Talk:2018 World Rally Championship

Manufacturers' standings.

We have been over this time and time again and always with the same results. The current format is the best way to meet the needs of the article. It's time to accept the consensus and move on—there are other things that are far more important which need attention.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The manufacturers can only score two results per rally. So this makes me wonder we bother having three rows per manufacturer in the manufacturers' standings table. I really don't see the point in having all those NC's and Ret's.Tvx1 18:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I think having the 3 rows is the correct way to go, as we show every manufacturer car that have been entered for the rally, reflecting the "may enter three, only scoring two" regulation. Besides, it's more readable for those who wants to know which driver scored what points, not having to check both the entry table and the drivers standings. MNSZ (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC) No it isn't. The manufacturers' table doesn't split the results per driver at all. It splits them per car number. And after just two rallies, we already had multiple car numbers being used by two different driver/co driver crews. Last year we had a crew using four different numbers from two different manufacturers. The reader can't make up at all which driver scored what from the manufacturers' table. This table was never intended to convey that sort of information. If you wan't to see the drivers' results, look at the drivers' table. And it doesn't even matter who scored which results. The results which do count are equally valid no matter which crew achieved them. It's not like identity of the crew is use as a tie-breaker.Tvx1 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Manufacturers and drivers/co-drivers are scored differently. The NC clarifies which entries scored because to leave them out suggests that two cars were nominated to score in advance of the event when in reality all three are eligible to score and the question of which entries scored is only answered at the end of a rally. Plus, Hyundai and Toyota are planning fourth entries for some events and so have to nominate who can score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Sorry but that’s wanting tables to explain things that tables are simply suitable to do. Explanation on nominations should be in prose. And leaving out NC’s does not suggest anything. Moreso since the entry list already splits them per eligibility. The only thing this table has ever meant to do is to show wo wins the championship and how. Non-counting results have no relevance to that.Tvx1 01:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Except that "NC" stands for "Not Classified". And that's exactly what those third entries are—eligible to score points but ultimately not classified in the manufacturers' championship. You're ignoring the fact that the championships are scored differently and the way that you can be eligible to score points, finish in a points-scoring position, but still fail to score points. This is no different to how the NC designation is used in Formula 1 articles. There it refers to an entry that finished the race but did not meet the criteria to be classified. The only real difference here is that a crew can finish as high as third and still fail to meet the criteria. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC) That may all be. But these NC’s don’t add anything. The results aren’t split per driver either, so there is literally nothing to make up from the extra rows. Every reader can make out the championship outcome without the non classified results.Tvx1 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC) And if it was just "NC"s that were being included, you might have a point. But those third entries can also retire, be withdrawn, be excluded from the results or disqualified. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Still, they have no impact on the championship whatsoever. There’s just no point in including them there.Tvx1 12:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Yes, they do affect the championship because the retirement of one crew affects who is able to score points. All of this amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC) No it doesn't, because in such a case the results are recalculated. They just score the two highest finishes per manufacturer no matter whether there are retirements of not. The rally results are not necessarily the same for the (co-)drivers championship as for the manufacturers championship. A ninth place overall in a rally can simply be a sixth place with regards to the constructor's championship. I just would like to make a manufacturer's table where our lay reader can easily spot what the outcome of that championship was and how it was achieved. All those NC's and Ret.'s through a split solely based on car number (which have no importance for the championship) create unnecessary confusion. I really can't see why you're assuming bad faith here.Tvx1 16:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC) I don't think it creates confusion at all. It clearly explains that the cars a) completed a rally but b) failed to achieve a results that contributes to the championship. There's a big difference between that and what you're proposing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I does because it lists a number of results which have no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the championship. The entries tables already lists which crews competed at which rally and does so more clearly since it lists the different crews using the same number. The absence of a result would show adequately as well that a car did not contribute a result to the manufacturers' championship. The NC's don't add anything useful.Tvx1 11:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Except, as has been repeatedly explained to you, all cars are eligible to score points at the start of the event, but only two can score at the end. There should also be consistency between the entry table and results matrix. If the entry table shows three drivers are eligible to score points and the driver matrix shows all three did score, but the manufacturer matrix only outlines two without explanation, it does not make sense. Please stop reviving the same tired old arguments that have already been put to rest, and as I have repeatedly asked of you, please stop trying to make decisions based on what other articles do. You and I both know that you want this article to reflect the format of Formula 1 articles, but you haven't convinced Formula 1 editors of the merits of the system there, you know that the WRC uses a different scoring system and you know that the articles have different requirements. If you cannot fit a square peg into a round hole, you're not going to fix anything by calling a square a circle and trying to force it in. We already have a system that works. 1.144.107.15 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Pot, black, kettle again, again and again. Stop always assuming bad faith. I only care about the interest of WRC articles in this discussion. There is no rule anywhere in Wikipedia or this WikiProject that every entry in the entry list most be duplicated in all results tables. Only two cars are credited with a manufacturers' results (and thus affect the championship) every rally. The driver matrix list all of them because all of the score in that championship. Only two score in the manufacturers' championship and only two should thus be listed per rally. All these NC's just creating confusion because they have no bearing whatsoever on that championship.Tvx1 16:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I think current table is pretty good, there's no need to make it "simple". The NC-s show who actually scored and who did not and currently we can easily calculate each driver's contribution to manuf. points. Pointless to argue over this. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC) If you are not acting in bad faith, prove it by accepting the consensus and moving on. You bring this up every few months and the results are always the same. Put the stick down and back away from the dead horse. And if you are genuinely interested in the articles, how about you make a contribution to them rather than dictating what is best for them from the sidelines? 1.129.105.84 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC entries

