Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

Manufacturers Table Third Row

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the third rows in the manufacturers' championship table for entrants that have run three cars at an event be removed?

I think they should. The rules state that only two results for the manufacturers' championship can be scored per rally. So I think we should only list those results that were actually credited for that championship. It is the championship result table after all. If one wants to find out what the individual entrants did, we have the drivers' and co-drivers' championships tables for that. The row of mostly NC's in the manufacturers' championship table is just confusing.Tvx1 10:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

So am I. Per the rule says two best cars score points for manufacturers. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, look. This again.

No, they should not be removed. Those crews are eligible to score WCM points when a rally begins. They are ineligible to score points when the rally ends. To remove the third row implies that they were never eligible to score points, which is patently untrue.

We used to have an additional column in the table that assigned results to individual entries. But then some idiot decided that column was unnecessary and rearranged the table based on Formula 1 results. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

As has been explained to you many times, the claim that removing the third row implies they were never eligible to score points is what is actually untrue. The entry lists shows them black and white as eligible to score manufacturer's points and the absence of the third row in the results table doesn't change that in any way. Similarly the claim that results were assigned to individual entries is also wrong. They were assigned to numbers and these were actually frequently used by different crews throughout the season. And the decision to remove said column was a community decision achieved through a discussion which is still visible on this talk page. As it stands, there is only one visitor of these articles that wants this third row: you. Wikipedia however operates on community decisions.Tvx1 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

When the number column was removed, editors insisted that it was more important for the matrix to show how a team's championship result was achieved rather than who contributed what and when. If that is the case, then you cannot overlook the fact that teams have different approaches: Citroën only have two cars, whereas Hyundai and Toyota enter three full-time and Ford has two full-time entries and one part-time. Thus, how they go about achieving their results is fundamentally different and should be reflected in the matrix.

Furthermore, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, teams could enter three cars, but only two could score points. The difference was that they had to nominate who scored points in advance of the start, whereas here it is only decided at the end. Having the same appearance between two matrices thus misrepresents the championship.

And if the row of NCs is as confusing as you claim it to be, why haven't we had problems with people constantly removing it since it was introduced in 2017? Or is this another case of you being able to psychically tell what readers are thinking? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The rule clearly points out that the two best cars score points for manufacturers, which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship. Per the FIA regulation, the points of each manufacturer is made up of the best car and the second-best car and has nothing to do with the third best car. That's how a team's championship result was achieved. This is also why the official website lists the manufacturers' championship in the form of "A+B", instead of "A+B(+0)". -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship"

There's a big difference between contributing nothing and recording a result that did not contribute. That's what "NC" means: that the crew recorded a result, but that result was not taken into consideration due to the rules. It does not mean that they did nothing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No quite the opposite, they do no achieve a result. They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC. If a third car from any manufacturer finishes ahead of one of the first two cars of another manufacturer, that third car is disregarded completely and its WCM result is passed on to the next WCM eligible car. The difference you speak of is minimal and dedicating a whole row to it is just undue. And the other potential implications from removing this row are all based on the same mistaken belief that WMC table is the only thing that tells our readers how these championships devolved. That is wrong. The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include. These other parts were different in the other years you mention and so the readers where also clearly able to see the difference. You're just massively overrating how this lone table could be interpreted. The combination of entry lists, prose AND the results tables makes it abundantly clear that some manufacturers entered three cars for the rallies. The absence of a third row in one results table does not change that at all. A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries.Tvx1 11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC."

Which is why they are listed as "Not Classified". Omitting them entirely suggests they were never there to begin with.

"The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include."

The reader should not need to synthesise information from various parts of the article just to understand it.

"A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries."

Since you didn't bother to address these points the first time, I'll repeat them here:

First, the teams have markedly different approaches to the championship. If how they contested the championship is so important, then showing their approaches should be a function of the matrix.

