups separated? MNSZ (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; you know my position on this, but so that anyone reading this can follow along, the short version is yes. There are, however, a few tweaks that I would make here and there:


 * Firstly, I think we need to distinguish between "championships" and "cups" (or, to use my preferred term, "competitions"). A championship is any season-long tournament at the end of which a formal title is awarded; Sébastien Ogier, for example, is the 2016 World Drivers' Champion. Furthermore, "championship" is a category applied by the FIA once one of these season-long tournaments fulfils certain criteria. For example, a few years ago, V8 Supercars became known as "International V8 Supercars"&mdash;but they could not simply take the "International" prefix because it sounded good; to get it, they had to apply to the FIA and meet certain conditions first (for example, no races in Europe). Therefore, the FIA is the only body that can decide what is and what is not a championship, and we should structure articles accordingly.


 * Meanwhile, we also have "competitions". These are events that run alongside the championships but are scored separately and are not recognised by the FIA as outright championships. They include the WRC Trophy, 2-Litre Cup, R-GT Cup, Ladies' WRC and so on. In order to score points in these, crews must nominate for them separately. I feel that these should be separate to championships because all crews entered in a competition are eligible to score points in the championship by default, but not all crews entered in a championship are eligible to score points in the competition by default (I hope that's not too confusing). Separating them out does require some duplication of content across articles, but we already do that to some extent.


 * This is where we run into a bit of a paradox: a competition is a formally-structured tournament run alongside the championship. Therefore, they should not be included as part of the championship article because they are not part of the championship. However, there are questions about questions about the long-term sustainability of individual articles; only one competition has lasted longer than six years before being discontinued. With this in mind, I would propose a meta article for the season (which I have previously referred to as a "top-level article"). It is a place to cover everything which happens as a part of the season which is not a part of the championship(s). So, for 2017, we would have a 2017 in World Rallying article (the name could be changed), which would contain a brief overview of and links to 2017 World Rally Championship, the WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC articles. But it would also contain specific details for the WRC Trophy and R-GT Cup as they are the competitions run alongside the championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What if instead of doing a "yearly" article, we invert that idea and do "Competitions" article. In this case, for example, we would do an article for the WRC Trophy, or the Lady's cup, which will contain all of the seasons/competitions that run under that name, and we put a link to those articles in the main WRC season report.


 * It would look something like this:


 * Also tagging and  to have a bigger range of opinions. MNSZ (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; Having one article that covers every running of a particular competition could work as well. It happens for some minor championships, like Formula 4, although I think that it's not the preferred method. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO It's fine the way it is, but this proposal seems to be good. I'd change numerous things - I'd remove the "previous" section and merge it with their current forms. Example: for WRC-2 it would be S-WRC/WRC-2. Trouble is that until 2013 SWRC, PWRC and JWRC were win single article with the main WRC page. Ivaneurope (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Example: for WRC-2 it would be S-WRC/WRC-2"
 * The problem with that is the WRC-2 and S-WRC were run to different regulations. The WRC-2 is for Group R cars, while S-WRC was for Super 2000 cars. Super 2000s were initially re-homologated under Group R, but no new Super 2000s are being re-homologated. WRC-2 and S-WRC are completely different championships, and so we can't simply compress them together because it's convenient for us. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Should I start separating the articles for the Championship and leave the Cups for further discussion/analysis? MNSZ (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User template/WP template, update pic
I think Template:User WikiProject World Rally needs a newer picture. Subaru is history. Does anyone know a good one? Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Template:WikiProject World Rally? Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support categories, part 2
A recent discussion at 2017 World Rally Championship has been focusing on what to do with the WRC Trophy. It has been decided that this should be considered in a broader context of support categories that are not full championships in their own right. The history of rallying has contained several of these competitions, such as the 2-Litre Cup, WRC Academy, Drive DMACK Trophy, and the Super 1600 Cup among others. These have been handled fairly inconsistently in the past, and the lack of readily-available information and sources makes it difficult to cover them comprehensively. The discussion has been moved here to try and decide the best way to handle them. As I see it, there are three options:
 * 1) Delete the content outright. Many of these competitions only have the raw data of results tables to substantiate them, and so their ability to satisfy notability guidelines is questionable at best.
 * 2) Create season-specific articles, such as "2017 WRC Trophy", "2018 WRC Trophy", "2019 WRC Trophy" and so on and so forth. As pointed out, the data alone does not really satisfy notability guidelines, so creating these articles would require detailed research to bring them up to the standard.
 * 3) Create an overview article. These would take the form of one article that houses all content related to the subject. So, an article called "FIA 2-Litre Cup" would cover details of the competition.

There is a fourth possibility that will no doubt be mentioned - to keep the content where it is. As far as I am concerned, that is not an option. The consensus at 2017 World Rally Championship clearly says that all content like the WRC Trophy, WRC Academy et al should be treated the same way. More to the point, it is quite separate to the main championship; the World Rally Championship titles were (and will be) awarded regardless of what happened in these support categories, so the main championship article is an inappropriate place for them to go.

