Talk:2020 World Rally Championship

Entries table

Ford M-Sport will have Teemu Suninnen and one other entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.238.77 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Mclarenfan17, discuss Your changes before. It's team based championship. So Teams are nr 1. Also other series such as Formula 1 (2020 Formula One World Championship) list drivers by team, not teams by drivers. Klõps (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps: if you want to discuss how F1 articles arrange their tables, go to an F1 article. What F1 editors do has no bearing on this article. The compact table has been in this article for months without issue and this format serves us well in individual rally report articles. It has also made the article more accessible to new editors since we have had more IP editors make changes than we usually do.

If the best argument you have is "other articles do it this way", then that's a reason to make a change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not take my words out of context. It's team based championship (as is F1 hence the comparison) not individual drivers driving privately as you suggest. For Months there were only few drivers, now we have two teams that have announced their lineups. There is no accessibility issue with the normal table. -Klõps (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Do not take my words out of context."

How am I taking your words out of context? This is what you said:

"Also other series such as Formula 1 (2020 Formula One World Championship) list drivers by team, not teams by drivers."

You make it quite clear that because the subjects bear some similarities to one another, the articles should be structured the same way.

"There is no accessibility issue with the normal table"

What are you basing this on? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnamelessness , Pelmeen10, Tvx1 which is your preference – 1. table based on teams (as previous seasons) or 2. table listing drivers first as Mclarenfan17 has done?

Nothing Tvx1 has to say on this subject has any value. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you stop insulting people? My preffered option is Klõps' version - by team, not by unproven (seasonal) number. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

"My preffered option is Klõps' version"

Is there a reason for that?

"by team, not by unproven (seasonal) number."

I don't know where you got this idea of a "seasonal" number from. There is absolutely no evidence that drivers have to re-apply for their numbers each year. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the WRC sporting regulations at fia.com. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I did. I also looked at Autosport, Speedcafe and the news section of wrc.com. I cannot find any third-party sources that confirm drivers must re-apply for their numbers each year. Do you have any? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I sm not insulting people. It is a simple statement of fact: Tvx1's only interest in these discussions is hounding me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Everybody's voice is equal. Respect the opinions of other people. Can you give any reasoning for Your preferred format of the table beside that you like it? I have given my arguments

1. It is a team based series. Teams are contracting drivers, so it is logical to list drivers by the teams. Your way is to present unstructured table. For the reader structured table is easier to understand.

2. We should use the format that is used in the previous seasons. Also listing teams first is common in all motorsports season articles so it logical to think that it is easier for the reader.

3. There are no accessibility issues. And the article is locked for IP editors anyway. --Klõps (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Klõps:

"Can you give any reasoning for Your preferred format of the table beside that you like it?"

Yes, I did. The three dot points you just outlined are addressing my reasons.

"It is a team based series."

But there are also individual competitors.

"We should use the format that is used in the previous seasons."

There is no Wikipedia policy thst says we have to. And if we find a better way of doing it, we can always go back and change other articles.

"listing teams first is common in all motorsports season articles"

Not all motorsports are the same. There are two people in a rally car compared to one person in a Formula 1 car. We naturally need a different structure here.

And again, there is no rule that says "Article X does this, so Article Y has to do it that way, too". We should put the needs of this srticle first. Besides, we use a single-line format in rally reports, which have much more relevance to this article than a different championship. If we must use a system that recreates the style of another article, then surely we should recreate the style of an article whose subject is most relevant.

"There are no accessibility issues."

A simple table is easier for inexperienced editors to work with than a complex one. It's also much easier to read on the tablet/mobile site.

"And the article is locked for IP editors anyway"

That has nothing to do with this discussion. It was locked because editors were adding Ogier and Evans without a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Only doomsday can let us get consensus, so I would rather pull myself out to enjoy the fresh air at the moment, instead of joining these pointless, meaningless, endless discussions. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the single-line format for the time being because Toyota will enter two more cars, but have not decided on the final structure of the team(s). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: can you please pay attention to your edits? In your haste to revert the article, you missed that fact that Latvala and Katsuta had been added to the table. Given that Toyota have not finalised the structure if the team—whether Latvala and Katsuta will be independent of the team, rotate as the nominated points-scorers or form a second team—a change was appropriate. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, and Klõps:

"Only doomsday can let us get consensus."

I have an idea as to how we can solve this: we go to RFC, but this time we decide in advance as to what we want to say and we agree to leave the conversation alone once the RFC has been posted. The problem in the past has been that once the RFC has been posted, we all start responding to one another, continuing the conversation that we started here or at WP:WRC or wherever. The effect is that by the time an RFC volunteer gets around to looking at it, it's a bloated and convoluted mess which makes it hard for anyone else to contribute. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: could you please stop for a moment and think before rushing in to make edits? Hyundai have announced their team structure: three full-time entries, with one entry shared by two crews. However, Toyota have not. They have not decided whether Latvala and Katsuta will be run separately from Ogier, Evans and Rovanperä (and, if so, whether they will be able to score WCM points), or if they will rotate for points-scoring purposes. Having a table where all entries are grouped together by entrant implies that both Hyundai and Toyota have settled on their team structures when the sources make it clear that they have not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, my comments point out that grouping all entries together by manufacturer contradicts the sources. The sources make it clear that Toyota have not finalised their team structure. The article cannot say that they are all being entered as one team. Having a consensus does not give you the ability to override, ignore or misrepresent sources.