Secondly, in the historical context of the WRC, the third row is important because previous years have used different rules. Teams used to be able to enter three crews in a rally, but they had to nominate two to score points before the start. Peugeot used to hire Gilles Panizzi for tarmac rallies because he was a tarmac specialist

Stop treating these articles like Formula 1 articles. Just because editing decisions worked there, that doesn't mean they will automatically work elsewhere. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow Formula-1 nor look at those articles. But for this championship it does not really matter if "somebody" scored 0 points or was not it the start at the first place. Entry list already gives info about the number of entrants. Points eligibility is not the point of this wikitable. To remind, we had some discussion here and here - with lots of different proposals. How come you just now come up with this one without somesort of agreement?

"editors insisted that it was more important for the matrix to show how a team's championship result was achieved rather than who contributed what and when" - with your edit, it still did not show that. Basically you want to show that some teams have two drivers while some have 3. Didn't you also want to show the driver, but ruled out {{Hover title}}? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If the matrix is intended to show how a team scored its championship result, then it needs to show the differences in how the teams approached the championship. Limiting the table to two rows regardless of the actual number of entries implies that all teams only entered two crews in the first place, which is patently untrue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not it doesn't imply that all. That claim is what is patently untrue. The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary. No synthesizing is need in any form. The information is there in black and white. Omitting those who were not credited with a result does not imply anything but that they weren't credited with a result. A results matrix its for results, not entries.Tvx1 11:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary."

No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.

"A results matrix its for results, not entries."

And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices.

What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that teams approach the championship in different ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.

Exactly. And that is the only thing they need to do. The entry list shows who entered for which championship at each round, the results tables show who scored points, or rather results, for that championship. Anything else is beyond their scope. Use prose to provide context.

And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices. What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.

What on earth does it matter for the manufacturers' championship that a car which wasn't taking into account for that championship retired, was disqualified or excluded or withdrew. It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form. All the extra information you mention, like a team's approach, are things we have prose for. The manufacturers championship tables is no there to give our readers a full report of the season. It's only function is to show the results that counted towards that championship. Besides the drivers' and co-drivers' championship already show what happened to all the entries.Tvx1 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot show up two months after the discussion has run its course, declare that a consensus has been formed, impose it on the article and blatantly misrepresent the discussion as if there is a consensus and a lone voice of dissent. Especially when you criticise me for doing something similar elsewhere. You have tried to get this change approved multiple times in the past two years, all to no avail. It's time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.

"It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form."

Actuslly, it does. If a team entered three cars, but then withdrew one, it affects how they can score points; if one of the remaining cars retires, they don't have the third car to score a result. Besides, all of the teams approach the championship differently. Citroën enter two cars. Toyota enter three. M-Sport enter two or three. If the WCM results matrix is supposed to show how a team scored its results, then it needs to address the fact that different teams score their results in different ways. Limiting each team to two entries in the WCM table completely changes the reader's perception of the championship. Furthermore, in the 1990s teams could enter three cars, but had to nominate which two would score before the event. If one retired, the third car couldn't score in its place. Here, all three cars are eligible to score points until the final results are known. Your proposal implies that only the cars that scored points were eligible to score. And before you say it, you need something more than "no, it doesn't imply that" as an objection.

There is no reason for this change. You lobbied to have the number column removed for reasons that were unclear (apparently because F1 articles do it, WRC articles need to do it, too), and the net result is that now you have rows of NCs that you don't like. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at DRN since it clearly is not going away. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The trip to WP:DRN did not yield any different results. And I did not misrepresent anything. This discussion does not feature anyone agreeing with your stance. I just saw this discussion as new, clean attempt to get a consensus on this subject, instead of merely being a continuation of the former. But even if you do consider them together there is STILL a clear support for the proposal. You're still in the clear minority. And your arguments have been refuted time and time again. The implication of them not been eligible to score points simply does not exists because the entry list explicitly states that they did and the proposed edit would add a sentence above the table that clearly states only the best two results are actually credited. Likewise the entry lists already gives a full picture of their approaches and the prose can give even more context. This has been repeated to you over and over again. Moreover, talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here. Firstly, you claim that there was no positive progress in getting this approval approved, yet there is clear support for it here and this isn't a dead horse at all. Secondly, you claim that I lobbied to have the number column removed, which is blatantly untrue. Another user lobbied for that and I merely supported that proposal. This has to stop now. You cannot unilaterally block a proposal from being executed. There is clear support for it. Last time I checked consensus is still not unanimity. We don't need your approval.Tvx1 15:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"this isn't a dead horse at all"

More than two months had passed between the last comment in the discussion and your decision to apply the change despite your claim of having a consensus. Evidently it was not as strong as you thought it was, or else it would have been applied at the time. I think two months of complete silence is more than enough time to warrant revisiting the discussion before makimg changes.