I think option #3 is the best way forward. It allows us to cover the subject with the content that we have, introduces consistency across all of the competitions, and doesn't require a focus on results tables. All it would really require is expository text with links to the relevant championship articles, plus a summary table of the winners for all years that the competition was run. For example, it would look something like this:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"

! Year ! Winning driver ! Winning co-driver ! Winning entrant ! Winning car ! 2019 ! 2018 ! 2017 Option #3 is the neatest, tidiest way to address the subject comprehensively without the article running afoul of Wikipedia policies.
 * 🇺🇸 Max Power
 * 🇺🇸 Handsome B. Wonderful
 * 🇺🇸 Homer Simpson Racing
 * Powell Homer
 * 🇺🇸 Phillip J. Fry
 * 🇲🇽 Bender B. Rodriguez
 * 🇺🇸 Planet Express WRC
 * Planet Express Ship
 * 🇺🇸 Bruce Wayne
 * 🇺🇸 Dick Grayson
 * 🇺🇸 Wayne Enterprises Racing
 * Batmobile
 * }
 * }

-- PM, posting from public computer


 * I agree with option three, having in account that we are talking about the Trophies/Cups and not the World Championship which, as I think, they meet the enough notability to have their own article (it would be our mission as editors to have them as much as neat as possible). I leave the "table of content" that I think would be the visible exposition to understand the difference:


 * Nevertheless, I would not talk about the format per se until we decide which option will be carried out. MNSZ (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I'll leave the exact format of that template to you. Those templates don't show on mobile devices, so I don't have much to do with them. That said, after taking a quick look on the full site, I think it could be neater.


 * I think the more important issue is what to actually do with the content; the template is a secondary consideration at best. The content is what we need to focus on because it doesn't matter what the template looks like if we don't have an article to put it in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The fourth possibility is certainly an option. If that's what people prefer. It's not up to you to set the conditions of the outcome. Anyway, thinking about this there might even be a fifth possibility. Have one overview article for all the support categories together instead of one for each. Given how little importance some of them have and how short-lived some were, I think that would be a much more efficient way to present the content to our readers.Tvx1 14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)




 * That was what I say, we should first know what to do, and then get into the format. The template I posted it only so editors who gives their opinion would know which articles are we referring to.




 * I would not go with this option, as there are really large competitions that could use a little more of explaining, etc (Like the production cup, which has been run for 12 years, and had a second incarnation recently inside of the WRC-2 category). And if you put all of this in the same place as the S-1600 Cup (which had only 1 season), it will be a really unbalanced. As a reader and a editor I'm still going for Option 3. (My reader part prefers Option 2, but as an editor, I know it will be difficult to develop).
 * Whether or not it's balanced is entirely up to us. If we go with option five we should then make sure every competition gets the amount of coverage its due. We can provide the balance. The problem with option 3 is that we are still bound by the guidelines as to what can have a standalone article and what not. I'm not convinced every support championship that has ever been held has enough notability to merit a standalone article. Alternatively we could go for a compromise between options 3 and 5:Start from one article for all the support championships and create separate for those few championships which are notable enough and link to them from the overview article.Tvx1 20:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm really fine with any solution that removes them from articles that they're only tangentially related to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good option. A lo of articles do that (games franchises for example, have a description of every game, but those with notability also have a link to their own article. Also in movies, etc). Sorry for not signing my previous comment. MNSZ (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I like it, @ likes it and @ likes it. We can leave the discussion open for a while in case anyone else wants to contribute, but if there is no more input to be had, I see no reason why we should not act on this as soon as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Someone have an idea of how should be looking? at least the general article. I would say we should work on that, and then see which Cup/Trophy should be also extended in their own article. MNSZ (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I wouldn't worry too much about that. Personally, I'd just start editing. I've often found that the best articles write themselves, for want of a better term. I imagine that the article would have one section for each category, with prose outlining the specific details and a summary table showing the overall winners for each year. But at this point, anything more would be over-thinking it. As for the name, I would probably call it Support categories in the World Rally Championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready to move on this, but I would like to hear from @ before I do. If he doesn't respond in the next, say, two days, then I think it's quite reasonable to assume he has no objections and to go ahead and create the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; how does this sound as a draft for the article?
 * ''Since its inaugural season in 1973, the World Rally Championship has been supported by a series of additional categories. These categories, created and endorsed by the Federation International de l'Automobile (FIA)&mdash;the governing body of motorsport&mdash;were created to encourage participation from entries in classes that would otherwise be ineligible to score points in the World Championship or its primary feeder series, the World Rally Championship-2 and World Rally Championship-3. Over time, these support categories were created and changed in line with trends within the sport itself and motorsport as a whole.
 * And an example of a sub-section:
 * ''The WRC Trophy was first created in 2017 as a response to widespread technical changes in the World Rally Car category. These changes, which made the 2017 generation of World Rally Cars significantly faster than their predecessors meant that World Rally Cars built between 2011 and 2016 would be unable to directly compete with the newer models. Conversely, World Rally Cars built before 2017 would be faster than the Group R5 cars competing in the World Rally Championship-2. With further changes to the sporting regulations restricting the ability of privateer teams to enter 2017-specification World Rally Cars, the WRC Trophy was created to encourage privateer entries and enable older-model World Rally Cars to continue competing without threatening the position of the World Rally Championship-2 as the sport's premier feeder category. Under the WRC Trophy regulations, crews are eligible to enter up to seven rounds of the World Rally Championship, with their best six results counting towards their final points tally. WRC Trophy entrants are still eligible to score World Rally Championship points separately to the WRC Trophy.
 * It's not perfect, but I figure it's a good start. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Subsection looks ok to me. After the "general" paragraph, we should include another one with a little history, and one paragraph about the defunction.


