Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

Request for comment on new manufacturers table

There is a clear consensus that the "FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers" table should not include the car number.

Cunard (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The 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.

---

Should the "FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers" table add car number? -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — Per previous entry, No. Because Manufacturers' standing is the standing that speifically counts the manufacturers' points, not drivers. This table should completely concentrate on how each manufacturer scores points, which is the best two cars score points regardless of which car. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: per previous discussion, yes. Each manufacturer has structured their team differently (Citroën only has two cars, M-Sport Ford has two cars with a third on a round-by-round basis, Toyota has three full-time cars and Hyundai has three cars shares across four crews) and this affects how they can score points. Adding the numbers column allows for additional sorting within each manufacturer to show the reader how points were scored from round to round. Furthermore, ever since the proposed format was introduced to Formula 1 articles, it has been subject to ongoing dispute here is a lit of every instance I have so far found:
  1. WCC RET issue
  2. Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018
  3. WCC table is very badly broken
  4. Haas points in article wrong for USA.
  5. Constructor Standings: Ferrari mix-up
  6. World Constructors' Championship standings
  7. Constructors' Standings revisited

Don't just take it from me that this is an issue, here is what @Zwerg Nase (sorry, I have to mention you since I am quoting you directly) had to say in one of those discussions:

"I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment."

Others have repeatedly voiced concerns about the proposal; I would tag them too, but do not want to be canvassing. The proposal has a documented history of causing problems elsewhere (the only reason those changes have not been reverted is because some editors refuse to acknowledge that it is an issue) and given that it removes detail of how teams scored points (which is what the matrix is designed to show), it is clearly a bad choice to incorporate here. 1.144.111.230 (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been only a year since the new table introduced in F1, it is very reasonable that some editors can't understand. People need time to read and get used to it just like a video game's bugs require time to fix. Btw, this is WRC, not F1. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention too them. They were never supporting of the proposed change of the F1 table in the first place. And even though it was implented with clear consenus they have since tried everything at their might to reverse the changes. What they say here about the complaints is exaggerated and wrong. The people DO understand the tables, they just don't all agree with the presentation. But nearly none of them keep complaining after a response to their talk page post. Moreover, we haven't had any complaint for nearly two months.Tvx1 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"It has been only a year since the new table introduced in F1, it is very reasonable that some editors can't understand. People need time to read and get used to it just like a video game's bugs require time to fix. Btw, this is WRC, not F1."

And yet, other widespread changes were introduced without a single complaint. They did not need a year for people to adapt to them. I suspect the problem on the F1 pages is far more extensive than we believe as the results matrices are in templates, not the article. This change was made to keep the size of the articles down and reduce vandalism, and has probably prevented people from restoring the original format because they do not know how to access the templates.

More to the point, I have documented a year's worth of problems that this change has caused. You yourself cited the F1 articles as a model for the change, so you can hardly argue that F1 has no bearing on the article now. What cause do you have to believe that the problems faced on the F1 articles will not be experienced here?

"Don't pay too much attention too them."

Or do pay attention to me. I've been editing WRC pages since 2012. I can't find the last time Tvx1 made a meaningful contribution to a WRC page. If this change goes ahead and my prediction of disruption comes true, will he be the one fixing matrices and explaining the format on the talk page? I don't think so. Would he even be aware of this discussion if you hadn't tagged him?

"What they say here about the complaints is exaggerated and wrong."

I just provided evidence of seven attempts to change the matrices and I was not even looking too hard. How is that an exaggeration?

"The people DO understand the tables, they just don't all agree with the presentation."

How about I quote some of the discussions that I linked to?

"I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment."

"I am just wondering if there was a change in the formatting policy or if the most recent seasons need to be brought in line with the prior way of doing things."

"The results for the German GP for the Ferrari boys have been erroneously switched."

"Pretty much every row in the WCC table is completely wrong."

These do not sound like the words of people who understand the changes. The one constant in these discussions is you telling people there is no problem.

