Talk:2019 World Rally Championship
![]() | A news item involving 2019 World Rally Championship was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 October 2019. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Manufacturers Table Third Row
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archive 179#Talk:2019 World Rally Championship This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
Should the third rows in the manufacturers' championship table for entrants that have run three cars at an event be removed?
- I think they should. The rules state that only two results for the manufacturers' championship can be scored per rally. So I think we should only list those results that were actually credited for that championship. It is the championship result table after all. If one wants to find out what the individual entrants did, we have the drivers' and co-drivers' championships tables for that. The row of mostly NC's in the manufacturers' championship table is just confusing.Tvx1 10:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- So am I. Per the rule says two best cars score points for manufacturers. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, look. This again.
- No, they should not be removed. Those crews are eligible to score WCM points when a rally begins. They are ineligible to score points when the rally ends. To remove the third row implies that they were never eligible to score points, which is patently untrue.
- We used to have an additional column in the table that assigned results to individual entries. But then some idiot decided that column was unnecessary and rearranged the table based on Formula 1 results. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- As has been explained to you many times, the claim that removing the third row implies they were never eligible to score points is what is actually untrue. The entry lists shows them black and white as eligible to score manufacturer's points and the absence of the third row in the results table doesn't change that in any way. Similarly the claim that results were assigned to individual entries is also wrong. They were assigned to numbers and these were actually frequently used by different crews throughout the season. And the decision to remove said column was a community decision achieved through a discussion which is still visible on this talk page. As it stands, there is only one visitor of these articles that wants this third row: you. Wikipedia however operates on community decisions.Tvx1 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- We used to have an additional column in the table that assigned results to individual entries. But then some idiot decided that column was unnecessary and rearranged the table based on Formula 1 results. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, teams could enter three cars, but only two could score points. The difference was that they had to nominate who scored points in advance of the start, whereas here it is only decided at the end. Having the same appearance between two matrices thus misrepresents the championship.
And if the row of NCs is as confusing as you claim it to be, why haven't we had problems with people constantly removing it since it was introduced in 2017? Or is this another case of you being able to psychically tell what readers are thinking? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- The rule clearly points out that the two best cars score points for manufacturers, which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship. Per the FIA regulation, the points of each manufacturer is made up of the best car and the second-best car and has nothing to do with the third best car. That's how a team's championship result was achieved. This is also why the official website lists the manufacturers' championship in the form of "A+B", instead of "A+B(+0)". -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship"
- There's a big difference between contributing nothing and recording a result that did not contribute. That's what "NC" means: that the crew recorded a result, but that result was not taken into consideration due to the rules. It does not mean that they did nothing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- No quite the opposite, they do no achieve a result. They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC. If a third car from any manufacturer finishes ahead of one of the first two cars of another manufacturer, that third car is disregarded completely and its WCM result is passed on to the next WCM eligible car. The difference you speak of is minimal and dedicating a whole row to it is just undue. And the other potential implications from removing this row are all based on the same mistaken belief that WMC table is the only thing that tells our readers how these championships devolved. That is wrong. The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include. These other parts were different in the other years you mention and so the readers where also clearly able to see the difference. You're just massively overrating how this lone table could be interpreted. The combination of entry lists, prose AND the results tables makes it abundantly clear that some manufacturers entered three cars for the rallies. The absence of a third row in one results table does not change that at all. A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries.Tvx1 11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC."
- Which is why they are listed as "Not Classified". Omitting them entirely suggests they were never there to begin with.
- "The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include."
- The reader should not need to synthesise information from various parts of the article just to understand it.
- "A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries."
- Since you didn't bother to address these points the first time, I'll repeat them here:
- First, the teams have markedly different approaches to the championship. If how they contested the championship is so important, then showing their approaches should be a function of the matrix.
- Secondly, in the historical context of the WRC, the third row is important because previous years have used different rules. Teams used to be able to enter three crews in a rally, but they had to nominate two to score points before the start. Peugeot used to hire Gilles Panizzi for tarmac rallies because he was a tarmac specialist
- Stop treating these articles like Formula 1 articles. Just because editing decisions worked there, that doesn't mean they will automatically work elsewhere. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"editors insisted that it was more important for the matrix to show how a team's championship result was achieved rather than who contributed what and when" - with your edit, it still did not show that. Basically you want to show that some teams have two drivers while some have 3. Didn't you also want to show the driver, but ruled out {{Hover title}}? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- If the matrix is intended to show how a team scored its championship result, then it needs to show the differences in how the teams approached the championship. Limiting the table to two rows regardless of the actual number of entries implies that all teams only entered two crews in the first place, which is patently untrue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not it doesn't imply that all. That claim is what is patently untrue. The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary. No synthesizing is need in any form. The information is there in black and white. Omitting those who were not credited with a result does not imply anything but that they weren't credited with a result. A results matrix its for results, not entries.Tvx1 11:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- "The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary."