Why is there such a pressing need to point out that WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC entries are not included in the article? The article already makes multiple references to those championships; there is no need to discuss or point out what is not in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"The following teams and crews are entered in the 2018 FIA World Rally Championship." — it's not accurate and does not cover the reality. The list only includes World Rally Cars. So you can't say clafifying the sentence or noting that there are more entries adds nothing to the aricle. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"The list only includes World Rally Cars."

But the table headings make it clear that only World Rally Cars are included, and other parts of the article direct the reader's attention to the feeder series. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Season summary

Since power stage winner has been listed in each rally's infobox, I think it necessary to put it in the saeson summary section. You know, it's a bit like fastest lap in F1 article. Plus, it helps us to count the PS winner.

Current we have:

Round	Event	Winning driver	Winning co-driver	Winning entrant	Winning time	Report
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	4:18:55.5	Report
2	Rally Sweden	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	2:52:13.1	Report
3	Rally Guanajuato México	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	3:54:08.0	Report
4	Tour de Corse	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	3:26:52.7	Report
5	Rally Argentina	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	3:43:28.9	Report
6	Rally de Portugal					Report
7	Rally Italia Sardegna					Report
8	Rally Finland					Report
9	ADAC Rallye Deutschland					Report
10	Marmaris Rally of Turkey					Report
11	Wales Rally GB					Report
12	RACC Rally Catalunya de España					Report
13	Rally Australia					Report

I recommend the style like this:

Round	Event	Winning driver	Winning co-driver	Power stage winner	Winning entrant	Winning time	Report
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Kris Meeke	M-Sport Ford WRT	4:18:55.5	Report
2	Rally Sweden	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Esapekka Lappi	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	2:52:13.1	Report
3	Rally Guanajuato México	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Ott Tänak	M-Sport Ford WRT	3:54:08.0	Report
4	Tour de Corse	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	Esapekka Lappi	M-Sport Ford WRT	3:26:52.7	Report
5	Rally Argentina	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Thierry Neuville	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	3:43:28.9	Report
6	Rally de Portugal						Report
7	Rally Italia Sardegna						Report
8	Rally Finland						Report
9	ADAC Rallye Deutschland						Report
10	Marmaris Rally of Turkey						Report
11	Wales Rally GB						Report
12	RACC Rally Catalunya de España						Report
13	Rally Australia						Report