"Moreover, we haven't had any complaint for nearly two months."

For a change that you introduced a year ago. So you've gone ten months dealing with the problem, then. That's hardly any better given that you're talking about a change to a table that people should immediately understand. 1.144.111.54 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A proper discussion with a RFC was held during the summer to evaluate whether the change should be made and no consensus was achieved to do so. As for your "template theory". The first four season article using the new system don't use templates and there was next to no editing on their constructors' standings. Your theory thus just doesn't hold water. You've had more than your say and your concerns were more than heard. It's way past the time to drop the stick now and stop acting so frustrated.Tvx1 12:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I've given up trying to change things there. But I'll be damned if I just roll over and let you introduce a bad change to another article. You have consistently failed to address any of the concerns raised here; in which parallel universe is spending ten months explaining the format of a table good editing practice? And what gives you the right to burden an article with a problematic format when your contributions show that you do not actually contribute anything to that article and will likely leave it to others to clean up the mess? As far as I am concerned, if you're not willing to put in the work to explain your changes, then your words count for nothing in this discussion. And if the changes go ahead and you don't contribute to the ongoing maintenance, then that's grounds for restoring the original format. 1.144.108.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, the "you don't contribute enough" nonsense again. This becomes more pathetic by the minute. What you write here is a clear case of a claim of ownership. You seem to believe that you the authority to set out conditions for changes and on other people's rights to edit a set of articles. You're really making a mockery out of yourself. Judging by this entire discussion, you appear to be literally the only one to see the proposal as a "bad change". And I'm not even introducing it. I didn't propose anything. I was pinged for my opinion and I gave it. That's how community works and after all those years it's about time you'd accept that.Tvx1 11:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're endorsing a change that editors have reason to believe may cause problems. If those problems come to pass, then you should at least take the time to fix it. But if you're not willing, why are you participating in the discussion? What you're saying is that you believe in the proposal, just not enough to see it through. Your words mean nothing if you aren't willing to resolve the issues that arise from it. That's how a community works: if you endorse a change, then you're expected to follow through. Don't make work for others and expect them to be thankful for it because the article is now "better". I have very low hopes for this because in the F1 articles, you're the only one who refuses to believe that seven complaints in ten months is indicative of a problem. That does not bode well for this article. You're happy to dictate how the article should be structured, but you leave it to everyone else to implement and maintain the changes, refuse to acknowledge the growing chorus of people saying "this is a problem", and you have the nerve to accuse me of breakng WP:OWN? I don't think so. Of the two of us, I'm the only one interested in the long-term shape of the article because I'm the only one who works on it. 1.144.107.255 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And you're trying to discredit other editors' opinions by imposing irrelevant conditions. Others have already explained before that the quantity of one's edits is irrelevant. Reader opinion is just as valuable as editor opinion. Moreover, the amount of work would not be negatively affected by this proposal. Quite on the contrary, the amount of updatable content would be reduced. And your accusations are just ludicrous. I have never stated any intention no to want to see this through. And I'm pretty certain the original proposer and the other supporters are more than willing to commit to the change long term. You are just inventing problems that don't exist.Tvx1 00:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — Per previous entry, No. The number system has changed. They no are no longer related to the manufacturers. There is no point anymore in including them.Tvx1 12:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I lean towards no (but would be okay with numbers also, if there would not be too many drivers in one team), but I kind of still miss having the number of points next to position. wrc.com has both of them, while ewrc-results.com lists only points. Especially for new readers, number of points is the thing they would like to know, calculating them from position may be too complicated. In a driver/team article, position in the other hand is better choice. For anon/prisonermonkey: we can, and probably should add a sentence to explain the table. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: if you have to explain the format of the table in the article, it's a bad format. 1.144.108.25 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: according to this edit, the numbers are so important that we can afford to include them in the entry table before we get an official entry list or before we know all of them. However, the same person is arguing that they are so unimportant that they can be cut from the manufacturers' results matrix lest they threaten to confuse the reader as to the purpose of the table. I don't understand this logic at all. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