- No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.
- "A results matrix its for results, not entries."
- And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices.
- Not it doesn't imply that all. That claim is what is patently untrue. The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary. No synthesizing is need in any form. The information is there in black and white. Omitting those who were not credited with a result does not imply anything but that they weren't credited with a result. A results matrix its for results, not entries.Tvx1 11:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.
- And you still haven't addressed the fact that teams approach the championship in different ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.
- Exactly. And that is the only thing they need to do. The entry list shows who entered for which championship at each round, the results tables show who scored points, or rather results, for that championship. Anything else is beyond their scope. Use prose to provide context.
And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices. What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.
- What on earth does it matter for the manufacturers' championship that a car which wasn't taking into account for that championship retired, was disqualified or excluded or withdrew. It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form. All the extra information you mention, like a team's approach, are things we have prose for. The manufacturers championship tables is no there to give our readers a full report of the season. It's only function is to show the results that counted towards that championship. Besides the drivers' and co-drivers' championship already show what happened to all the entries.Tvx1 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- And you still haven't addressed the fact that teams approach the championship in different ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- You cannot show up two months after the discussion has run its course, declare that a consensus has been formed, impose it on the article and blatantly misrepresent the discussion as if there is a consensus and a lone voice of dissent. Especially when you criticise me for doing something similar elsewhere. You have tried to get this change approved multiple times in the past two years, all to no avail. It's time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.
- "It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form."
- Actuslly, it does. If a team entered three cars, but then withdrew one, it affects how they can score points; if one of the remaining cars retires, they don't have the third car to score a result. Besides, all of the teams approach the championship differently. Citroën enter two cars. Toyota enter three. M-Sport enter two or three. If the WCM results matrix is supposed to show how a team scored its results, then it needs to address the fact that different teams score their results in different ways. Limiting each team to two entries in the WCM table completely changes the reader's perception of the championship. Furthermore, in the 1990s teams could enter three cars, but had to nominate which two would score before the event. If one retired, the third car couldn't score in its place. Here, all three cars are eligible to score points until the final results are known. Your proposal implies that only the cars that scored points were eligible to score. And before you say it, you need something more than "no, it doesn't imply that" as an objection.
- You cannot show up two months after the discussion has run its course, declare that a consensus has been formed, impose it on the article and blatantly misrepresent the discussion as if there is a consensus and a lone voice of dissent. Especially when you criticise me for doing something similar elsewhere. You have tried to get this change approved multiple times in the past two years, all to no avail. It's time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.
- There is no reason for this change. You lobbied to have the number column removed for reasons that were unclear (apparently because F1 articles do it, WRC articles need to do it, too), and the net result is that now you have rows of NCs that you don't like. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at DRN since it clearly is not going away. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- The trip to WP:DRN did not yield any different results. And I did not misrepresent anything. This discussion does not feature anyone agreeing with your stance. I just saw this discussion as new, clean attempt to get a consensus on this subject, instead of merely being a continuation of the former. But even if you do consider them together there is STILL a clear support for the proposal. You're still in the clear minority. And your arguments have been refuted time and time again. The implication of them not been eligible to score points simply does not exists because the entry list explicitly states that they did and the proposed edit would add a sentence above the table that clearly states only the best two results are actually credited. Likewise the entry lists already gives a full picture of their approaches and the prose can give even more context. This has been repeated to you over and over again. Moreover, talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here. Firstly, you claim that there was no positive progress in getting this approval approved, yet there is clear support for it here and this isn't a dead horse at all. Secondly, you claim that I lobbied to have the number column removed, which is blatantly untrue. Another user lobbied for that and I merely supported that proposal. This has to stop now. You cannot unilaterally block a proposal from being executed. There is clear support for it. Last time I checked consensus is still not unanimity. We don't need your approval.Tvx1 15:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- "this isn't a dead horse at all"
- More than two months had passed between the last comment in the discussion and your decision to apply the change despite your claim of having a consensus. Evidently it was not as strong as you thought it was, or else it would have been applied at the time. I think two months of complete silence is more than enough time to warrant revisiting the discussion before makimg changes.
- "We don't need your approval."
- No, but what you do need is a clear internal logic between articles. You have been lobbying for this change on and off for over eighteen months, but have not one addressed the fact that previous years have used a similar scoring system with a few key differences that should be reflected in the structure of the matrix. All you have ever done is said "no, it does not imply that/need that" and assumed you have adequately made your point when you have not.