"We don't need your approval."

No, but what you do need is a clear internal logic between articles. You have been lobbying for this change on and off for over eighteen months, but have not one addressed the fact that previous years have used a similar scoring system with a few key differences that should be reflected in the structure of the matrix. All you have ever done is said "no, it does not imply that/need that" and assumed you have adequately made your point when you have not.

"talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here"

I'm not the one who pretended that an entire discussion did not exist and then claimed it was a case of one against many when diffs from that discussion proved otherwise. You always do this. There's one set of rules that you follow and one set of rules that you have for everyone else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The differences in the scoring rules can still be reflected in multiple parts of the article without the need of the third row in that table. We explain the scoring systems in just about all motorsports article. The entry lists and report prose are more than sufficient to explain and give context to the approaches. The results tables are not intended to be full season reports. They only need to show the results which actually count. Regardless, you cannot set the conditions on how a consensus can be reached. You do not own these articles. Wikipedia is a community project and you have to respect the community preference. Lastly, as I have explained before, I do not all pretend the earlier discussion did not exist. We simply disagree on it's effect on the whole. You consider it the most important part and overvalue it so much so that you consider it leading and that it tips the entire case in your favor, whereas I see it more as an old, failed attempt at the proposal with this discussion being a fresh attempt under the principle that consensus can change. You yourself had a number of changes implemented in the past under the principle after earlier failed attempts. So it would be basic respect to other contributors if you gave them that same courtesy here. Moreover though, even if you simply add up both discussions it still leaves a clear support in favor of the proposal. It gives you just one person agreeing with you, with doesn't even remotely put you in the clear majority. We thus simply disagree on the earlier discussion's value. And I don't know why your reading of them is by definition te correct one and mine the wrong one.Tvx1 11:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither the DRN thread nor the ANI report provided any results, so maybe can we refocus on trying to find and amicable solution here. Does anyone have anything to add to the discussion?Tvx1 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Enough of this now. These are nothing but off-topic personal attacks. Let's have the on-topic discussion judged by an uninvolved person now so as to finally find consensus.