—Unnamelessness (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of power stage wins is not used as any form of deciding factor in the championships, so I cannot see why this table should be bloated even more with them.Tvx1 10:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean it is easier to update this section "Power Stage". Moreover, power stage winner can get five bonus points. As per your mean, "fastest lap" in f1 article like the table below should not be listed -- They also aren't the deciding factor in the championships. (Even score points like PS) — Unnamelessness (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Round	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	Australian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Daniel Ricciardo	Sebastian Vettel	Ferrari	Report
2	Bahrain Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Valtteri Bottas	Sebastian Vettel	Ferrari	Report
3	Chinese Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Daniel Ricciardo	Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	Report
4	Azerbaijan Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Valtteri Bottas	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	Report

Well, I don't support adding Power Stage winner to that specific table either. But somewhere should be possible to see how much Power Stage points each driver got or how did they change the championship. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

They are already included in the championship tables — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)

I mean somekind of summary. To find out how different the points would be without PS points. Our championship tables show the position, compared to wrc.com showing points+PS points. Maybe something like this (just a tooltip to each overall points) in a couple of months time. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									100

Agree. — Unnamelessness (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Number of power stage wins is not used as any form of deciding factor in the championships"

Neither is the number of wins, but they're still in the table. Power Stage points are awarded independently of event points—all you have to do is be on the road at the end. You can retire from the event and effectively be in last place and you can still score five points. As @Unnamelessness points out, F1 tables include the fastest lap, even though it has no bearing on the championship.

I would suggest removing the "winning time" column, though. Unlike Grands Prix, the rally length is not fixed; Monte Carlo is nearly a hundred kilometres longer than some events. It also has a very slow average speed compared to the likes of Sweden and Finland. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that winning time isn't even included in the results tables on the grand prix season articles.Tvx1 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Unlike Formula One’s “one racing driver against another racing driver” mode, rally is a motor-racing aganist time. So, time is an important factor. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not for the season summary. Rally time isn't used as some sort of tie-breaking when two or more competitors end up with the same number of points.Tvx1 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the rules, 13.3 Power stage is last stage of the rally. "To score points, a driver must be classified in the Final Classification of the rally. If a driver appears in the Power Stage classification but is not classified in the Final Classification of the rally, the Stewards shall decide whether the next Competitor should be moved up in the Power Stage classification for the attribution of Power Stage points."

Anyway, winning times are quite pointless, but including 5 point winners to summary table seems quite pointless too, 1st-7th place finishers score more points from the event. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

True, but those points are awarded independently of the rally results, which makes them significant. You can score Power Stage points without scoring event points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we will find a better solution. To remind, we had much more informative summaries until 2015 – all podium finishers (driver,co-driver,team), time (winning time and losing margin would be better), stages, lenght, starters, finishers. And basically all other years until 2012, we had it in 1 table, but instead of co-driver and team there was car. Why did we change from podium finishers to winners? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it was excessive. No other motorsport championship article does it, then or now. It's also redundant because the results matrices detail the podium results.

The number of stages and competitive mileage was moved to the calendar because that was the more relevant place to put those details (and some details, like the surface, were already there). Starters and finishers were dropped because it implied that there were more WRC entries than there actually were (if they were to be kept/restored, the calendar would be the best place for it).

The co-driver and entrant were introduced because there are three World Championship titles awarded: driver, co-driver and manufacturer. Only focusing on the driver did not give due weight to the other two. The car was dropped because, unlike Formula 1, rally cars remain in service for years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Tooltips in the matrix, I'm not a fan—Tooltips are not visible to mobile or tablet viewers. I would suggest the following instead:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
															Event	Stage	Total
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									88	12	100