OMG, are they the same concept? Removing the numbers from the manufacturer table equals they are not important? I say once again: The manufacturer table is the table that SPECIFICLY counts points for each manufacturer, not for each driver. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And organising the matrix to include the car number does not fundamentally change that. Can you please cite a single instance of someone who has not understood or misinterpreted a results matrix because of that column? Because I can cite seven examples of people who have been confused by a matrix without it. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

If all five drivers of Citroën selects their own number in 2018, with the old table, it would be like:

Pos.	Manufacturer	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
4	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT	A	4	Ret	3	7	6	Ret	WD							237
		B			5	8								1
		C		5				6	5	2	Ret	8	7		3
		D	7	2			Ret	5	6	7	7	Ret	4	8	7
		E					8			NC		7		NC
Pos.	Manufacturer	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Compared with previous tables，you call this "organising the matrix to include the car number does not fundamentally change that"? Are you serious?

And don't cite any examples because none of them read it carefully. I firmly believe that anyone who read the table with attention can easily understand how the entire table works. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. It still shows everything that it's supposed to show and, as you put it, "anyone who reads the table with attention can easily understand how the entire table works".

Citroën's 2017 campaign is also a very poor choice to cite as an example considering that Meeke was fired mid-season. If you did it for Toyota or M-Sport, the results would be far less dramatic. It's the same as citing Toro Rosso's 2017 carousel of drivers as the reason for changing the F1 matrices—you just don't like all of the white spaces. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Regulation has changed. Under new regulation, old table doesn't fit and we need a new one. That's the reason why I started this discussion, not beacuse of your so-called "I don't like it". I've alreday put my point serveal times here, and everytime you just don't accept it beacuse of the so-called "confusion" in F1 — you just refuse to get over it.

And there is an advice for you — Why don't you create another new account? Because now you look like a puppy editor. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment — Per previous entry, no. As pointed out, numbers are not linked to manufacturer anymore. M-Sport will also have multiple drivers which will then have its own number and would make the table worse. Kovpastish (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.

Proposal: rounds column

I've been looking back over some previous championship articles looking at ways of trimming them in places, and I noticed the following:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	4	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	All
				5	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	All
				6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	1, 3–5, 9, 12
					Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	2, 6–8, 10–11, 13

To my mind, this just looks unnecessary—it's far too wide. So what I suggest that we do is treat the number in the rounds column as the number of rounds a crew contested, rather than relating to the specific rounds. The above table would look like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
Hyundai	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	4	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	All
				5	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	All
				6	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	5
					Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	7

Sure, it's a little change, but I think we're relying far too much on the tables to do things that should be done in the prose. If need be, we can add footnotes to indicate which round(s) part-time drivers contested, but the nature of their part-time roles should be discussed in the prose. 1.144.108.118 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I remain neutral on this proposal. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — I'm just looking for ways to make the article more effective whilst reducing clutter. For example, why do we need two entry lists, one for manufacturers and one for non-manufacturers? All it took was one sentence at the start of the entry list and we've removed the need for multiple tables. Why do we need to indicate which rounds were contested in a column when we can use prose to explain it more effectively? Why do the results matrices indicate positions rather than points, requiring readers to cross-reference the matrix with the points table to manually calculate the total?

I have felt for a while now that a lot of the conventions we observe are hold-overs from the early days of Wikipedia when there was a lot to do and decisions had to be made that may not have been discussed because of the volume of work that had to be done and probably have not been revisited since. They may have been the best choices to make at the time, but do they continue to suit the needs of the articles? I think some of these things—like the rounds column and matrices showing positions rather than points—are inherited from WP:MOTOR and WP:F1. Others, such as the split table format, are a hangover from the early 2000s when the WRC had a mess of rules about points eligibility.