 * A little example of What I mean (Using the DDFT):

(General Paragraph) The DDFT was created after M-Sport loosed his sponsorship for the WRC Academy. It was an effort between M-Sport and DMACK to create a first-step like championship for young drivers, and they apply their own scoring system that embraced every stage driven, to make sure that drivers will run at their best in every stage...

(History of the competition) The First Season, run in 2014, was competed over 5 European rallies, and saw a total of 12 Entries. Estonian Sander Parn won 3 of the 5 event, and claimed the championship....

(Closing paragraph) The Trophy was dissolved when M-SPORT reclaimed the sponsorship to run the now-named JWRC. Thus the majority of the of the structure of the DDFT was used in the current Junior WRC....


 * Obviously needs better development, but it's an example of what should have every sub-section (besides the previously mentioned by you table of past winners).


 * On the other hand, the first paragraph of the article, I would avoid talking about the WRC-2 and WRC-3, as we will be talking too about the Production Cup, which was run until 2001 when there where no support championship, and so on. And also, they are able to score points in the WRC. Just it's unlikely that they will win it. So I would leave it simply as a way to encourage different kind of drivers in differents regulated-car to enter the world championship, by adding a Cup or Trophy.


 * Also, about the name of the article, as I understand, we will not be talking about the support categories, but about the Cups that ARE NOT a championship/category. I'm not in my most creative day, but I would named "Support Cups in the World Rally Championship" or "Cups within the World Rally Championship". MNSZ (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; we cannot call it the article "Support Cups in the World Rally Championship" because nowhere is the term "cups" used to refer to them. "Categories" works better because each competition is built for a category of car. Anyway, the time has come to start editing the article. We can start with World Rally Championship support categories and go from there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing statistics from previos WRC season articles
So recently statistics at 2010 and 2011 season articles were removed. They were actually updated after each rally back in 2010 and 2011. Do you have any opinions? Are they good summary or unnecessary? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * good summary --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Scottish, Welsh or British?
I've noticed some user changing the nationality on Nicky Grist to British, which, whilst true is rather vague. Colin McRae's nationality is explicitly listed as Scottish, and other articles on notable British people list their specific nationality, e.g. Charlotte Church who hails from the same country as Grist. Furthermore, McRae and Grist use their respective national flags as most of us may have observed. Any thoughts on this? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Elfyn Evans has both (Welsh and British) mentioned. Maybe that's the solution, even though I'd prefer Welsh (and Scottish). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Evans appears to have competed under the British flag, and so did McRae and Grist at some point. Though Nicky did co-drove under the Welsh flag during his stint at Ford alongside Colin. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * McRae's nationality is listed as Scottish, because a rogue IP changed it and nobody really cared, despite of the note. I already reverted it to its original state. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any consensus on this? If the driver or co-driver is clearly competing under a particular nationality, should that be taken into account or would the catch-all "British" designation be more appropriate? Blake Gripling (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It all goes down to FIA. It lists McRae and Evans as British drivers in its archives. For example, here and here. The same situation applies to people like David Coulthard, Paul di Resta, Eddie Irvine or any other Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish/English driver. Furthermore, neither Scotland or Wales are sovereign states and they do not have their own citizenships, which just makes it nationalistic when someone lists McRae or any other driver as Scottish. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me then. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They all compete as British and they should be listed as such. That's what their passports say/said. The FIA uses passport nationalities in their World Championships. Their wins were/are greeted by the weaving of the Union Jack annd the playing of "God Save the Queen" and not "The Flower of Scotland" or "Mae Hen Wlad Fhy Nadhau". They were always listed as British here, but sometimes a nationalist passes by and changes. That should be reverted.Tvx1 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move proposal
A proposal to move some WRC articles has been made here. Any additional opinion is welcome.Tvx1 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Classification tables in rally reports
The "classification" section in individual rally reports contain two tables: one for rally results and one for power stage points. Recently they have been subject to data creep&mdash;crews who scored power stage points are being included in the rally result table on the grounds that they scored points despite there being a separate table for power stage points, which are awarded independently of rally results. The two-table format is best, with the results table limited to those who scored points for the rally, with power stage points addressed separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you want to remove Power Stage point scorers from "rally results" table like this. We have always included them: 2017 Rally Sweden, 2016 Wales Rally GB, 2015 Rallye Deutschland etc, so nothing recent about that. A proper summary table includes every point scored, includind JWRC points for stage wins. And once again, Power Stage is part of the rally event, not a competition held outside the event. A rally result=points for place in final classification+Power Stage points. You can score a maximum of 30 points from an event. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes the power stage table completely redundant. You can't gave it both ways and given that power stage points are scored separately to points for the rally, the logical conclusion is to separate them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not make Power Stage table redundant. PS table includes times. I think just before the "rally results" table, there should be a sentence explaining what does it include. "stage points are scored separately to points for the rally" - Again, Power Stage (like any other special stage) is part of the rally. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The stage times don't add much. We just had a whole discussion on the 2018 article about times in the summary table. It's not as if the power stage is a standardised route. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cmon, time is important in rallying. Power Stage points are distributed in relation to their time. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, power stage points are given to the five fastest drivers, whatever their time is.