And if you want to change Loeb's number, you need a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is explained to you why the numbers currently shown in the article should wait for an actual entry list. They are not directly sourced nor official. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the "seasonal numbers" argument. The claim that drivers have to renew their number every year because section 17 of the regulations is called "seasonsl numbers", even though there is nothing in the regulations that says they have to do this. I couldn't find any third-party sources that supported this claim and when I asked you to support the claim, you said that you didn't need to prove it because the burden was on me to disprove it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: you know what? I'm feeling generous. I'll happily disprove you. Let's see what the FIA has to say about it:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

And it's not just the FIA—it's also on wrc.com, which says:

Factory-entered drivers can choose their own permanent car number, except for the reigning world champion who will always carry No 1.

It's also being published by third-party sources, including Autosport:

The FIA confirmed the WRC would follow Formula 1's lead and allow drivers to carry permanent numbers at the October meeting of the World Motor Sport Council.

And also on Speedcafe:

Another change to the sporting regulations concerns car numbering, with factory World Rally Car drivers now allowed to choose their own permanent numbers akin to the system which Formula 1 has employed for the past five years.

Notice how the keep referring to "permanent" numbers and that there is no mention of drivers needing to renew or reapply for numbers every year. I will also add that these sources are source #1, #62, #63 and #64 in the 2019 WRC article and are used to detail the introduction of the number system. On the other hand, the sporting regulations only refer to "seasonal" numbers in the title of a section of the regulation, and there is only one place—that conversation at WT:MOTOR—where I can find any claim that the numbers are only used for one year.

So, if you have some sources that prove drivers must renew or reapply for their numbers each year, now would be the time to show them, or else I think it is safe to say that your theory had been thoroughly disproven. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about the new format of the table, that you personally insisted we should use. The one which you did not get a consensus. The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together. You said your version should be used just until the full Monte entry list comes up (which means Rfc wouldn't help). Now, car numbers - nobody has removed them from the article, but we had a discussion in WT:MOTOR. The 2018/2019 news (autosport.com etc) referring to "career numbers" and the comparison to F1 came out before the 2020 sporting regulations - the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers". My understanding of the Wiki citing policies is clearly different from yours. I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change), while you are satisfied with older ones (expecting everything to stay the same until proven otherwise - which potentially could leave the articles with false statements, and have done so several times). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10:

The car numbers are a different subject - so lets not discuss it together.

You brought it up in the first place, but now you don't want to discuss it?

I want direct sources every year (because rules in motorsports tend to change)

While the rules can change year on year, there is no requirement for direct sources year on year. The section 17 regulations on car numbers were introduced in 2019 and have not changed for 2020, so the source from 2019 is still valid. Especially since they refer to "permanent" numbers.

the most recent set of rules from the governing body, which clearly states "seasonal numbers"

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the regulations only refer to "seasonal numbers" in the title of section 17. The word "seasonal" does not appear in the body of the regulations and there are no sources available to support your claim that this means drivers must reapply for numbers every year. You have consistently failed to produce these sources when asked for them. What you are doing is called original research, and it needs to stop. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can continue this discussion with car numbers under WT:MOTOR where it started, no need to discuss it in 2 different places. Original research for wanting direct sources? I think not. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, it's original research when you say "'seasonal numbers' means drivers need to apply for a new number each year" when there is no evidence to support the claim. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the numbers, no need to fork this discussion. It's about your edits not receiving consensus. You should self-revert. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I cannot self-revert without violating WP:RS and WP:VER. If you can find a way to rewrite the table in such a way that the consensus is restored but without contradicting the sources, I am happy to discuss it. When I first made those edits, I tried to incorporate both the consensus and the source, but could not make it work. I also believe that had the 29 November article been available when the consensus was being discussed, then the consensus would not have been formed the way it was. You need to remember that a consensus can change, and the content of the 29 November article is compelling enough to bring that change about.

If you are going to try and change the table, remember that you cannot group the five Toyota entries together as if they were one team because the 29 November article makes it clear that the team have not decided the structure of the team. Doing so would violate WP:RS and WP:VER because the presentation of the table would contradict the content of the source.

I think there are two viable ways forward here:

1. Keep the single-line format for now and wait until the publication of the Rally Monte Carlo entry list to implement the consensus. Takamoto Katsuta will contest the event, so Toyota will have to disclose their team structure.
2. Form a new consensus where we move away from the split-table format in favour of a single table that lists all entries and use prose to detail the structure of the teams (I should point out that the article already does this for Citroën). This has the added advantage of totally solving the problem we are faced with because the consensus will not be able to contradict the sources and vice versa.

It might be worth taking this to RfC. I know that's failed miserably before, but it's already on the radar of the admins because of the ANI and I have already outlined an approach we can take (see my post from 2 December) to give the RfC a better chance of succeeding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, it seems pointless to have an RfC on this specific issue since by the time the 30 days are up the championship will have started and I assume any uncertainty over precisely which team any driver will be racing for will be resolved, unless this won't happen until the driver actually races.

Even if it is the latter, it would IMO still be more productive for a more general RfC focusing on how to deal with the issue in the future, especially in relation uncertainty before details are confirmed. To avoid it getting bogged down in minutiae, I would also suggest it's better to wait for this issue to be resolved.

In the meantime, Mclarenfan17 doesn't seem to have explained why uncertainty over which team one driver will be racing for requires changes to the table structure. So I've changed it back to the older format which seems to have more support, and also seems likely to be how it will be structured once the championship has started.