I think what we really need to do in 2019 is critically look not at what we're doing, but at why we're doing it. Some of these things are small: it is only recently that we have started emphasising the role of co-drivers in articles; it would used to be that we would mention Ogier as World Champion with no mention of Ingrassia. A newcomer could be forgiven for thinking that there was only one person in the car.

There are a lot of things that I would like to do with the article, and if I was given a blank cheque to restructure it, it would look very different a year from now—but I don't think people could argue that it would be worse. For example, the article always discusses crews before teams, but for some reason the entry list names teams before crews. This might be an alternative:

No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Entrant	Car	Tyre	Rounds
7	Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger-Synnevaag	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	All
11	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	All
18	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Toyota Yaris WRC	M	All
25	Hayden Paddon	Sebastian Marshall	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Hyundai i20 Coupe WRC	M	7

It uses simple markup, gives equal weight to drivers, co-drivers and manufacturers, and reflects the entry list format used in individual rally articles. I'm not suggesting this by any means (I prefer the format we currently use), just putting it forward as an example of how we can approach things differently. 1.144.108.151 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article should more effective, but it may also take us from one extreme to another. I'm worried that if we over-simplify the page, it may reduce the fluency or consistency of information. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — there is no way to tell if we do not experiment. If not in the article, then on talk pages and in sandboxes. 1.144.108.151 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just on talk pages. And give me an hour to make it more organized. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Quickly built at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally#Multiple proposals. All discussions should be there. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Entry table

If you want to revert the table format, you need a new consensus. 1.129.105.55 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally. Read it over! Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against. This is not consensus. The problem is, that in 2018 and 2017 seasons You add your key and add manufacturer entries in the table, but You DO not add the private entries (Valeriy Gorban MINI), but in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers! If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers.

Table as it is works well. Media and people are interested manufacturers drivers. All media writes is about which team hired which driver. So it is logical to have manufacturers entries in the main table and private entries in the other table! --Klõps (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you need to stop edit-warring. Secondly, you need a consensus.

"Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against."

And I supported it. With no significant opposition at the time and no opposition since it was introduced, edit-consensus applies.

"in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers!"

And clearly distinguishing between which entries are eligible for manufacturer points and which are not.

"Table as it is works well."

Except that it's full of redundant markup used to build the second table, the content of which never appears anywhere else in the article.

"If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers."

Not at all. There is nothing in the table that says "this is the manufacturer table". If Gorban enters a Mini, it will be clear to the reader that he is not competing for manufacturer points. If you took ten seconds to actually read the table, you would see that quite clearly. But instead, you revert the article on sight, then come in here and make these broad statements that show you don't understand what you're reverting. 1.129.107.50 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years. Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion. As it stands now, the WT:Rally discussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change. Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do.Tvx1 00:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years."

I have been lobbying for a single-table format for years and you know it because you have always opposed it.

"As it stands now, the WT:Rallydiscussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change."

It does not demonstrate a consensus opposed to the change, either. Indeed, some of the people who were non-committal have contributed to the single-table format instead of reverting it.

"Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do."

While I have a form of colourblindness, I also understand how colourblindness works. The shading presents no problem; it is combinations of colours that are a problem. Red alone is fine; red and green presents difficulties. You should know this because I have explained it to you in the past. The use of flagicons throughout an article is more problematic than this system. 1.129.107.201 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion."

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that I participated in the discussion, which Klops was remiss in doing; based on his comment, a reader could be mistaken that only three editors took part. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hold Your Horses!

1. Create an account. You are on a dynamic IP. We can't follow you and see what you have said before.

2. There is no consensus. You can't claim edit consensus for an edit on system that has been used for years over a number of articles on edit that has been made few days ago. In the discussion at WRC project Someone in a lengthy discussion made a suggestion. One user was neutral one was against. You (IP) did not give your opinion at all! For consensus the question must be clear and it must have some support.

3. Your edits are inconsistent. In 2018 season You only moved Sordo and Serderidis to the entries eligible to score manufacturer points table adding the key and colour background note that they after all aren't eligible. That's why I reverted them back to before Your edits! But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!