 * The point I am trying to make here is that there are two tables for a reason. It's not like Formula 2 where the driver who sets fastest lap gets a bonus point provided they finish in the top ten. Crews score power stage points independently of their rally results. Therefore, there should be two tables: one for the points scored in the rally and one for power stage points. That makes the inclusion of power stage points in the rally results table redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Power Stage points are part of the rally results (as Power Stage is part of the rally), it's not an independent contest. Yes there are 2 different point distributions: for top10 overall finishers and for top5 PS finishers (in order to score PS points you also have to finish the rally - you have to have a finishing time). But together they make a rally result. There is no table named "top10 finishers", it's "rally results". That's why they include every point scorer. There is a tooltip which explains how exactly were they distributed.
 * "No, power stage points are given to the five fastest drivers, whatever their time is." - It's not "whatever their time is", we include time, because that's how the "fastest" drivers are found out. How can anybody be fastest without time measurement? So don't even start talking about Power Stage times being pointless...
 * Now, why we put PS point scorers and top10 finishers to the same table? So we could also compare PS top5 finishers to the other drivers. In my opinion, every driver who scores points are notable, including their overall time and time loss. And the most important is to find out how many points in total each driver scored from the event. It's not like we're wasting limited space - what about listing every finisher or all stage times to the table? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, mobile and tablet users cannot see Tooltips. For someone unfamiliar with the sport, there is no clear explanation why Loeb scores 4 points in 13th place whereas the driver in 10th scores just 1. We shouldn't be disqualifying one group of readers from understanding a key part of the article.

Secondly, I have repeatedly made the argument that any crew that scores points should be considered notable enough for inclusion in the team and driver tables in championship articles. I don't see why they should be notable enough for one article but not another. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you have changed the table:
 * {|class="wikitable" width=85% style="font-size: 85%;"

! colspan="2" | Position ! rowspan="2" | No. ! rowspan="2" | Driver ! rowspan="2" | Co-driver ! rowspan="2" | Entrant ! rowspan="2" | Car ! rowspan="2" | Time ! rowspan="2" | Difference ! colspan="2" | Points ! Event ! Class ! Event ! Stage
 * }
 * What is that "Event"? Points from the event already include Power Stage points. Power Stage is not held outside the event. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is that "Event"? Points from the event already include Power Stage points. Power Stage is not held outside the event. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You get points for your finishing position in the rally and points for your finishing position on the power stage and they are awarded separately. You don't need to score points for a top ten finish to get power stage points and you don't need to score power stage points to get points for a top ten finish. They're all part of the one event but because they are awarded for separate things we need to show how they were scored separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you need to find a better name for the column than "Event". Also, how are the JWRC points for stage wins fitted into that table? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do have a better solution: limiting the classification table to the top ten points-scoring positions. Power stage points and JWRC stage points can be addressed in separate tables because as I keep saying&mdash;and which you seems to be going out of your way to ignore&mdash;those points are awarded separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on results tables
Should the "rally results" table in rally report articles (such as this one) include all points scored in an event and all entries that scored points or should separate tables be used? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; I believe that separate tables should be used because three different points-scoring systems are used. All categories (WRC, WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC) use the same basic points scoring system where the top ten finishers score a pre-determined number of points (25 for first, 18 for second, 15 for third and so on). However, additional points are awarded to the five fastest crews on the Power Stage, the final stage of the rally. There is no additional requirements for this&mdash;crews do not need to finish in the top ten to receive the points. The J-WRC has an additional system where crews score an extra point for every stage they win. As with Power Stage points, there is no additional requirement to receive these points. The current system in the article groups all of this together with a Tooltip (which is not visible on mobile or tablet devices) and a very limited explanation of how the point score was calculated. I believe the best way forward is three tables: one for the top ten, one for the Power Stage (which already exists) and one for extra J-WRC points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the Rfc tag, because current tables are less confusing than before you started this rfc. current vs before. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove the RfC tags because it suits you. You need to let it run the full 30 days before it is closed.