I don't quite understand why it's only one driver, since the source seems to suggest Katsuta may also be racing for a Toyota team B. But I went by what Mclarenfan17 did. If people feel that Katsuta should also be part of the TBA entrant row, then go ahead and change it. But this old version [1] did not indicate any uncertainty that Katsuta would be racing for Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT or the structure of the Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT team with those 4 drivers.

If people feel that currently the info suggests Katsuta will be racing for Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT, but that this could change, I suggest a footnote is used to clarify this while preserving the current structure. As I said, the version that Mclarenfan17 did not indicate any uncertainty whom Katsuta will be racing for, or that he would be part of the Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT entrant.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A final comment. If anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne. I actually think we should write TBA to Katsuta aswell. Those 3 other drivers are "full-time factory drivers" (and 3 drivers is the maximum a team can nominate to collect manufacturer points). Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar. Here is the original announcement [2], entrant is not mentioned. Mclarenfan17, maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: I think that would be a little too close to speculating. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: this is speculating:

Who's to say they won't nominate Katsuta and Latvala under "Toyota Gazoo Racing2" or something similar.

Right now, all we know is that Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT are entering Katsuta's car. We can't speculate about the possibility of a "Gazoo Racing 2" and use that justify listing Katsuta as TBA.

maybe Rfc could get more participants with WRC interest after the first rally?

Hope springs eternal, but I'm doubtful. There's really only five regular editors of these articles: you, Unnamelessness and I work on the articles and talk pages, while ToniGlu92 and Kovpastish work on the articles, but not the talk pages. Then there's a handful of editors who make intermittent contributions, but I would not call them regulars.

Nil Einne is right when he says that an RfC needs to be free of the back-and-forth to succeed. But I also think—and this is a trend that I have observed across multiple motorsport projects—is that editors are unwilling to compromise or be open to changing their minds. The "we've always done it that way" and "the articles need to be consistent in their presentation" arguments come up pretty regularly. I find that to be troubling because it assumes the current way of doing something is and always will be the best way of doing it, rejecting alternatives before they are even discussed. The end result is that everyone has made up their minds before discussion begins, and so discussions amount to everyone hammering away and refusing to back down until someone gets tired. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it also speculating that Katsusta will be entered in the main team under "Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT"? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: no, because the source makes it clear that Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT is entering the car. The source also makes it clear that they have not decided what name they will use. We cannot contradict the sources, even if we have some other knowledge. This table is not trying to distinguish between points-scoring entries and non-scoring entries. If the entry list is published and Katsuta is a non-scoring entry competing under the Toyota Gazoo Racing name, then this table has never actually been wrong.

That's the advantage of this type of table—it's simple and it's flexible. Details of who was eligible to score points and when can be covered in the prose. I have seen a worrying trend across WP:MOTOR and associated projects where tables become increasingly complicated. They start taking on additional functions and end up replacing prose when they really should be there to support prose. WP:WRC has been a little guilty of that because complex rules required complex tables, and that complexity has lingered. I for one think that less is more—a table should be in its simplest form and pass on the most relevant information. Everything else can be addressed in prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Chile

Should we include Chile in the calendar and points table? I think not because it was already cancelled in 2019, before the season even started. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see whether the official site includes Chile. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would wait and see as to whether the FIA will issue a revised calendar. They're looking at replacements so that they can have 14 rounds, so I wouldn't do anything too soon. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems contradictory to keep Australia in the 2019 calendar despite the cancellation, but then remove Chile from the 2020 calendar because of its cancellation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the same. Check https://www.wrc.com/en/championship/calendar/wrc/ - 13 rounds https://www.fia.com/events/world-rally-championship/season-2020/2020-world-rally-championship - 13 rounds. The rally was removed, while Australia was cancelled. https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/01/21/wrc-drops-rally-chile-from-calendar/ Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be much difference to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the difference between the cancellations of Rally Australia and Rally Chile is purely procedural. Both were formally cancelled by organisers and the FIA, and the reasons behind that cancellation are detailed in the article. It would not be apparent to the reader why one remains in its article and the other is removed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What? I just provided all the sources needed. wrc.com and fia.com has both removed it from the calendar. What else is needed?? All the motorsport websites including autosport.com has reports that it was removed. They will not go to Chile this year. Australia was cancelled while all the teams and crews were already there. I see no similarities at all. Why would you even compare them? I'm not seeing you providing any sources. The latest source in the calendar is https://www.wrc.com/en/editor-tree/news-archive/wrc/calendar-changes-confirmed/ have you seen it? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can actually see both sides of the argument. Why not remove Chile from the actual calendar and update the prose underneath to state that Chile was included on the provisional calendar but omitted from the final one? This appears to be the general practice of WP:MOTOR in such cases.Tvx1 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problem, though. The circumstances behind the cancellation of both Australia '19 and Chile '20 are detailed in their respective championship articles. We'd still have a situation where one appears in its calendar despite its cancellation, and the other was removed from its calendar because of its cancellation. Like I said, the difference is largely procedural. The effect is the same. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Chile was not on the provisional calendar—it was on a final calendar signed off on by the WMSC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The calendar released by the WMSC in December has a *subjection to confirmation asterisk for Chile. That makes it provisional.Tvx1 00:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The round, not the calendar. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you still include Chile if it would have been replaced? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't answer that because it hasn't been replace, and I cannot recall the last time it happened. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Why are you not providing any sources to back your claims? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: huh?