However, I would be careful not to over-emphasise the idea that without Power Stage points, the championship outcome would be different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The entire table would be like this:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
															Event	Stage	Total
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									88	12	100
2	Thierry Neuville	52	14	63	3	21									76	14	90
3	Ott Tänak	2	95	141	25	14									63	9	72
4	Andreas Mikkelsen	133	33	44	7	53									43	11	54
5	Dani Sordo	Ret		2	4	3									45	0	45
6	Kris Meeke	41	Ret	3	94	75									35	8	43
7	Esapekka Lappi	7	41	11	61	8									30	10	40
8	Jari-Matti Latvala	34	7	82	Ret	Ret									25	6	31
9	Elfyn Evans	6	14	Ret	5	6									26	0	26
10	Craig Breen	9	2			Ret									20	0	20
11	Sébastien Loeb			55	142										10	5	15
12	Hayden Paddon		5												10	0	10
13	Mads Østberg		6												8	0	8
14	Pontus Tidemand		12	7		10									7	0	7
15	Teemu Suninen	18	8	12		9									6	0	6
16	Jan Kopecký	10			8										5	0	5
17	Bryan Bouffier	8			Ret										4	0	4
18	Gus Greensmith	Ret		9	13	12									2	0	2
19	Yoann Bonato	15			10										1	0	1
20	Pedro Heller			10		15									1	0	1
Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Event	Stage	Total
															Points

It looks messy, doesn't it?

I would suggest using sub mark like this:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									10012

— Unnamelessness (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it looks messy at all. I think your second proposal is problematic because the superscript is being used to mark the positions in the rally columns and the power stage points in the in points columm. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It does look messy to me too. And the result is, what you called "over-emphasising the idea that without Power Stage points, the championship outcome would be different." or just making the Power Stage much bigger deal than it actually is. (But in this case, would look better when Total is before Event an Stage. And is it possible to make it sortable?). With the tooltip solution, no revolution for mobile/tablet users, is it bad? What about avg. speed in the summary table, tells us more than time? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"I think your second proposal is problematic because the superscript is being used to mark the positions in the rally columns and the power stage points in the in points columm."

If the superscript is unacceptable, what about subscript, overstriking, lower-case, etc.? For example:

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									10012

If it necessary, use notes to explain. For example:

- Notes:
superscript:1 2 3 4 5 – Power Stage position
subscript: – total points scored in the stage

Speaking of the summary table, if you all think that the time should be removed, then the minority is subordinate to the majority —— OK, remove it. However, I still insist we should add "Power Stage winner" column to the table. — Unnamelessness (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the superscript and the subscript together is just as messy. I honestly don't think distinguishing between the two is necessary—there is no prize for having the most power stage points at the end of the year and the FIA includes power stage points in a driver's total. Making the distinction gives undue weight to power stage points, is little more than trivia and may even amount to original research if your intention is to show how the championship would be different without power stage points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can not reach an agreement, remain the current one we have. For the summary table, remove the time and add new column. What about this one?

Round	Event	Event winning crew	Power stage winning crew	Winning entrant	Report
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Kris Meeke Paul Nagle	M-Sport Ford WRT	Report
2	Rally Sweden	Thierry Neuville Nicolas Gilsoul	Esapekka Lappi Janne Ferm	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Report
3	Rally Guanajuato México	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Ott Tänak Martin Järveoja	M-Sport Ford WRT	Report
4	Tour de Corse	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	Esapekka Lappi Janne Ferm	M-Sport Ford WRT	Report
5	Rally Argentina	Ott Tänak Martin Järveoja	Thierry Neuville Nicolas Gilsoul	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Report

— Unnamelessness (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"If we can not reach an agreement, remain the current one we have."

Only if there is such deep division between editors that no consensus is inevtiable. I don't think we've reached that point yet.

"What about this one?"

I would prefer that we keep the driver and co-driver separate as they are awarded their own championship titles. I would also list the winning entrant before the winner of the power stage because entrants do not get power stage points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"I don't think we've reached that point yet."

I would rather keep the current one compared with your version.

"I would prefer that we keep the driver and co-driver separate as they are awarded their own championship titles. I would also list the winning entrant before the winner of the power stage because entrants do not get power stage points."

Agree.