 * Furthermore, you haven't addressed all of the issues&mdash;namely the question of whether the rally results table should show all points scorers or just the top ten in each class. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; I agree with the separate tables suggestion. We can reduce these tables to just top ten finishers, but keeping current format — No Tooltip. Just as @ said, it is confusing. Also, it is not visible on mobile or tablet devices. — Unnamelessness (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please show an example of seperate tables. If you think it would be better and more clear, then show your new solution at some sandbox. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: they're already in every single rally report article. Every article has a table showing the rally results and a table showing the power stage results. All I am proposing is that because the points are awarded separately, it should be addressed in separate tables. As I keep pointing out&mdash;and as you seem to consistently ignore&mdash;rally points and power stage points are not mutually inclusive; you can score power stage points with or without scoring points for finishing in the top ten. Therefore, the rally results table should only focus on the top ten finishers and the power stage table should focus on the crews that scored points on the power stage. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the change - as I already expressed here, all the points scored are "rally results". Why current table is good - every points scorer's final classification position and time is shown (it's notable). +You can easily see how many points each driver scored in total from the event. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: except that once again you refuse to even acknowledge that power stage points are scored independently of the points for the top ten. You can come last in the rally and still score five power stage points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, and in that case with current tables we can see that the power stage winner came last. But with seperate tables we would have no idea what overall time or position the PS winner had. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: which tells me that you're relying too much om the tables to convey information. Tables should complement prose, not replace it. If the last-placed driver wins the power stage, the reader should already know about it from reading the written report by the time they get to the tables. If they're only finding out about it for the first time from the tables, then the article is poorly written. The purpose of the results table should be to show who scored points for finishing in the top ten, and the power stage table shows who scored points for the power stage. Combining them does nothing except create a redundant table and a sloppy alternative to giving the full results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then some information gets lost. People who score points from Power Stage (or JWRC stage wins), are notable (their time[loss] and overall position - takes just a few extra rows sometimes). Why would you include this in the text and exclude from the tables? The table includes information that is not necessary to write and we have not written it before - times, timeloss and positions for non top10 PS point scorers. 1 table to summarize every point scorer seems the best solution. Do you also think that 2018_World_Rally_Championship table should not include Power Stage points? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; just to be clear, do you support removing the power stage points from the results table and limiting the results table to the top ten finishers in each category? Your previous comment suggests that you do, but they also appear to agree with Pelmeen10, who opposes their removal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes &mdash; I support removing the power stage points from the results table and limiting the results table to the top ten finishers in each category. — Unnamelessness (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Then it can't be called "results table", but "final positions" or "event standings" or something like that. Result is much more than top10 finishers, "Power Stage winning driver gets a better result from a rally than 8th overall placed finisher". I wonder if @, @, @, @, @, @, @ or @ has an opinion here? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not simply call it "Rally Top 10", or is that too informal? Then there is no way round to expand it. The table does not have to necessarily have to be named "results table" in my opinion, since it is located in the result section of each report, which also covers the variety of results such as stage winners and so on, and the Top 10 is a result itself. WRC-2 and WRC-3 does not supply any bonus points at all? Then there is no need for a row for that in the final standings in those classes any way. I am going to go with Yes — remove the power stage points in the "top 10" and keep them as seperate tables the classes eligeble for bonus points. Kovpastish (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to stop calling it a results table. After all, even with the top ten and the power stage points, we're still only showing a selection of the overall results&mdash;those who placed in the three (or four) primary categories. Do we want to expand the results table to show the full rally results? I certainly want to for 2018 Wales Rally GB because I'm pushing to make that a good (and maybe even a featured) article. I know it means including a lot of extra rows, but it's worth noting that there is a precedent here: the 24 Hours of Le Mans articles include all sixty entries in qualifying and race results. Perhaps we can limit the entry list to notable entrants and show the full results later in the article.