I didn't make a claim. You asked if I would keep Chile in the calendar if the event had been replaced. I said that I couldn't answer because the rally hasn't been replaced. You were asking a question based on a hypothetical situation and I offered an opinion. It does not require a source because it is not a claim.

I also stated that I could not recall the last time an event had been replaced once the season began. I never said that it had happened before, and nor did I say that it had not happened—only that, based on my own knowledge, I was not aware of it having happened. If it had happened and someone pointed it out to me, I could then reconsider my position based on a precedent established in another article. Again, this is an opinion and does not require a source.

The fact that you think I require sources to support what are clearly my own personal opinions is extremely troubling. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

While Chile is not even in the calendar nor in the results on our sources - why are you still adding it here? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are you demanding sources for a personal opinion? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So it seems this discussion is over. Only sourced content in the future please. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And now you're avoiding the question. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New referencing method

@Unnamelessness, Pelmeen10, Kovpastish, and ToniGlu92: I'm pinging you to let you know that I want to try a new system of referencing in this article. The summative references under the table is okay, but I think it's a bit messy when crews are only contesting some events. I've found a way of using markup so that we can have multiple sources under the one reference. I still need to figure out exactly how to write the markup, but I know it works. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems quite redundant to me. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: look at reference #3 in the 2019 Formula 1 article. It consolidates all of the entry lists under one reference. That (or something quite like it) is what I want to add here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's okay. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: my plan is to have one reference containing each relevant entry list for each crew. I'm just trying to figure out how to cut down on redundancies? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried in my sandbox, but it seems if we choose the 2019 Formula 1 article style, we cannot name those sources. As a result, maybe just simply cutting off the redundant sources is the only choice left. But that is going to be shockingly redundant in the references section like this:

Scenario
World Rally Car entries eligible to score manufacturer points Manufacturer Entrant Car Tyre Crew details Refs No. Driver name Co-driver name Rounds Citroën Citroën Total WRT Citroën C3 WRC M 1 Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia All 4 Esapekka Lappi Janne Ferm All Ford M-Sport Ford WRT Ford Fiesta WRC M 3 Teemu Suninen Marko Salminen 1–7 Jarmo Lehtinen 8–14 References

Unnamelessness (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: that's what I was afraid of. Maybe I should ask over at WP:VPT; if anyone can solve the issue, it's them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For now, I remain the method we used before. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too. It's not better currently. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there really a need to repeat the citation to the entry lists for every crew? Surely these can just be put at the bottom of the table once and the references for the crews can be limited to sources that only apply to them?Tvx1 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed

@Subaruking21: please include reliable and verifiable sources to support the content that you add to the article. In this edit, you updated the entry table to list Latvala as competing under the name "Latvala Motorsport OY". How do you know this? You need to add sources to the article to demonstrate that this is true. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Can you open ewrc-results.com or rallysweden.com ?? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: that's not the point. If you are adding content to an article, you need to provide a source to support the addition of that content. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it needs to be verifiable. If ewrc-results.com are posting what they claims is an entry list, then we need to be able to see what that entry list says. That was the problem with Monte Carlo—they claimed to have the entry list, but ACM were late in posting it, so we couldn't be sure that ewrc-results.com had it right. Sure, they have been right in the past, but that doesn't mean we should just blindly accept it. After all, Autosport are very well informed, but in the past six months they have run stories without confirmation that Tänak's negotiations with Hyundai had broken down and that he had re-signed with Toyota ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Jocius numbers

This edit is intended to avoid a repeat of 2017, where the entry table grew to be bloated because Valeriy Gorban and Jourdan Serderidis competed with five different numbers over the course of the season and little other in the way of changes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My idea is to wait until there truly is quite a chunk of numbers used by the same driver. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: that just raises two questions:

1. How many numbers should a driver need in order to require a footnote?
2. What do you intend to do if Driver A uses multiple numbers, but not enough to need a footnote, but Driver B uses multiple numbers and does require a footnote?

I suppose that part of the problem here is that nobody seems to know who Jocius is. He seems to be a "gentleman driver" (read: pay driver) in the mold of Bertelli or Serderidis—but that does not explain the number change. Despite the new numbering system, there is a method to the way numbers are allocated—WRC-2 entries start from #20, WRC-3 entries start from #30, and J-WRC entries start from #60 or #70. Entries like Jocius', which is to say additional WRC-1 entries, tend to start from #40. That does not explain why Jocius is now #19. Is he doing a full season? Is he one of the new "WRC Teams" entries? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1. At least three, I think.
2. Then use footnotes for both A and B.

Not sure if Jocius will compete a full season campaign, but according to this, more than two rounds is expected. So, if he uses three different numbers or more, using footnotes. If not, even better. But for now, it is just not the time. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If he ends up doing several rallies and uses one number for most of them, we could even consider doing what Supercars articles do when a driver temporarily changes their number (such as here). I just think that having an entirely new row for a number is the wrong way of going about it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of reducing the number of rows solely for differences in numbers. It would also improve the MOS:ACCESS compliance of our tables, especially for visually impaired readers visiting the article. And I consider more than two numbers a good benchmark.Tvx1 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For visual reference, this is what some of the formats would look like:

Current version

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	19	Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	2–3
		40			1

No numbers, note

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC		Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	1–3

Supercars style—number with note

Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co-driver name	Rounds
M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	19	Deividas Jocius	Mindaugas Varža	1–3