For several months now your only interest in this article has been making this particular change. It is outside your regular pattern of editing behaviour, which makes it pretty clear that making this change is more a point of personal pride than anything else. There is clearly an agenda at work here. You were very lucky that the ANI went nowhere because your habit of abusing ANI to punish people who disagree with you, of bullying and harrassing editors should have seen you banned. I think it would be in everyone's interests—your own included—if you either left these articles alone in the long term, or started making regular contributions to their content to demonstrate that there is no personal agenda here. Of course, you'll deny that there's any personal agenda and insist that it's bad faith on my part because that's what you always do. The fact that there's a script here because it happens so often is not a good sign. It's time to leave well enough alone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC) It seems that is mostly in your personal interest if would leave this topic. The quantity of ones contributions to topic does not determine ones right to discuss a subject at all. If the opinions of people who only read articles can be valuable. This discussion doesn't only involve me. There were five participants to it and I only want an amicable conclusion for te benefit of all of us. So if we want to get somewhere, we should comment on the content, not the contributors.Tvx1 12:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC) That's the way it's supposed to work, but given your editing history, I think it's quite clear that you have an agenda. Your only contributions to the topic of rallying have been to lobby for specific changes that reflect changes you have introduced to other, unrelated articles. You have been doing this for years and it is completely out of step with the rest of your editing behaviour. Such a narrow focus of edits suggests that you would consider the adoption of these changes to be a personal victory, which completely undermines whatever validity your proposal may have. I think you do it because you cannot stand the thought of other editors having a vision for an article that is different to yours. The only thing that will convince me otherwise is if you start making regular edits to a range of articles within the topic, or else leave the topic alone entirely and trust that editors will make decisions in the interests of the article (and accept them when you do not agree with them). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC) There is no personal agenda of me at all. And you are the only editor distrusting me. None of the other WP:RALLY regulars has complained about them being unable to work with me. Now please stop commenting on me and comment on the content so that we can bring this discussion to an amicable conclusion.Tvx1 11:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) "There is no personal agenda of me at all." Excuse me if I don't simply take your word for it. Your behaviour speaks volumes to the contrary. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC) That's your problem then. I can only reiterate that your thoughts of me are wrong. Now stop commenting on the contributors and comment on the content. Your comments regarding me do not have any relevance to this content issue.Tvx1 11:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Reiterate all you want. Of course you're going to deny having a personal agenda. The problem is that your edit history says otherwise. "Your comments regarding me do not have any relevance to this content issue." They do when the content you are proposing is fuelled by said agenda. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC) To me, it seems the whole WikiProject has gone to "some dark" place. Is it actually possible to reach to any consensus here? When I proposed to remove the column of "manufacturer" - which is actually "road car based on", nobody was against and received only support. Yet, still I was reverted with the reason "no consensus", the name of an entrant is pretty logical for arrangement too. It also seems by reading some old discussions, that some disussions/arguements have led to the quitting of some editors or to contributing much less. Currently most editors (including me) are so tired of the endless discussions on 1 specific subject. In a big picture it does not even matter how many rows there are in the points position table. I mean, most sites only have 1 row (for the number of points received). We actually did have a decent discussion in this subject, which led to using 2 rows. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Well, it seems that no new arguments have been posted regarding the content for a couple of weeks now. Therefore, I think the best thing now is to follow the proper procedure and have an uninvolved person judge the decision.Tvx1 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC) No, that would be the worst thing to do because of your agenda. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Is it actually possible to reach to any consensus here?" It used to be. Remember when we adjusted rally report articles to remove unnecessary flagicons? That was good and sensible. Then Tvx1 came along. What you're describing is not uncommon at other WikiProjects, such as WP:F1. There is no "consensus" formed, at least not through the intended process. What there is is two groups emerging, repeating the same arguments over and over and over and again until one side gives up out of sheer exhaustion/frustrstion and the last side standing declares a consensus. Tvx1 is usually at the heart of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC) No, you are actually always at the heart of these discussions. There are more of these kinds of discussion which feature yo, but not me at all. The rally report discussions with regards to flags, which you mentioned, is a prime example of that. It's another example of the untrue things you accuse me of, because contrary to your accusation I did not participate to those discussions at all. Neither the discussion at the rally report, neither the general discussion at MOS:FLAGS. Yet you were at the heart of it as well. For the umpteenth time, I have no personal agenda at all. And your continuous accusations here do not help this discussion at all.Tvx1 10:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC) What you are doing is called Wikihounding: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Which you certainly do. Your only contributions to rallying articles are to either oppose me in discussions or to propose changes that I have proposed elsewhere. It certainly inhibits the work I do, and it is annoying because it slows the process down. Wikihounding also says the following: "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, 'following another user around', if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It certainly does disrupt my enjoyment of editing—I've had root canals that were more fun than some of these conversations. "For the umpteenth time, I have no personal agenda at all." And for the umpteenth time, your word means next to nothing. Your edit history shows an anomaly. Like many editors, you have a range of subjects that you like to edit. And like many editors, you edit multiple pages within that subject area. So why is it that the only article you edit in the subject of rallying is the current WRC championship article? And why is it that you only ever lobby for changes to specific sections of that article? This is literally the only place on Wikipedia that you do this. It clearly fits the definition of Wikihounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Your belief of what my edit history tells is only that: your belief. And it’s wrong. I have never decided to join a discussion, let alone take a side in one, based on who was participating in it. What you are doing is issuing personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop it. It’s not relevant to this discussion. In fact, because you keep posting off-topic attacks against me, you are the one who is actually slowing down the process. I only care about the content and I have been trying to bring this to an amicable conclusion for weeks.Tvx1 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC) "Your belief of what my edit history tells is only that: your belief." I think it's pretty plain as day what your edit history shows. "I have never decided to join a discussion, let alone take a side in one, based on who was participating in it." And all anyone has is your word on that. "I only care about the content and I have been trying to bring this to an amicable conclusion for weeks." I don't think anybody believes that. I do think that you are treating these edits as a personal victory. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC) It's pretty clear now what you think. That doesn't mean it's the truth. And repeating it over and over and over again does not change that. The only person who does not believe that I want to bring this discussion to an amicable conclusion is you, maybe you should have a think about why that is. And the only one who as actually treated this discussion as a personal crusade against someone else is you. Everyone can see that. And it's more than time to stop it now. It does not help this discussion at all.Tvx1 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC) "That doesn't mean it's the truth. And repeating it over and over and over again does not change that." And yet, I feel hounded by you and your actions: "The singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" Correct. "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor" Correct (the irritation and annoyance, not the distress). "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason." Correct. And all supported by evidence. So if you haven't done this intentionally, you've done this unintentionally. Neither is a particularly good look. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I do not single out editors simply because I do not decide to join a discussion based on who is part of a discussion. I only care about content. And it doesn't take me at all for you to get embroiled in heated discussion. You have been involved in plenty of heated discussion over here and over at WT:F1 that did not involve me at all. This is going nowhere. We're running in circles. It's time for an uninvolved person to judge the discussion.Tvx1 15:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC) "I do not decide to join a discussion based on who is part of a discussion." Again, we only have your word on that when your edit history shows a clear pattern of hounding. "I only care about content." Then why don't you contribute anything? Your edit history shows that when it comes to rallying, all you care about is a series of specific edits to lone articles, and that those specific edits mirror changes that were first applied to other, unrelated articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Enough now. This is not the place to discuss each other's contributions.Tvx1 15:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing this isn't going to make it go away. You can try and hide it, but your agenda is still quite clear. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rally Estonia