Round	Event	Winning driver	Winning co-driver	Winning entrant	Power stage winner	Report
1	Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	Kris Meeke	Report
2	Rally Sweden	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	Hyundai Shell Mobis WRT	Esapekka Lappi	Report
3	Rally Guanajuato México	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ott Tänak	Report
4	Tour de Corse	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	M-Sport Ford WRT	Esapekka Lappi	Report
5	Rally Argentina	Ott Tänak	Martin Järveoja	Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT	Thierry Neuville	Report

— When can we modify it? — Unnamelessness (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No one agrees with you so why should it be modified. I agree with Prisonermonkeys that including the power stage winners puts undue emphasis on the aspect. Power stage winners do not receive a special celebration for their achievement and there is no trophy for most power stage wins.Tvx1 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it puts undue emphasis on it at all in the summary table (but it does if you separate it from the points tally in the matrices). There might not be a trophy like the DHL Fastest Lap Award in Formula 1, but unlike that award, power stage points directly affect the championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Crews finishing 2nd-7th get more points (also affect the championship). So I'd much rather see there the whole podium, than a power stage winner. And another suggestion. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pos.	Driver	MON	SWE	MEX	FRA	ARG	POR	ITA	FIN	DEU	TUR	GBR	CAT	AUS	Points
															Total	Details
1	Sébastien Ogier	15	102	1	13	42									100	88+12

No other series outlines the full podium in its summary table. See 2018 Formula One World Championship, 2018 Supercars Championship, 2018 IndyCar Series and 2018 MotoGP season for examples.

Your proposal still has the same problem as before. By providing "details", you're suggesting there is the possibility of power stage points deciding the championship. The FIA only recognises the total points—it doesn't matter how those points are scored and in the event of a tie, the championship is decided on a countback of results. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not relevant what goes on in other series. We have been listing podium finishers before and many other Wikis currently do it. But I'm not saying we should do it too. We are discussing something else here. Lets look at wrc.com standings that looks like this:

Pos.	Driver														Total
1	Sébastien Ogier	25+1 (1.)	1+4 (10.)	25+0 (1.)	25+3 (1.)	12+4 (4.)									100

We have changed it, haven't we? "you're suggesting there is the possibility of power stage points deciding the championship" How? To understand our table (because we list positions not points), you first need to look at the "scoring system" section - where actually the "tiebreakers" should be explained. The current rules are:

• 10.1 DRIVERS AND CO-DRIVERS: For drawing up the final and/or provisional classification of a Championship, the rule for deciding between drivers and co-drivers who have scored exactly the same points total shall be:
  • 10.1.1 According to the greater number of first places, then second places, then third places, etc., achieved in the final classifications on their respective Championship, counting only those rallies which have served to make up their points total.
  • 10.1.2 According to the greater number of highest places achieved in the final classifications of their respective Championship, taking into consideration only those rallies in which all of the drivers and/or codrivers concerned have taken part, one 11th place being worth more than any number of 12th places, one 12th place being worth more than any number of 13rd places, and so on.
  • 10.1.3 In the event of a further tie, the FIA itself will decide the winner and decide between any other tying drivers and co-drivers, on the basis of whatever other considerations it thinks appropriate.
• 10.2 MANUFACTURERS: The rule for deciding between registered Manufacturers, WRC 2 Teams or WRC 3 Teams which have scored exactly the same points total shall be as follows:
  • 10.2.1 According to the greater number of highest places achieved in the qualifying rounds of each Manufacturer, WRC 2 Team or WRC 3 Team, taking into account only the highest place per rally for each Manufacturer, WRC 2 Team or WRC 3 Team.
  • 10.2.2 According to the number of 11th places, 12th places, etc., one 11th place being worth more than any number of 12th places and so on.
  • 10.2.3 In the event of a further tie, the FIA itself will decide the winner and decide between any other tying Manufacturers, WRC 2 Teams or WRC 3 Teams on the basis of whatever other considerations it thinks appropriate.