For what it's worth, I prefer the Supercars style. It works well in those articles where one-off number changes are fairly common (eg a driver using #200 to celebrate their two hundredth start). However, it does come with the assumption that one number is used more frequently with others; it would not work if Jocius only contests Monte Carlo (#40) and Sweden (#19). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also my concern. I can't see the Supercars system working here because it deals with situations where a driver used a different number for one race than the one they used for the rest of the season. The cases you would like to tackle here however, like Gorban and Serderidis deal with crews that used a different number for every race they entered. So there really is no priority number in these cases. I can't really see an other way than the no number version to effectively deal with that.Tvx1 22:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That's why I put forward the "no numbers, note" style. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturers table by car numbers vs. just three anonymous rows

I'm starting to think we should consider making the table more informative as there are now only three teams. IMO the current table has some flaws. Okay we see how many crews each team nominated for points. But it could also reflect information about each crew inside the team - like head-to-head (currently not easy from the driver's table, especially to somebody who doesnt know the team members or in the future has forgotten) or how each crew member contributed for the team. It's obviously important for the team in real life - which drivers are more successful etc. The drivers table does not cover everything well. Example of site where the table is bigger (lists every driver by points collected for his team): http://planetemarcus.com/saison-wrc/saison-wrc-2019/

So my suggestion is to go back to 2018 table with crew numbers with their seasonal numbers. And another question, do you think our page has enough of statistics? Every rally website has much more than us. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: as you have probably guessed, I am in favour of this. I don't think the "only show the results the count" approach has worked here. It works best in Formula 1 articles, where teams are limited to two entries and the results for team and driver are the same. If you finish sixth, your team gets the points for sixth. But here we have Gus Greensmith finishing Monte Carlo in 63rd, but M-Sport still gets the points for tenth

One of the main arguments for limiting the table to two rows per team is that it "shows the story of the championship"—but, as before, I'd argue that the number of entries plays a huge part in that. Toyota and Hyundai have the budget for three full-time entries, but M-Sport (and Citroën) do not. They have fewer opportunities to score points, which should be reflected in the results matrix. That's part of the story of their championship. Without including it, we're basically asking readers to cross-reference the entry lists with the results matrices just to understand how points are being scored.

Finally, I think there is an attitude that has been shaped by the bigger motorsport WikiProjects that I think is detrimental. First, it's a desire to make motorsport articles homogenous. This system of only showing the results thst counted, with the best result first might work for Formula 1 articles, and so this attitude of "it works there, so it should work for all championship articles". The problem is that this ignores the individual traits of a series like the WRC. Secondly, I feel that there is an attitude where tables become increasingly complex and are taking over from prose. MOS:TABLE makes it clear that tables should supplement prose, not replace it. But here, we've stuffed the results matrix with selected information, then stripped it of context and presented it as self-explanatory. I think that reslly hurts the articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstood Pelmeen's proposal. What they propose is to add car numbers to the rows of the manufacturers' championship table's rows. They don't want to just add the row with the results that aren't counted at all. I really can't see the benefit of this proposal. When we had numbers for these rows in the past, that still didn't provide the information Pelmeen thinks's it did. The numbers were tied to the cars, no the crews. And most numbers were used by different crews throughout a season. At the time some crews drove with a different number at different rallies. So the numbers alone did not clearly tell which crew contributed which result to the manufactures' championship. With the new regulations since last season the numbers are more stable now, but both a number used by different crews and a crew using different numbers still happens even for the manufacturers' points entries. So adding these numbers would still not provide what Pelmeen desires. Moreover with the higher quantity of different numbers now being used it would blow this table out of proportion way beyond its scope. Don't forget where writing for a general audience here, not solely for WRC fans. It's not our duty to allow fans in-depth analysis of results and achievements. As for the story of the championship, that needs to be told in prose. The Manufacturers' championships' table merely needs to show the outcome of the championship and the essential facts that established it (=the results which were credited to it). And Pelmeen10, yes this article contains more than enough stats. See also WP:NOTSTATS. We differ from those rally sites in that we are not a "rally site" but a general-purpose encyclopedia for a general audience. We can still refer to the in-depth rally sites in the external links for the rally fans who want more in-depth information.Tvx1 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What they propose is to add car numbers to the rows of the manufacturers' championship table's rows. They don't want to just add the row with the results that aren't counted at all.

Okay, there's two problems with this statement:

1. Different drivers score different results. Thierry Neuville was the best-placed Hyundai in Monte Carlo, but Ott Tänak is the best-placed Hyundai in Sweden. It's impossible to add the numbers column in and arrange things by best result first.
2. What do you propose doing if a driver who finished third for his team in one round goes on to score points in the next? Tänak retired in Monte Carlo—Neuville and Loeb scored points—but he's the best-placed Hyundai in Sweden. We cannot simply leave the Monte Carlo result blank because Hyundai have entered Craig Breen in Sweden, but did not enter him in Monte Carlo.

If I have not understood Pelmeen10's proposal properly, I'm sure he'll be happy to go into more detail or provide a mock-up of what he is envisioning. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is no objection to this, I'll go ahead and apply it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the fourth row fifth row to the manufacturers' championship table? Showing who is the most successful driver in a team? Or how each crew member contributed to the team? No! The extra row adds nothing but make the table complex and negative comfortable. As I said last year, the manufacturers' championship table is the table that counts how a manufacturer scores points, not how a crew contributes to their team. I've already given WP:COMPROMISE at adding the third row. I cannot find any website says Toyota scores 25 from Evans, 15 from Rovanperä in Sweden. By contrast, almost every rally website only lists the total points a team score from a rally. The official website uses "A+B" layout, not "Evans score A pts, Rovanperä scores B pts"; e-wrc.com: total points a team score from a rally; even the website that Pelmeen10 provided as well. I fully agree with Tvx1 that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we add any kind of statistics, like what was proposed "a H2H", then wikipedia becomes a fan site. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the fourth row fifth row to the manufacturers' championship table?

