Talk:2021 World Rally Championship

Results tables

Now that manufacturers can score power stage points, this is the most sensible format for the results tables because a manufacturer entry can score power stage points without scoring points for the overall classification.

The system used prior to this was based on a model used in Formula 1 articles. That was introduced because Scuderia Toro Rosso entered four drivers who used five car numbers between them. This created several blank rows in the constructors' results table and editors thought this was unsightly. The model was created to list each team's best result for each Grand Prix first. It was then dropped into WRC articles for no good reason, completely ignoring the fact that the WRC is scored differently. In many ways it was done to justify what was a purely cosmetic change in Formula 1 articles. 1.144.108.10 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We've already discussed before, so I don't want to waste any more time to discuss again. The fact that the agreement of using such format was reached, which is a compromised solution. The only difference is just to add some extra superscripts for PS points, so how does it affect the consensus? Just take it and move on please. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"so how does it affect the consensus?"

Because the consensus was a compromise designed to include all results in the order that they were achieved. It was intended to accomodate non-scoring finishers, but the decision to award power stage points to manufacturers changes things.

Furthermore, the situation you outline - teams entering more than three cars in a year - is quite common. M-Sport enter two full-time entries and sometimes have a third part-time entry, but you have never objected to the blank spaces in the table that this causes. Likewise, WRC-2 and WRC-3 entries regularly skip rounds, but you have never objected to it there.

As I have always said, this entire format is purely cosmetic. It was designed to address a specific issue in a single Formula 1 article and then put in WRC articles to suit the continued needs of Formula 1 articles. 1.144.108.10 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A mess is still a mess. Such format's fate is doomed when the fixed number rule was applied since 2019. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet, the fixed-number rule was introduced to Formula 1 in 2014 without a problem. Almost every other championship uses fixed numbers without issue. It was only in 2017 when Toro Rosso kept rotating drivers that editors decided it was an issue that the change was applied and it was applied to WRC articles - and nowhere else - shortly afterwards.

My thoughts on how editing decisions should be made are well-documented. If you make a change to an article, it should benefit that article first and foremost. It's why I believe "but this article does it that way" is not an argument; you can have two articles of a similar or related topic, but there might be a substantial enough difference to warrant a different presentation. But in the case of this table format, it had nothing to do with being of benefit to the WRC articles. The table format was introduced to benefit Formula 1 articles first and foremost. The needs of WRC articles were of secondary concern. 1.144.108.75 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Entries

I know there is a dispute regarding the entry table between you two, but it is unable to discuss because of an IBAN, so I revert to the 2020 format. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We should not be changing the article because one person is holding it hostage. We came to an agreement that anyone who entered a rally is eligible to score points and thus should be mentioned in some form here. Especially considering that with three editors, two of whom are subject to an IBAN, the entire process of forming a consensus is very difficult—which I suspect some people know and are abusing because they do not want to recognise an existing consensus.

Also, those edits completely broke the table. 1.129.108.163 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unnamelessness, I would like to clear things up. There is no dispute. Yesterday I only made some edits to make the current table compliant with accessibility guidelines. Having table wide headers is a major issue and should not be done. Captions should be properly formatted as such. That has already been discussed with regards to WRC articles nearly four years ago. My edits were clearly misread as I did NOT change anything to the contents of the table. I only changed its appearance. I also made some other edits to improve accessibility to the other tables. All of my edits were blanket reverted in violation of our interaction ban and the violation should really be undone.Tvx1 15:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unnamelessness, I feel that I should point out to you that I reverted the edits in question because they broke the table. It was completely unreadable. 1.129.108.114 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What makes it "unreadable"? Because that format has been used for the past few years, I just could not get it why. Actually, I am for multiple tables as I explained in the previous entry — it avoids accessibility issues. The second table does not need the car number column as Rally2/WRC-2 car numbers are not fixed. Multiple tables allow us to design tables more flexible. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A small remark. With your recent edits you missed out on reinstating the accessibility-compliant coding for the footers with sources of the entries tables and calendar. They should use the same coding as their equivalents in the results tables.Tvx1 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness:

"What makes it "unreadable"? Because that format has been used for the past few years, I just could not get it why."