Even if we do include the full results, I'm still in favour of keeping power stage points out of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; I would oppose to the change. I know that a table should be a companion to the prose, but readers of Sports always look for a table first. And keeping this in mind, the current version gives you all the information you need in one spot. MNSZ (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: we're not just writing articles for sports fans. We're writing for everyone. And there isn't a massive difference between keeping everything in one table and splitting them because one appears right under the other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about using the footnotes we use for the championship page on the final results table? Like this 1 2 3 4 5 – Indicates position on Power Stage. And then use a redirect to the Power Stage results further down the report for more information to the user? Kovpastish (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: that's not really necessary. The power stage table is right under the rally results table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox WRC driver (Podiums)
Does the number of podiums in each article reflect only 2nd and 3rd places or is it including wins also? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wins too are podium finishes so they are included. Prolog (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Complete WRC results without Power Stage points?
Why don't we include Power Stage points or positions in driver articles? We should also include JWRC stage winning points. Also stage winning points for ERC stats. It basically means copy-paste from each season's article.

I think this is the best solution for ERC drivers: (example Kajetan Kajetanowicz)

The easiest solution for WRC drivers would be position and PS position with undefined (example Sebastien Ogier)

What do you think, or any better suggestions? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No objection to this idea. — Unnamelessness (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I suggest a change to most infobox templates. 'Last race' should be changed to 'Most recent race'. Not all drives are retired or deceased. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Calendar decides the order of rally. — Unnamelessness (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you can remove that race and/or change it to "| updated = 17.09.2018" (or whatever date). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Rally results table
ONLY top ten finshers in the table, THX. For the crews who finish out of top ten but score points in the PS, we can find out in the PS table. — Unnamelessness (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently we include every WRC/WRC2/WRC3 entry, penalty and retirement. How is it logical that wrc crew finishing outside top10 is not notable in the "rally results"? IMO at least all factory car's final position/time/timeloss etc should be included. We even have "Other major entries" in the entry list, but nothing about their result. The current table is not enough.
 * It's not really clear why we include only top10 in the "rally results"- the headline in this case is very misleading. With this logic we should only include top10 entries, top10 penalties and top10 retirements? We currently list top10 overall/wrc2/wrc3/jwrc, but even ewrc-results.com has another "M" - for manufacturer crews, see example. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So it's only logical to at least add:
 * {|class="wikitable" width=85% style="font-size: 85%;"

! 12 ! 12 ! 15 ! 15 ! 16 ! 16 ! 23 ! 23
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0; text-align:center" colspan="11" | Other notable finishers
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0; text-align:center" colspan="11" | Other notable finishers
 * align="center"| 2
 * 🇬🇧 Elfyn Evans
 * 🇬🇧 Daniel Barritt
 * 🇬🇧 M-Sport Ford WRT
 * Ford Fiesta WRC
 * align="center" | 4:21:33.5
 * +22:09.0
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center" | 1
 * align="center"| 12
 * Khalid Al-Qassimi
 * 🇬🇧 Chris Patterson
 * 🇫🇷 Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT
 * Citroën C3 WRC
 * align="center" | 4:35:20.6
 * +35:56.1
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 5
 * 🇧🇪 Thierry Neuville
 * 🇧🇪 Nicolas Gilsoul
 * 🇰🇷 Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT
 * Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC
 * align="center" | 4:38:11.0
 * +38:46.5
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center" | 5
 * align="center"| 10
 * 🇳🇴 Mads Østberg
 * 🇳🇴 Torstein Eriksen
 * 🇫🇷 Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT
 * Citroën C3 WRC
 * align="center" | 4:54:00.6
 * +54:36.1
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center" | 0
 * }
 * --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with your opionion that the crew finishes out of top ten are notable. So, I am planning to design another table which covers other notable finshers so that all the classified finishers can be find out in those two tables. — Unnamelessness (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What about using 1 column for overall finishers? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {|class="wikitable" width=85% style="font-size: 85%;"