It shows how a team's structure (two cars, three cars, part-time entries, etc.) contributed to their championship campaign.

As I said last year, the manufacturers' championship table is the table that counts how a manufacturer scores points, not how a crew contributes to their team.

And part of that is how the team enters a rally. If Team A enter three cars and one retires, they can still score a lot of points. On the other hand, if Team B enters two cars and one retires, they lose that opportunity. That's part of how they score points.

The official website uses "A+B" layout, not "Evans score A pts, Rovanperä scores B pts"; e-wrc.com: total points a team score from a rally; even the website that Pelmeen10 provided as well.

Where is the policy that says we must present content in exactly the same way that the sources do? We must have the content, but we are free to present that as we see fit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It shows how a team's structure (two cars, three cars, part-time entries, etc.) contributed to their championship campaign.

Nope, that is the duty of an entry list.

And part of that is how the team enters a rally. If Team A enter three cars and one retires, they can still score a lot of points. On the other hand, if Team B enters two cars and one retires, they lose that opportunity. That's part of how they score points.

Which nicely explains manufacturer points are scored by two cars, and the third car contributes nothing to a team, i.e. no points.

Where is the policy that says we must present content in exactly the same way that the sources do? We must have the content, but we are free to present that as we see fit.

Yes, no certain policies say so. But limiting to three (two) rows fully satisfies what you said "we are free to present". Unnamelessness (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You're last argument equally applies to Pelmeen wanting our table to match their sources'. And the rest of the concerns you mention are dealt with by the entry list. They show how they entered each rally. And additional context can be provided in the prose. Those things are no the duty of a results table. We went through all these arguments already when we had the discussion that led to the formal consensus for removal of the third rows. There is no point in just repeating them now.Tvx1 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that is the duty of an entry list.

So you're expecting readers to cross-reference the results matrix against the entry list just to understand it? That doesn't seem wise.

We went through all these arguments already when we had the discussion that led to the formal consensus for removal of the third rows. There is no point in just repeating them now.

You know perfectly well that consensus can change. You yourself tried to bring about change several times, but now that you've got your way, suddenly any new discussion is pointless. Why are you allowed to keep bringing the subject up, but anybody else who does is just wasting everyone's time? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Just what would they need to cross-reference with what? The entry list is self-explenatory as who entered in what capacity. The championship table is self-explanatory as to which manufacturer finished where through which results. And I didn’t claim we can’t discuss. I just pointed out that you were repeating the exact same arguments which were were already rebutted in the previous discussion, which is pretty senseless. Most importantly you’re not actually dealing with what Pelmeen proposed.Tvx1 20:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t claim we can’t discuss. I just pointed out that you were repeating the exact same arguments which were were already rebutted in the previous discussion, which is pretty senseless.

Which is a form of suppressing discussion. An editor may come into this talk page looking to contribute, but then see your comments and decide against taking part.

Most importantly you’re not actually dealing with what Pelmeen proposed.

If I have misunderstood his proposal, I'm sure he'll be happy to correct the record. Speaking of people not dealing with things, you haven't addressed the fact that your suggestion of what Pelmeen10 is proposing is impossible. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is a form of suppressing discussion. An editor may come into this talk page looking to contribute, but then see your comments and decide against taking part.

No, it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies. I have never stated it's not allowed to discuss, so please just stop going on that. It doesn't help this discussion in any way. Comment on the content, not the contributors.

Speaking of people not dealing with things, you haven't addressed the fact that your suggestion of what Pelmeen10 is proposing is impossible..

Not true. I have addressed the fact that adding numbers does not automatically tie results to crews in my first reply in this discussion.Tvx1 22:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies.

Just apparently not to you. You raised this discussion multiple times over the years until you got your way. But as soon as someone else brings it up, WP:STICK suddenly applies.

I have addressed the fact that adding numbers does not automatically tie results to crews in my first reply in this discussion.

Your main point of contention seems to be that the numbering changed between 2018 and 2019, and that the permanent numbers take the focus off the teams and puts it onto the crews. That's little more than a quibble since all the same information would be in the table. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that WP:STICK says the following:

There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end.

Now, of the four regular participants in these discussions, we are evenly split—myself and Pelmeen10 are looking to see if changes can be made, while you and Unnamelessness are opposed to change. This is significant because until Pelmeen10 started this discussion, I was alone in calling for change. You then decided to invoke WP:STICK despite the fact that you raised thus subject multiple times in the past. It looks like you're trying to shut the discussion down before a new consensus can be formed. The fact that someone has changed their mind and is open to doing things differently is reason enough to re-open the discussion. And to make things worse, you go around demanding that people respect a consensus when you quite clearly don't respect the process yourself. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You yourself tried to bring about change several times

I don't know who on earth is the person that really brings about change serveral times. Lead images, entry lists, no flagicons, new rally page layout, etc.

Sure, consensus can change, but first where is the new consensus? Two support vs two oppose obviously not what a consensus is. Or you think there is a possibility to persuade one of us to change our mind? As far as I am concerned, continuing this debate shows you can't get over it.