Have you tried opening the mobile/tablet view in a mobile/tablet browser? (Don't do it on a laptop or PC; you won't see what I'm talking about.) None of the columns actually line up with their rows. It looks something like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	No.	Driver name	Co- driver name	Rounds

Crews entered under Rally1 regulations

Ford	JanPro	Ford Fiesta WRC	12	Janne Tuohino	Reeta Hämäläinen	2
	M-Sport Ford WRT	Ford Fiesta WRC	3	Teemu Suninen	Mikko Markkula	1–2
			37	Lorenzo Bertelli	Simone Scattolin	2

It's not an exact recreation—I've had to force the perspective with markup—but you get the idea. So, yes, the accessibility-compliant coding for the footers has been restored. But it has come at the expense of the accessibility-compliant coding for the human eye and common sense. 1.144.104.168 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it has been fixed now. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness: what I don't understand is why it's so important for this article to have the accessibility-compliant coding per MOS:DTT, but other articles do not need it. I don't see it in the 2021 World Rally Championship-2, 2021 World Rally Championship-3 or 2021 Junior World Rally Championship articles. In fact, I don't see it used in any WRC articles aside from the season articles. Nor do I see it used in Formula 1, Formula 2 or Formula 3 articles (with the exception of Formula 1 season articles). While I am all for improving the accessibility of articles, I have never seen anyone complain that an article does not comply with MOS:DTT outside of these discussions.

Please pardon my cynicism here, but considering this it seems to me like the strict requirement that these articles comply with MOS:DTT—a requirement that is not enforced on any other article by any editor involved here—is being used to force this article to use multiple tables for the entry list. 1.144.105.189 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Contents

Now that the dust appears to have settled somewhat, I would like to initiate a constructive discussion on the entries list contents because I'm quite frankly confused by it. In previous season we'd split the entries into sections listing entries eligible for manufacturer points and entries which weren't eligible for manufacturer points. While I understand that the rules have changed and there is no longer a strict limit of two crews who can score manufacturer points per rally I do not understand why that justifies all sudden giving such undue attention to WRC2 entries on the WRC(1) articles. I mean, we now have an entire section of entries who don't appear in the results at all. Moreover the important information of who enters a rally eligible for manufacturer points and who doesn't is entirely absent even though that different eligibility still exists. For instance for the first two rallies the crews of Katsuta&Barritt, Tuohino&Hämäläinen and Bertelli&Scattolin were entered as WRC1 entries not eligible for manufacturer points as evidenced by the official entry lists[1][2]. Thus I really think we should revise the contents of this section.Tvx1 18:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The championship, i.e. World Rally Championship, is not explicitly competed by, let's say, WRC(-1) crews. It is not like WRC-2 and WRC-3 championships where both championships can be only scored by WRC-2 and WRC-3 crews repectively, while the WRC championship can be scored by WRC(-1), WRC-2, WRC-3, etc. In fact, any crews who enter the event. It is more like an "outline" championship, which means technically all crews who participate in a rally in the season should be included in the page, but that lead to undue weight. Thus we compromise a bit, deciding only WRC(-1) crews, WRC-2 crews and other crews who score points in the championship should be given a place in the entry list table.