— We need to include a summary of this. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"We have been listing podium finishers before"

All that did was create a bloated, messy table. The summary should be just that: a summary. The matrices outline who finished on the podium.

"and many other Wikis currently do it."

It's not relevant what other series do on Wikipedia, but it is relevant what other Wikis do? How does that work? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As Pelmeen10 demonstrated here, number of power stage wins is not some sort of tie-breaker. Therefore I can see no good reason to dedicate a full column to power stage winners.Tvx1 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Because power stage points are awarded independently of rally results. It's not like the fastest lap in Formula 2 where you only get a point for fastest lap if you finish in a points-scoring position. You can retire from the rally and re-enter under Rally-2 regulations—which effectively kills your chances of finishing in the top ten—but still score power stage points. Look at Mikkelsen in Monte Carlo and Tänak in Mexico; they finished thirteenth and fourteenth but still scored power stage points. That's one of the reasons why the power stage was introduced: to give crews that retired the chance to take something away from the event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how that warrants them being listed in the season summaries. Power stage results are mentioned where they are relevant in the championships' tables.Tvx1 21:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet you have no issue with fastest laps appearing in Formula 1 summary tables despite having no impact on the championship whatsoever.

Like I said, you score championship points for the power stage independently of rally results. It's highly relevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:13, 8 May

I never wrote anything about F1 fastest laps. If you want to have them removed, go to WT:F1 and propose their removal. Power stage results are relevant, but not to the results summary. The relevancy lies in the champions’ tables since they deal with points.Tvx1 11:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Btw, the column named "Event" is not correct, as the Power Stage is part of the event. Event points include PS points. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to the inclusion of the power stage winner in the championship summary table but insist that all drivers who score points be included in the summary table of individual rally reports even though those rally reports include a separate summary table for power stage points? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Images

There should only be one image of a manufacturer at the top of the lead. Two is excessive, especially seeing as how there are already two images of drivers. This is the way most motorsport championship articles do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys Look at this version. They didn't. I don't think two images is excessive, especially when the current manufacturer leader and the defending manufacturer are different. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because I believed it then, that doesn't mean that I believe it now. My opinion can change, and it has changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys You can't follow your own subjective opinion and there is not any rules or guidelines to say that we must keep only one manufacturer image. Like I said, we need two images (one for the defending champion, another for the current leader) unless they are the same driver/manufacturer. — Unnamelessness (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need the two images. The Manual of Style makes it pretty clear that images should be used sparingly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should also use only one image for drivers as well just for format. — Unnamelessness (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I support 2+2 images, include defending driver and team. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I also support the 2+2 style, but @Prisonermonkeys does not agree. — Unnamelessness (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just being petty for the sake of being petty. You can't have the 2+2 layout, so the only other option is 1+1? Please quote a Wikipedia policy that says that must be the case. 2+2 is justified for the drivers since they're the face of the sport, but 2+2 is not necessary for the manufacturers because it just pads the article out. They appear to be there for the sake of it, and you have a bad habit of over-using or incorrectly using images in this article since all you're uploading is images of podium celebrations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, how about you follow the process of obtaining a consensus before making changes? When you say that you support the 2+2 layout but then deliberately introduce the 1+1 layout despite it, it looks like you're deliberately disrupting the page to prove a point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I introduced the 1+1 layout is because you do not agree with the 2+2 layout and I also do not agree with your layout. So I use 1+1 layout just for reaching a balance with you. It's a compromise or concession to you!!!

Besides, you said drivers are the face of the sport, does it mean I can read it as: you DO NOT think manufacturers are as important as the driver in the sport? It seems that your layout is just LOWER the IMPORTANCE of the role of manufacturers — all you care about is just the driver!