What is consensus? I call this as a consensus. Whatever how small it is, it is still a consensus. It is a fact that you should respect. I said I've already compromised at the third row, so please do not, there is a Chinese idiom, 得寸进尺 (read: greedy). Unnamelessness (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness:

I don't know who on earth is the person that really brings about change serveral times.

Sorry, that was aimed at Tvx1. It should have read "you yourself tried to bring about this change several times". I was referring to several discussions in the past where Tvx1 wanted to limit the WCM matrix to only the top two results. Arguably he should have observed WP:STICK, but he kept raising it. Yet here he is, bringing it up almost as soon as someone else raises the subject of the WCM matrix. It's a double standard—he's allowed to keep raising the subject until he gets the change he wants, but nobody else can because they're beating a dead horse.

Sure, consensus can change, but first where is the new consensus? Two support vs two oppose obviously not what a consensus is.

I'm not claiming that there is a consensus. But evidently the status quo has changed. At this point we should be discussing alternatives, and that means compromise. At the very least, WP:STICK should not be invoked. I've only ever seen people use it to try and end a conversation. For Tvx1 to use it like this makes it look like he's trying to shut a conversation down before a new consensus can be formed. And considering that his only interest in rallying articles seems to be the format of a results matrix, I have to wonder about his motivations.

Or you think there is a possibility to persuade one of us to change our mind?

I'd like to think that's a possibility. But that means we have to talk about it, not trying to shut the conversation down. I think both sides have to stop treating this as a binary choice—one of the other—and look for a middle ground. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

New solution

@Mclarenfan17: I've just flick through some other wikis and got an idea that possibly fits all of us. We create three templates below.

1. Two-row layout, which is the layout that Tvx1 and I are expected.
2. Cureent layout (maybe not needed)
3. All-result layout, to which you and Pelmeen10 are wanted.

We make all (both) templates collapsible and add to manufacturers' standings section so that we can choose which one visible according to our personal preferences. This is the maximum compromise that I can offer. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: while I appreciate your willingness to compromise, I don't think this is a particularly practical solution—you're suggesting that we duplicate and entire table for the sake of one extra/one less row.

Consider the following. This is the current matrix (up to Sweden):

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	2	1	73
		3	3
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

We're representing the results as positions and the points as a value, so we're either asking the reader to trust us that we got it right, or manually add everything up themselves. So what if we respresent the positions as a points tally? Like this:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	18	25	73
		15	15
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

Or we could even take it a step further and ignore the individual cars, but instead provide the total points for each round:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	33	40	73
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	Points

Or even get rid of the matrix entirely, like this modified version of what Pelmeen10 suggested:

Pos.	Manufacturer	Cars	Entries	Wins	Podiums	Points
1	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	3	39	8	14	361

Think about it—why do we use the matrices? Because when Wikipedia was created, there was a lot of work that needed to be done. The quickest and easiest way to do that was to use the matrix design across the scope of motorsports articles. We've always done it that way, but does that mean it's the best way of doing it? The problem with a one-size-fits-all approach is that it overlooks the specific needs of an individual subject such as the WRC. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a definitely no for the fourth one as it misses important information of the whole championship picture. So, considering how manufacturers approach to the championship, I believe using matrix (I call it table) is a must.

Quite a few rally sites use the third layout to list the championship, but I think it is a bit problematic, to be honest. How do we know which manufacturer wins which rally, espaecially considering there is a possibility of level on points (e.g. 25 (1st) + 0 (ret.) = 15 (3rd) + 10 (5th))? e-wrc.com boldfaces the winning manufacturer, should we follow them? Moveover, if two manufacturers do score level points, how do we use the background colour?

Considering these, we need to represent the results as individual cars, but there is another question. Sure, today we know 10 points mean finishing fifth, but in the pre-2010 era, that could mean a victory. So, I think we still have to represent the results as positions. If we do have to represent points, I suggest to organise like what Pelmeen10 proposed last year:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1 25													324
		6 8
		NC 0
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Given that there is a request on adding seasonal numbers, maybe points in the columns can be replaced by their corresponding seasonal number. That would be like this:

Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
3	M-Sport Ford WRT	1 3													324
		6 4
		NC 44
Pos.	Manufacturer	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

Unnamelessness (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: the second one works better for me. WRC points are scored differently to other championships because of eligibility requirements—Gus Greensmith finished 63rd on the road in Monte Carlo, but was 10th in the WCM. On the other hand, if you were to finish 7th in another series, then your team scores points for 7th place as well. You can't cross-reference the WCM table against the driver/co-driver table because they don't line up, so the numbers offer some context here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Just want to put together a quick mock-up of what this might look like over a whole year:

Pos.	Entrant	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	2 11	3 8	4 8	1 11	1 9	3 11	2 8	1 8	4 8	3 16	3 11	2 9	1 9	C	380
		4 9	4 9	6 11	4 8	2 16	7 8	7 11	3 11	6 9	4 11	5 16	6 8	3 11	C
		NC 8	NC 16	Ret 9	Ret 9	NC 11	Ret 9	Ret 9	Ret 16	WD 16	Ret 8	NC 8	NC 11	NC 16	C
Pos.	Entrant	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