4. You are edit warring. I will restore the table. Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before! --Klõps (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"There is no consensus."

There was no opposition. Editors do not need to establish a consensus in advance of making a change.

"You are edit warring. I will restore the table."

That's the very definition of edit-warring.

It is quite clear from some of your comments that you don't even understand what you're reverting given that you have repeatedly incorrectly described what the table is doing.

"But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!"

It was discussed at the WikiProject, but again, you didn't read the discussion. An example of what a colour-coded table would look like was put forward, but you thought it was just for non-manufacturer entries put forward by manufacturer teams.

"Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before!"

Here's one: you should stop editing the article. It's clear you either don't understand what is being discussed, or you are not trying to and are simply revertimg edits you don't like on sight. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am going to be enabling you with this, but here is an outline of what the table is: the table should be for all RC1 entries—all World Rally Cars, both pre- and post-2017 designs. Cars that are eligible to score manufacturer points have a white background in the rounds column; cars that are ineligible have a shaded red background.

This change was put forward because there was no value in having two tables. The markup required to create a second table is extensive and redundant and the content of the table is rarely brought up again elsewhere in the article.

More importantly, the split table format is a bad hangover from years like 2006 when there were complex rules regarding entry eligibility. Those complex rules no longer apply, so there is no need for a split table format.

One table for all RC1 entries suits the needs of the article. If there is a distinction that needs to be made, such as manufacturer points eligibility, it can be done within that table. A second table for the purposes of making that distinction is totally unnecessary. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus. Edits that You are making were not discussed. The discussion was about Sordos situation (at one rally he was entered by Hyundai as non manufacturer driver). No one told that same would be done with private entries (Tuohino, Miele, GRX Team). You are edit warring to make things the way You wish. I have been restoring the edit consensus that has been with the tables for years. The tables have been so for Years. So If You wish to change something start a new thread and make short and clear post about what you wish to change. Now You are making different changes on different seasons. --Klõps (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit consensus restored. Do not change it without discussion. --Klõps (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's find a solution Here. Klõps (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus."

Actually, it is: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

"The tables have been so for Years."

That's not an argument. This whole thing stinks of you complaining that a discussion was had without you. 1.144.105.6 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted... as it is Your edits were reverted and disputed. They are also not the consensus. That's what I have been trying to tell You! Instead of attacking me try to focus discussing what You wish to change. And do create an account. Your dynamic IP makes it hard follow, You do edit a lot. --Klõps (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The edits have been disputed and reverted by two editors now, so you cannot cling to editconsensus anymore. It's certainly not a justification for the edit-warring you engaged in. For the record, Klöps, this IP has an account. It's Prisonermonkeys and they can no longer access that account.Tvx1 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Klõps - User:Tvx1 is right. They have an account. If they have lost their password, they should create a new account. User:Prisonermonkeys - Create and declare a new account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen drivers in World Rally Cars?

Now, I'm aware that, in the entry list column, we have all drivers who are using World Rally Cars in there, and that does make sense, because it is the highest class of rally cars in the World Rally Championship. One thing I'm beginning to understand less and less is why we include gentlemen rallyists in this table, who are using previous-generation World Rally Cars. These guys do not have seeded priority in the entry lists, and they're not really notable. Look at these four French drivers from Tour de Corse's entry list. They aren't really recognized as important in any case, but they're still being put there because they use a WRC-labelled car. I'm not saying pre-2017 World Rally Cars shouldn't be present in the entry list, I'm just wondering why these entrants who aren't acknowledged as important are still being included.

They are still WRC entries. This is the article on the WRC, so we list all the WRC entries. All forms of motorsports have lesser important or remarkable entries, but that doesn't mean we ignore them. All of them are eligible to score points and one of them, Janne Tuohino, actually did do so. That makes them more than important enough to be listed.Tvx1 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturers Table Third Row

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)