In short, I am 120% disagree with your version. We need to find a better solution. — Unnamelessness (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, how can you insist us to reach a consensus for a change, when actually you were the person who changed the system. We had defending+current for the whole season until now. And currently your opinion is in minority, but still you talk nonsense. There is no policy or rule that is so specific. These are the things that are discussed in every article's talk page. look @ Wikipedia:Consensus --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there is no such policy—that was my point. You can't make a policy-based argument for the move to a 1+1 format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pelmeenm10 — you know as well as I do that consensus is not a vote. 1.144.97.123 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We had 2 images until 9 June, until you started an edit war with this edit Where is your consensus to change it to 1 image?? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is your consensus to have two images? "We had it until June 9" is not an argument. It was discussed, no agreement to keep two was formed, and the article stayed the way it was. That's the consensus. And speaking of edit wars, you're edit-warring. Don't accuse others of the very thing you're guilty of.

Only one manufacturer image goes into the article lead at the end of the year, so there should only be one through the year. The Fiesta has been updated since that photo was taken and is visibly different now. And since most of the images come from Hyundai, there's a serious risk that this article violates NPOV with an over-abundance of Hyundai images. But go ahead, keep justifying your edits based on counting votes rather than an actual policy. 1.144.97.123 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been trying to change this since June because You like it and insisting us to have a consensus to revert you in the first place?? Then you see you are still the only one to support 1 image and continuing to edit war? Argueing with you is just a waste of time. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a case of ILIKEIT at all. I have given you three very good reasons as to why it should be a single image, and you haven't even tried to refute them. All you have done is count the number of participants (even though consensus is not a vote), insisted "it was always thst way" (which is not a valid argument because there was a time when we didn't include images in the lead, so by your logic, we shouldn't have any) and accused me of breaking ILIKEIT (which you can't prove). I'm the one with policy-based arguments to support the change, yet you say arguing with me is a waste of time? I'm the one who is actually debating this properly. 1.129.108.21 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we please avoid trading personal attacks with each other, it is not going to lead this discussion anywhere. Contrary to some claims, I really can't see any policy-based arguments (MOS is not a policy). MOS:LEADIMAGE doesn't help us much either because it doesn't really mention quantity. Of course the general guideline on images heeds against using too many images, but the definition of "too much" is an entirely subjective one. This we are left with no option but to look at the article in question. All in all, I feel that 4 lead images is a bit much at present. The 2017 champions really don't carry enough importance to the 2018 championship to merit a lead image here presently. It's not like in Tennis where players have ranking points to defend in each event. These images are typically included before the season starts to provide some background, but once the season starts I feel it's better to focus on the ongoing championship. If you really want 4 images in the lead I would rather suggest to include, once the season is over, images of the top three drivers and the winning manufacturer. I'll also note that there is co-drivers world championship as well, which currently is completely ignored in the lead images.Tvx1 19:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of the co-drivers' championship, I think the key question is that it is hard to find a photo of one particular co-driver's face that is of good compat with other lead images (or even find a suitable particular co-driver's image) in Commons. — Unnamelessness (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a good image go Gilsoul in his article.Tvx1 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

But it seems Gilsoul is the only co-driver who has good image. (Ingrassia even doesn't have one) — Unnamelessness (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are supposed to illustrate the text. The lead section mentions both the defending crews and leading crews. In the past when the lead section only mentioned the defending (and not leading) driver+team, we had 2 images; co-drivers have have been included in the text just recently. The defending crews are still a good backround to the season, so if there's too many images in the lead, I suggest moving the pictures of current leaders to section "Results and standings". (also possible to move pics of defending crews to "Entries" section). Btw 2013-2017 seasons still had pictures of the defending driver and team (or just text in that pics' caption), changed it to winner [1]. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we are forced illustrate every bit of text with a corresponding image. It's still up to us to judge what's important enough to merit an image in the lead. Hence why co-drivers don't get an image. I feel that the 2017 champions are not important enough to the 2018 championship to merit an image purely for being the 2017 champions.Tvx1 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that MOS:LEADIMAGE, I would suggest 2+1 layout — 2 for the cureent drivers' and co-drivers' championship leaders; 1 for the current constructors' championship leader and remove the image of defending champion. If the image of defending champion is indispensable, I would suugest move it to "Entries" section or somewhere else rather than the leading section as well. — Unnamelessness (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)