I think we can do this because there are only three or four teams, unlike other championships where there are ten or twelve teams, so it won't be as big as it could be otherwise. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I will accept it as a new consensus if there is no other voices within 24 hours as per WP:SILENCE. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: if we do adopt it, then I suggest that was also apply it to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 articles—all articles where the "best two of three" rule applies. Although this is a product of the new numbering system which only came in last year, I think it would be a mistake to have inconsistent formats. While I dislike having identical formats year on year for the sake of it, I also dislike having different formats for no good reason. Yes, the post-2017 format will be different to the pre-2017 format, but it is justified because of the rules. And if we really want homogenous formats, we can always go back to the pre-2017 articles and apply this change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is quite consistent as the new numbering system was introduced last year, so I temporarily apply to the 2019 and 2020 articles. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd support the version with both position & points. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be working with 24h deadlines here. Certainly considering how long it took to achieve a consensus last time. We should have a proper discussion with a proper consensus to overturn that. In all honesty I really don't see how this proposal would improve the article. I really don't see how this would make it easier to understand how each manufacturer finished the championship where they did. I think that this proposed table is really hard to understand for the lay reader, mainly because there is no explanation whatsoever what the second row of numbers in the rows mean. You can't expect a lay reader to know what the crew numbers are and how they work. And the way they are implemented in this proposal creates accessibility issues. I also really don't understand why this proposal needs they "results" that simply are not credited to be returned. Surely you can have such a table without the results that don't count at all. If I understood Pelmeen's proposal correctly, I envisaged they want something like this:

Pos.	Entrant	No.	MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	6			6	4			7	1		4	5		3	C	380
		11	2	3	4	1	1		2	3		3		2	1	C
		19	4					3			6					C
		89		4			2	7			4		3	6		C
2	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	5		6	5	8	4	8	1	7		2	7	4		C	362
		8	3	1	2	6		1	6	5	1	1		1	2	C
		10	5				5				3		6		4	C
3	Citroën Total WRT	1	1	8	1	2	3	2	3	8	5	5	1	3	7	C	284
		4	Ret	2	7	7	Ret	6	Ret	6	2	6	2	8	Ret	C
4	M-Sport Ford WRT	3	6		Ret	5	6	5	4	2	7	8	4		6	C	218
		7	7	7									8	7		C
		33		5	3	3	Ret	4	5	4	Ret			5	5	C
		44										7				C
Pos.	Entrant		MON	SWE	MEX	COR	ARG	CHI	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points

I have my concerns with that too. My main problem is that it still wouldn't tell which crew scored which result, because some numbers were used by more than one crew and some crews use more than one number. In any case it would help if Pelmeen10 would give some feedback here.Tvx1 19:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1, that was my first proposal. Wikilinks to crew numbers, and obviously there would be NC's for the non-scorers. This would make the manu champ more understandable. It would be a different story when a number is used by different drivers - which we don't know yet. The other version, table with points makes it more clearer how the points were scored. I'm pretty sure every reader doesn't know how many points 6th place gives etc. Plus, to know how many points M-Sport got from Sweden, it would be much easier to check some other website. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be a different story when a number is used by different drivers - which we don't know yet.

Can you name any examples of where this has happened?

Also, I posted a solution to this in the above discussion on Jocius' numbers. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the following. Tvx1 has previously said this:

it's pointing out that WP:STICK applies.

But in reverting Unnamelessness's changes, he included the following in his edit summary:

It's better to let the discussion run its proper cause before implementing anything

You can't have it both ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that this proposed table is really hard to understand for the lay reader, mainly because there is no explanation whatsoever what the second row of numbers in the rows mean. You can't expect a lay reader to know what the crew numbers are and how they work.

My main problem is that it still wouldn't tell which crew scored which result

Which is why the numbers would be linked. Click the number and it takes you to the corresponding number in the entry list. Or we could change the markup to so that clicking the number takes you to the driver name in the driver results matrix. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thought I should illustrate what I mean. This markup goes in the entry list (using Ogier as an example):

style="text-align:center" id="17"|17

And this markup goes in the teams' matrix:

[[#17|17]]

That id markup allows the markup in the matrix to connect to the entry list. You can see an example of it in action here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, we do know what happens when a number is used by more than one crew. In the table I posted above relating to the 2019 championship, the number 33 for instance was used by multiple crews. That's why liking to the crews directly wouldn't work either. And the problem with changing positions into points is that positions are actually important. They are used to break the ties if competitors finish the season with the same number of points. That's the main reason why we list the positions in the first place. Else we would be using Mclarenfan17's proposal. Lastly, there is table showing which position yields which amount of points above the group of results tables, so this information is very much clearly present.

You can't have it both ways

I'm not having "it" both ways. Me referencing WP:STICK referred to rehashing the exact same arguments as in the previous discussion event though they were clearly refuted back then. I never did anything close to objecting a new discussion with new arguments or new evidence. And we should not be enforcing a new change while this discussion is still ongoing. That's neither constructive nor collaborative. I really don't understand why there is such an immense rush to change things here. The article isn't any worse keeping the existing consensus in place until this discussion has properly concluded.

Can you name any examples of where this has happened?

Number 33 for instance last year was used by multiple crews.

Also, I posted a solution to this in the above discussion on Jocius' numbers.

Which deals with an exact opposite situation, one crew using different numbers. Here, we're talking about different crews using the same number.

Which is why the numbers would be linked. Click the number and it takes you to the corresponding number in the entry list. Or we could change the markup to so that clicking the number takes you to the driver name in the driver results matrix.

As I explained before that doesn't always work because even with the current rules the same number can be used by multiple crews.

Also, I still don't see any argument justifying reinstating the non-credited results. I don't see any thing that explains how they make it easier to understand the table.Tvx1 18:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)