Talk:2018 World Rally Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Major entries"

Looking at the 2017 article, I am seeing a bit of a contradiction. There are half a dozen drivers—like Kalle Rovanperä, Nathan Quinn and Ole Christian Veiby—who appear in the results matrix because they scored points, but they are not in the entries table. Conversely, there are half a dozen drivers—such as Simone Romagna, Charles Payne and Paolo Liceri—who are in the entry table, but not the results matrix. In the case of Romagna, Payne and Liceri, they are in the entry table because they entered WRC cars, whereas the likes of Rovanperä, Quinn and Veiby were only in R5s (and in the case of Quinn, an old R4).

Given that this is an article about the 2018 World Championship, I think that any driver who scores World Championship points counts as a major entry and is worthy of inclusion in the list. Although there is a discrepancy in the cars used, we can always include and extra "class" column such as the one used in the WRC-3 article (and, until recently, the WRC-2 article; it was removed because no more R4 or Super 2000 cars are being homologated and the existing ones are so old that they are no longer competitive—R5s are now the only cars that get entered). The FIA classify WRC cars as "RC1", R5 and R4 as "RC2", R3s as "RC3" and so on and so forth. Thus, I propose that any driver who scores points should be considered a "major entry", and that we denote this with the icon system like this:

Key
Icon	Class
RC1	Classification within Group R
RC2

I have used yellow/black and red/white because of the high contrast. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Or, intead of calling the table "major entries", we call it "WRC entries". This way, we clarify that the entries in the table are the ones that are using World Rally Cars, divided in elegible for the manufacturer championship or non elegible. I think that this is the most "objective" approach, and thus, avoiding the discution of "what's a major entrie". MNSZ (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

But that still has the problem of drivers scoring points who do not appear in the entry table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why someday something called prose was invented.Tvx1 20:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess we don't need any of the tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"intead of calling the table "major entries", we call it "WRC entries""

We can't. If calling them "major entries" opens up the question of what constitutes a major entry, then we cannot use it. Likewise, we cannot refer to them as "WRC entries" because WRC refers to a specific class of car, which implies that only WRC cars are eligible to compete in the championship, which is not true. Nor can we split the tables based on manufacturer entries because that puts undue weight on the manufacturers' championship (besides, the matrix now has markup that links individual entries to the entry list).

In the end, the entry list is just that: an entry list. It needs to be as neutral as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it's still relevant to differentiate between works teams entries eligible to score manufacturers' point (providing an official registration to the championship as requested by FIA sporting regulations) and privateer/semi-works entries who compete only for the drivers' championship and usually contesting only selected rounds. Maybe we can use different background color or something similar. Scott DNA (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The results matrix makes it perfectly clear who scored points. The entry list is just that: a list of crews and the rallies they entered. Anything else is just an added layer of complexity and unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The matrix is not a solution as the first rally already shows. Two manufacturers each had an entry not scoring manufacturer points in Monte-Carlo because of their position, which were nevertheless eligible to score those point if they had finished high enough. We clearly still need to differentiate between them. I strongly disagree with your claim that "World Rally Car" can't be used. There is no implication whatsoever that these are the only ones eligible for WRC-1 points. In fact that is already debunked by Kopecky's presence in the matrix. As I said before, prose is our friend and can easily be used to further explain any discrepancies.Tvx1 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Two manufacturers each had an entry not scoring manufacturer points in Monte-Carlo because of their position, which were nevertheless eligible to score those point if they had finished high enough"

The matrix says "not classified". It does not say "not eligible".

"In fact that is already debunked by Kopecky's presence in the matrix."

But he doesn't appear in the entry list, so your assertion is vague at best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Major" is subjective and I'd support using titles "World Rally Car entries eligible to score manufacturer points" and "World Rally Car entries ineligible to score manufacturer points". Every point scorer doesn't have to be mentioned here in season article. They can be mentioned in WRC2/WRC3 and JWRC season articles. And ofcourse every specific rally article. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But by only listing WRC cars, the implication is that only WTC cars can score points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It says "manufacturer points" not just "points". Some season back (until 2012) the titles were "Manufacturer teams" and "Major entries not registered as manufacturers" and the first row said "Constructor" or "Team". In 2010 World Rally Championship#Teams and drivers also explained the situation bit better. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see that implication at all. There is not a single word implying that. Quite on the contrary, the results matrices show otherwise.Tvx1 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Except we're not talking about the matrices. We're talking about the entry list, which is structured in such a way that only WRC cars are listed, which in turn suggests that only WRC cars can score points. You cannot expect readers to refer to something at the bottom of the article to make sense of something at the top. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No that doesn't suggest anything at all.Tvx1 22:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does, because "World Rally Car" is a specific class of car and the table is already divided based on eligibility for points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the table division is based on specific eligibility for manufacturer points. That is obvious to everyone.Tvx1 23:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Regulations in "external links"

This is completely unnecessary. The link has been added with no context except the assumption that it might somehow be useful. Bear in mind that the regulations were not written for a casual audience; some degree of technical knowledge is required to understand most of the points raised. Wikipedia should emphasise accessibility, which is why we really only detail the most relevant parts—changes to the regulations—year on year. Including the regulations as an external link is likely to cause more confusion for the reader rather than provide clarity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

External links are there for extra info, to read more. If someone reading the article, has a feeling that they need to read more to get the full picture, that link may help. Do or do they not understand the regulations doesn't consern us at all (we have ensure that article itself doesn't confuse readers, external links are not part of the article). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It does not satisfy any of the criteria for inclusion under WP:EXTERNAL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Random reader has no idea of the previous regulations. Try to read Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", "Very large pages". Btw, to access the regulations, the link is pdf (automatic download). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me another championship article that links to the series' regulations. Formula 1, WEC, World Rallycross and WTCR don't do it, and they're the other top-level championships.

"Random reader has no idea of the previous regulations."

And your solution is to give them the current regulations?

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject"

And how do specific regulations, such as how a passage control is to be run, contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject, which is the 2018 championship. Especially when they best you have come up with so far is that it "might" help a reader's understanding. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if someone knows as little about the sport as you suggest they do, then I doubt that they'll use the sporting regulations to educate themselves. The rallying article is probably where they will start and WRC.com will likely provide them with a wealth of information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Rally Sweden

I think Meeke retired after 19th stage. [1] click on retirements. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't find him in the official classification, so yes he retired.Tvx1 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Calendar

What's the source for Tour de Corse, Argentina and Portugal "Distance"? Are they final? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)