Hi Everybody, I was wondering if we should possibility think about including some Rally Estonia details as a non-championship rally. Especially as the WRC are promoting this event as the "first-ever Promotional Rally", all manufacturers are sending at least one car, and WRC+ are covering some of the stages live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1season (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Calendar expansion" section mentions Rally Estonia very briefly. That would be the place to write more. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What does "Promotional Rally" even mean?

Whatever the case, Rally Estonia is not a part of the championship and so should not be explored in detail. The only way it has affected the championship is indirectly; i.e. through Evans' injury. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Is "World Rally Championship Promotional Rally" with every manufacturer participating connected to World Rally Championship? That is the question. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Stage distances under calendar

Do we list planned distances or final distances? Currently we mention the cancelled stage in Monte Carlo, but for example in Portugal 2 stages of 4.5km total were also cancelled (instead of 20 stages, 18 were contested). Checking both wrc.com & ewrc-results, these are the differences:

• Monte Carlo - we count out the cancelled stage, while other sources do not
• Mexico 1) here 316.51; 2) wrc.com 313.87; 3) ewrc 310.50
• Argentina: stage 3 (29.85 km) was cancelled (347.5-29.85=317.65)
• Portugal 1) here 306.97 / article 311.23; 2) wrc.com 306.97; 3) ewrc 311.47
• Turkey 1) here 318.77 / article 310.10; 2) wrc.com 309.86; 3) ewrc 309.56
• Wales (stage 20 of 4.74km cancelled) 1) here 312.75 ; 2) wrc.com 312.75; 3) ewrc 309.76

We mostly forget to change to actual distances and add notes anyway, so maybe list the total (not counting out the cancelled) distance? Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, nothing is better than subject to the official. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

We should list the actual distance contested. If the route is shortened, then that should be mentioned in a footnote. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

How can there be so drastic differences in Mexico and Turkey distances? Maybe we should just trust the ewrc-results.com. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"A small consensus"

The aforementioned "small consensus" is so small that nobody did anything with it for ten weeks (before today, the last comment was made on 4 September). This "consensus" is clearly not as compelling as some people believe it to be, and given the passage of time since it was supposedly formed, it should be discussed again. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Still, it's a consensus achieved through the formal procedures. You have no right to simple ignore it or declare it invalid. WP:Consensus is a policy and you have to respect it.Tvx1 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)