- "talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here"
- I'm not the one who pretended that an entire discussion did not exist and then claimed it was a case of one against many when diffs from that discussion proved otherwise. You always do this. There's one set of rules that you follow and one set of rules that you have for everyone else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The differences in the scoring rules can still be reflected in multiple parts of the article without the need of the third row in that table. We explain the scoring systems in just about all motorsports article. The entry lists and report prose are more than sufficient to explain and give context to the approaches. The results tables are not intended to be full season reports. They only need to show the results which actually count. Regardless, you cannot set the conditions on how a consensus can be reached. You do not own these articles. Wikipedia is a community project and you have to respect the community preference. Lastly, as I have explained before, I do not all pretend the earlier discussion did not exist. We simply disagree on it's effect on the whole. You consider it the most important part and overvalue it so much so that you consider it leading and that it tips the entire case in your favor, whereas I see it more as an old, failed attempt at the proposal with this discussion being a fresh attempt under the principle that consensus can change. You yourself had a number of changes implemented in the past under the principle after earlier failed attempts. So it would be basic respect to other contributors if you gave them that same courtesy here. Moreover though, even if you simply add up both discussions it still leaves a clear support in favor of the proposal. It gives you just one person agreeing with you, with doesn't even remotely put you in the clear majority. We thus simply disagree on the earlier discussion's value. And I don't know why your reading of them is by definition te correct one and mine the wrong one.Tvx1 11:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neither the DRN thread nor the ANI report provided any results, so maybe can we refocus on trying to find and amicable solution here. Does anyone have anything to add to the discussion?Tvx1 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Enough of this now. These are nothing but off-topic personal attacks. Let's have the on-topic discussion judged by an uninvolved person now so as to finally find consensus.
|
---|
Excuse me if I don't simply take your word for it. Your behaviour speaks volumes to the contrary. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What you are doing is called Wikihounding:
Which you certainly do. Your only contributions to rallying articles are to either oppose me in discussions or to propose changes that I have proposed elsewhere. It certainly inhibits the work I do, and it is annoying because it slows the process down. Wikihounding also says the following:
It certainly does disrupt my enjoyment of editing—I've had root canals that were more fun than some of these conversations.
And for the umpteenth time, your word means next to nothing. Your edit history shows an anomaly. Like many editors, you have a range of subjects that you like to edit. And like many editors, you edit multiple pages within that subject area. So why is it that the only article you edit in the subject of rallying is the current WRC championship article? And why is it that you only ever lobby for changes to specific sections of that article? This is literally the only place on Wikipedia that you do this. It clearly fits the definition of Wikihounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
|
Collapsing this isn't going to make it go away. You can try and hide it, but your agenda is still quite clear. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Rally Estonia
editHi Everybody, I was wondering if we should possibility think about including some Rally Estonia details as a non-championship rally. Especially as the WRC are promoting this event as the "first-ever Promotional Rally", all manufacturers are sending at least one car, and WRC+ are covering some of the stages live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1season (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Calendar expansion" section mentions Rally Estonia very briefly. That would be the place to write more. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- What does "Promotional Rally" even mean?
- Whatever the case, Rally Estonia is not a part of the championship and so should not be explored in detail. The only way it has affected the championship is indirectly; i.e. through Evans' injury. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Is "World Rally Championship Promotional Rally" with every manufacturer participating connected to World Rally Championship? That is the question. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, Rally Estonia is not a part of the championship and so should not be explored in detail. The only way it has affected the championship is indirectly; i.e. through Evans' injury. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Stage distances under calendar
editDo we list planned distances or final distances? Currently we mention the cancelled stage in Monte Carlo, but for example in Portugal 2 stages of 4.5km total were also cancelled (instead of 20 stages, 18 were contested). Checking both wrc.com & ewrc-results, these are the differences:
- Monte Carlo - we count out the cancelled stage, while other sources do not
- Mexico 1) here 316.51; 2) wrc.com 313.87; 3) ewrc 310.50
- Argentina: stage 3 (29.85 km) was cancelled (347.5-29.85=317.65)
- Portugal 1) here 306.97 / article 311.23; 2) wrc.com 306.97; 3) ewrc 311.47
- Turkey 1) here 318.77 / article 310.10; 2) wrc.com 309.86; 3) ewrc 309.56
- Wales (stage 20 of 4.74km cancelled) 1) here 312.75 ; 2) wrc.com 312.75; 3) ewrc 309.76
We mostly forget to change to actual distances and add notes anyway, so maybe list the total (not counting out the cancelled) distance? Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, nothing is better than subject to the official. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- We should list the actual distance contested. If the route is shortened, then that should be mentioned in a footnote. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
How can there be so drastic differences in Mexico and Turkey distances? Maybe we should just trust the ewrc-results.com. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
"A small consensus"
editThe aforementioned "small consensus" is so small that nobody did anything with it for ten weeks (before today, the last comment was made on 4 September). This "consensus" is clearly not as compelling as some people believe it to be, and given the passage of time since it was supposedly formed, it should be discussed again. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Still, it's a consensus achieved through the formal procedures. You have no right to simple ignore it or declare it invalid. WP:Consensus is a policy and you have to respect it.Tvx1 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)