! colspan="2" | Position ! rowspan="2" | No. ! rowspan="2" | Driver ! rowspan="2" | Co-driver ! rowspan="2" | Entrant ! rowspan="2" | Car ! rowspan="2" | Time ! rowspan="2" | Difference ! colspan="2" | Points ! Event ! Class ! Class ! Stage ! colspan=2| 1 ! colspan=2| 2 ! colspan=2|3 ! colspan=2|4 ! colspan=2|5 ! colspan=2|6 ! colspan=2|7 ! colspan=2|8 !colspan=2|9 ! colspan=2|10
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0; text-align:center" colspan="11" | Overall classification
 * style="background-color:#EAECF0; text-align:center" colspan="11" | Overall classification
 * align="center" | 8
 * 🇪🇪 Ott Tänak
 * 🇪🇪 Martin Järveoja
 * 🇯🇵 Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT
 * Toyota Yaris WRC
 * align="center" | 3:59:24.5
 * 0.0
 * align="center" | 25
 * align="center" | 3
 * align="center"| 7
 * 🇫🇮 Jari-Matti Latvala
 * 🇫🇮 Miikka Anttila
 * 🇯🇵 Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT
 * Toyota Yaris WRC
 * align="center" | 3:59:46.8
 * +22.3
 * align="center" | 18
 * align="center" | 2
 * align="center"| 6
 * 🇳🇿 Hayden Paddon
 * 🇬🇧 Sebastian Marshall
 * 🇰🇷 Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT
 * Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC
 * align="center" | 4:01:10.8
 * +1:46.3
 * align="center" | 15
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 3
 * 🇫🇮 Teemu Suninen
 * 🇫🇮 Mikko Markkula
 * 🇬🇧 M-Sport Ford WRT
 * Ford Fiesta WRC
 * align="center" | 4:03:35.4
 * +4:10.9
 * align="center" | 12
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 4
 * 🇳🇴 Andreas Mikkelsen
 * 🇳🇴 Anders Jæger-Synnevaag
 * 🇰🇷 Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT
 * Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC
 * align="center" | 4:06:36.2
 * +7:11.7
 * align="center" | 10
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 81
 * 🇳🇴 Henning Solberg
 * 🇦🇹 Ilka Minor-Petrasko
 * 🇳🇴 Henning Solberg
 * Škoda Fabia R5
 * align="center" | 4:13:05.1
 * +13:40.6
 * align="center" | 8
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 32
 * 🇨🇿 Jan Kopecký
 * 🇨🇿 Pavel Dresler
 * 🇨🇿 Škoda Motorsport II
 * Škoda Fabia R5
 * align="center" | 4:17:49.7
 * +18:25.2
 * align="center" | 6
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 37
 * 🇷🇴 Simone Tempestini
 * 🇷🇴 Sergio Itu
 * 🇷🇴 Simone Tempestini
 * Citroën C3 R5
 * align="center" | 4:19:01.6
 * +19:37.1
 * align="center" | 4
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 39
 * 🇬🇧 Chris Ingram
 * 🇬🇧 Ross Whittock
 * 🇹🇷 Toksport WRT
 * Škoda Fabia R5
 * align="center" | 4:19:45.8
 * +20:21.3
 * align="center" | 2
 * align="center" | 0
 * align="center"| 1
 * 🇫🇷 Sébastien Ogier
 * 🇫🇷 Julien Ingrassia
 * 🇬🇧 M-Sport Ford WRT
 * Ford Fiesta WRC
 * align="center" | 4:20:15.7
 * +20:51.2
 * align="center" | 1
 * align="center" | 4
 * }
 * I actually liked 1 table version more. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Using one table version has a major problem. If there are two or three catagories which have crews out of top ten on the list, how could we distinguish the difference? To the rally winner or to the class leader? Than what's time we compared to? I would rather remove the "difference" column rather than entangle in which to fill. In that case, we have to design a new one. The best example is Finland.
 * So, I designed this one:
 * {|class="wikitable" width=85% style="font-size: 85%;"

! colspan="2" | Position ! rowspan="2" | No. ! rowspan="2" | Driver ! rowspan="2" | Co-driver ! rowspan="2" | Entrant ! rowspan="2" | Car ! rowspan="2" | Class ! rowspan="2" | Time ! Points ! Event ! Class ! Stage
 * }
 * — Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the column title Difference should answer your question. In the 2 table version it's possible to add both, but I see no reason to add the column "Points" when non of the crews received points. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then it will become a very interesting situation. e.g. (Finland) Look at those differences, they are not monotonous increasing as the first table, which would puzzle some readers.

Speaking of the column "Points", my opinion is that for page consistency, this column should be either remove in all pages or keep in all pages instead of selecting which pages should have. — Unnamelessness (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New Wikitable Design
It has been serval months since we started to use the new special stages wikitable, which includes drivers' and co-drivers' names in it. I noticed that there's a lot of space on the right side of the table. Why don't we make full use of the space? Like:

First, it saved the length of the wikitable.

Second, it is much easier and clearer to display the joint lead, like:

--Unnamelessness (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you think my version is not suitable. Current one is not good, and 1 cell version is much better than it was in the beginning (seperate cell for co-driver). Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "First, it saved the length of the wikitable."
 * But it's causing the table to be unnecessarily wide. You need the nowraps to make the table readable. The problem is that it's forcing the table to be very wide&mdash;wider than the default for most browsers. The browsers automatically resize to accomodate the widest object on the screen, which forces the rest of the article to appear smaller. It's possible for individual users to fix their display settings, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to do it independently. Whatever the benefits of using the mdashes, it's causing major accessibility issues. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My laptop doesn't have that issue. If you are worried about the width, then we use the nowraps to fix the issue. --Unnamelessness (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My laptop doesn't have that issue. If you are worried about the width, then we use the nowraps to fix the issue. --Unnamelessness (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have that problem either. What to you mean "accessibility issues"? Same problem (width) with separate columns. With co-drivers it's either unnecessarily wide or unnecessarily long.Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "My laptop doesn't have that issue."
 * "I don't have that problem either."
 * That doesn't mean anything. Your resolution settings work fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same experience.
 * "What to you mean 'accessibility issues'?"
 * I mean that people cannot read the article easily because the screen automatically scales the article to fit the widest object&mdash;the table. Everything else is reduced in size as a result.
 * "With co-drivers it's either unnecessarily wide or unnecessarily long."
 * But a long table doesn't have the issues of a wide table. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But a long table doesn't have the issues of a wide table. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So, to solve the potential issue, my advice is to use the nowraps. --Unnamelessness (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I think the issue of a long table is unclear to display the joint stage win/lead. --Unnamelessness (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "So, to solve the potential issue"
 * It'a not a "potential" issue. It's an issue, full stop. Just because you don't see it, that doesn't mean it's not there. Moreover, we have the means to fix it for everyone with the markup.
 * "my advice is to use the nowraps."
 * The nowraps force everything into one row. We use them for tablet and mobile readers where tables that are wider than the screen (because the screens are so small) are unavoidable. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's an issue, full stop."
 * The nowraps can solve the issue you mentioned before.
 * "The browsers automatically resize to accomodate the widest object on the screen, which forces the rest of the article to appear smaller."
 * Everything is forced into one row, then it is readable. Issue fixed. Why revert it back? --Unnamelessness (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything is forced into one row, then it is readable. Issue fixed. Why revert it back? --Unnamelessness (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides all the arguing over small things - the final results table no more includes points scored. Readers can no longer find out the most important thing of an event. Why the heck do we even have (so long) articles? Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Too messy is the reason that the table does not include the points. I think we probrably need another new wikitable to list the crews that manage to score points. --Unnamelessness (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically everything else is less important compared to points scorers. Messy or not messy, currently (let's take 2018 Rally de España) there's no indication crews even scored any points - especially lower classes like wrc2. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I design one at 2018 Rally Australia. --Unnamelessness (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Another table is the last thing we need. And might I remind you, @ that we're in this situation because you insisted on having a redundant column in the table. 1.144.104.92 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@ @ I have to say, I genuinely feel depressed sometimes. You spent an hour in designing a new table, then another editor straightly remove it just because he/she disagree with the idea. Seriously, have you two guys try to do something constructive at rally pages? Like updating statistics or writing a rally summary? The only exception is Rally GB probrably. The whole feeling you two give me is just demanding. I have to say this is impossible to get consensus. --Unnamelessness (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@1.144.104.92, we are in this situation because you decided from Wales Rally GB, that we should include all registered crews and their overall time. Then you decided that including point is messy. Jeez, what is the actual point of these articles? We should start from the most important things and then consider adding other stuff, not the other way around. Why can't we go back to the style we used until 2018 Rally Turkey? Btw too long articles make it unfocused, can we think about some content being auto-collapsed? Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * @ I have already made three rally pages and genuinely think the full entry list is not very necessary since most of the infomation is not so important. I would also say go back to the style used until 2018 Rally Turkey.
 * Then we will face the question about limiting the crews to top ten finshers or not, and I think the newly-designed table (e.g. 2018 Rally Australia) would be a better solution.
 * Speaking of the question that should stage results table include co-drivers or not, I would go on with Yes. As 1.144.104.92 (PrisonerMonkeys) mentioned at Talk:2018 Wales Rally GB:
 * "A crew is made up of a driver and co-driver. Both should be recognised."
 * And I'd prefer a wide version with the noraps.
 * So, summarize for 2019 rally pages: just WRC/WRC-2/WRC-3/J-WRC entries, rally result wikitable (top ten finishers), Power stage result table, J-WRC extra points result table (use it in J-WRC rounds), points scorers table, stage result table (wide), penalty table and retirement table.
 * I am wondering the opinion of yours, in fact, the opinion of every editors participated in the project. --Unnamelessness (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with listing only those crews that take part in those championships (wrc3 is history though). And then we shouldn't include any other un-notable crews in retirements/penalties either. But, every crew we mention in the entry list, we have to include their overall result. Wait, what tables are you suggesting for results (different from Rally Turkey page)? Top10 and point scorers both? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, WRC-3 is history, my bad. So, just WRC/WRC-2 (Pro)/J-WRC entries. And how do we difine "notable" in retirement/penalty table. I think they should include WRC/WRC-2 (Pro)/J-WRC crews.
 * Regarding the results, top 10 and point scorers both, yep, because the WRC crews who score the Power stage points but not finish in the top ten and J-WRC crews who achieve stage wins but retire will not list in the top ten table. So, I think we need point scorers table to list all the crews who score points. --Unnamelessness (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ford
There is an ongoing dispute on the page World Rally Championship about 2017's manufacturer champion. My prospective is to use "🇬🇧 M-Sport", because

a) In 2017, Ford did not contest the championship.

b) The manufacturer champion of 2017 is M-Sport, which is a British team.

c) Ford competed from 1973–1985 with a U.S. racing license, and has competed since 1986 with a British racing licence.

Per c), 2006 & 2007 are British as well. — Unnamelessness (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)