I personally think that is a solution, but the solution I rather prefer is maintaining the original format, which works perfectly fine for the last few years, and adding Template:Further to guide readers to the WRC-2 and WRC-3 articles. This is an easier practice and makes almost no difference to the page (only adding a template), but a shortcoming is a missing of non-WRC(-1), WRC-2 and WRC-3 crews (or I should've said "gentlemen drivers"). They are unlikely to score points though. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer to return to the original format and to use the further template and footnotes to deal with entries from other categories than WRC1 scoring points. That would also allow us to re-include the now lost information on crews not eligible for manufacturers' points.Tvx1 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you changed the format to the former version. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that's the correct action. However, I do wonder whether we could add a sentence or two of prose somewhere as a compromise to explain that the WRC2 and other crews can also score points for the WRC(1) drivers and co-drivers championships, because providing the link doesn't really make that clear. Likewise I really think we should some prose to Manufacturers' championship standings to give a bit of context to the unusual regulations that make it so that only two entries can score a rally result, but all entries, albeit no more than two at the same time, can still score the bonus points from the power stage regardless of their main result in the rally.Tvx1 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Kalle Rovanperä and Jonne Halttunen

Now the Finnish pair is leading the world championships. If anyone has free works of the two, feel free to update to the Commons. We desperately need them. Appreciate it! Unnamelessness (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Arctic Rally Finland

There seems to be a bit of confusion with regards to the Arctic Rally Finland. Currently, we claim that the 2021 Arctic Rally Finland was merely an edition of the Arctic Rally, two of which we claim happened in 2021. That is incorrect. The annual national rally, which we call "Arctic Rally" and the WRC Rally were separate events. The national rally is actually called Arctic Lapland Rally, while the WRC rally was Arctic Rally Finland. These were separate organisations, each of which has its own different official site.Tvx1 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Rally1 still WRC?

This may sound like pedantry but accuracy is important, I believe the article should still use World Rally Car in place of Rally1 but this is not something I want to change given the discussions above in case I'm missing something such as a proir agreement. There is not a single mention of Rally1 in the entire sporting regulations nor do WRC.com or eWrc-Results entry lists use this term. Note A is wrong saying Rally1 is the previous name for the World Rally Car. Rally1 is a new car that will replace the World Rally Car next year - 2022. PushingPace (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Unnamelessness (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 World Rally Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've made a large prose edit, removing a fair bit of text to keep to summary style. There were also a number of grammatical issues, and I can't be sure I've caught them all - please do a thorough sweep and recheck for any English grammar issues, especially verb tense and singular-plural noun-verb matching. If you have any issues with my removals of text, just let me know here and we can discuss. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Heavy reliance on Speedcafe, Dirtfish, Autosport.com, and wrc.com. The first three are likely ok based on what I've found out, but wrc.com has a vested interest in promoting the sport, and the use of it for very high levels of detail comes across as non-neutral. It leads to the article being geared towards fans of the sport rather than being presented for a general encyclopedic reader. I will comment on this in more detail under focus. Pass (see discussion below).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See prose review for comments - removed a fair amount of material. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No notable neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A little bit of recent work but nothing that would prevent general stability. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	A large number of images with a wide variety of copyright statuses from CC0 to Public Domain. One non-copyrighted but trademarked logo, appropriately labeled. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	For so many images, there were actually no caption issues. Well-balanced and well-chosen selection. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Unnamelessness:, I've completed my first run-through of the GA review. Thank you for your patience. Take a look and please make any comments / edits accordingly - this article is close to GA and I'm sure we can get there together. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Seems good after a brief check, but I do have a little problem with the prose-reduction. I do have a feeling the prose is concise, especially the dramatic Safari round, maybe too concise though... I added a little bit of contents to make it a bit more focus. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fine, between us we can find the right balance. Are you done with your revisions (i.e. should I take another look now or wait?). Also, any comment on the 2b issue? Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Free feel to review the current version. Regarding the 2b issue, I don't really think wrc.com is that "vested interest in promotion". As long as stating facts, it should be fine. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think we're in a place that this article can pass GA. It's not perfect, and I generally disagree on the reliance on wrc.com, but GA articles don't have to be perfect and the standard is not as high as FA. Congratulations to you and anyone else who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Appreciate. I will continue to improve the article when I am not so busy someday. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)