This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying related articles on Wikipedia, including the FIA World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.World RallyWikipedia:WikiProject World RallyTemplate:WikiProject World RallyWorld Rally articles
Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
Short description: 52nd running of the World Rally Championship
As the FIA publishes the new points rules for 2024, we need to have a discussion regarding the championship table. How to orgainze? Three cells (one for Sat., one for Sun. and the other one for PS) for one event? Two cells plus a superscript? One cell plus two superscripts? Inputs are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, final rally classifications no longer count towards championship points, one can win a rally but not be first for each handout of points. Four pieces of information is too much for one table IMO.
For me:
Table 1: Final classification only, this classic information looks like any season table prior to introduction of the power stage, with gold, silver, bronze etc cells. However, technically, this does not affect the championship, but many will want to know final results across the season.
Table 2: Points awarded, not classifications. Will people care if xdriver was 6th by Saturday, 2nd on Sunday, 4th on the power stage? Possibly, but if mouseovers are accessible I would show total points per rally hiding the detail eg: 30.
On second thoughts there would be no way to classify the standings of the rally results table alone. Perhaps rally classification hiding the points: 1, or qualifying positions: 1
If mouseover/tooltip isn't suitable (mobile) perhaps next line and smaller font.
I think the version that displays the final positions as the main script and the points awarded below is probably the most transparent way of getting this information across given the somewhat contrived nature of the new system.
Agreed that final positions as the main script, but I believe consistent-wise, it should be position for all four piece of results. Also tweaked with the layout to give every orientation their own stand to avoid confusion. Example:
412 3
Sat. fourth, Sun. third, PS second, final first.
This would tell the difference between something like Sat. Sun. no.1 and Sun. PS no.1.
This looks like a puzzle to be solved, too much information in my opinion. Only the final classification matters to the rally, only the points matter to the championship. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then a stright option could be something like this:
That just obfuscates information that readers are likely to be coming to the page to try and find. I think just showing the points added up is the simplest option here that simultaneously gives the most information with the least ambiguity. If necessary the points can be listed as "13+0+2" or "0+0+4" if we don't want any confusion about how the points were awarded. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the thing I am concerned. For those crews who stand at the bottom of the standings (likely WRC2 runners), they usually finished outside of the points zone. That means a lot of "0+0+0", which adds nothing but have to keep it for the sake of consistency. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if we opte for position, I see no points to add those places which are out of the points zone, i.e. should be "2" only, rather than "13+8+2". This is consistent with the PS in the previous seasons. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a drawback of this layout is for those crews who stand at the bottom part of the championship, which usually finish outside of points zone. This means a lot of "0+0+0" to add. Pretty redundant. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the same point argument about redundancy if you add positions instead (25th+48th+32nd) to the crews at the foot of the table? I think 0 would suffice in place of 0+0+0.
Really though I think it's best to wait and see how they promote this. I wouldn't be too surprised if the whole idea was scrapped before Monte. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is this standing, as a table, should be as simple as possible, because Rally Wonk reminds me the simplicity is of vital for those general readers. The clarity and consistency could be somewhere to compensate, and should be good for those readers who want to a deep dive. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, a table like below in the rally report article could be a perfect material to add things up:
I would like to dispute on this, because on Wikipedia, major motorsport events, like F1, motoGP, Nascar, all feature with position, rather than points. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, the site wide consensus is to include race positions in overall standings and I think that breaking away from that for a season that will feature a very confusing points system will just bring more confusion. I also believe that staying within that consensus is especially important for WRC season pages, as event pages in past years have only listed group rather than overall result tables (this can lead to very odd situations like for 2023 Rally Japan a few weeks ago where Hiroki Arai in a Rally4 finished in the overall points, yet isn't mentioned anywhere on the event page). Overall I think the "18+7+4" style proposal is the best one, it is the least confusing in my opinion. Having a bunch of "0+0+0" is not a bad thing in my opinion because this is a disruptive and confusing points system and consistency will be important for understanding, especially for casual fans. SunflowerYuri (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nascar fetures a system that is far more complicated than this, and they still stick with positions, just adding with a bunch of superscripts. Based on this, I propose a layout in the above. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the odd situation of 2023 Rally Japan, I am thinking of adding a section that is specifically for points distribution. Something like this:
That still looks like a puzzle to be solved. This particular points system is convoluted and creates an issue where the points awarded don't directly correlate to finishing position, with three different ways in which points can be given. Any means of displaying how the points were awarded that uses a ranking just adds a layer of obfuscation (does this small "1" signify that the competitor was awarded eighteen points, seven points, or five points?) when compared to simply showing how many points a competitor received. What Nascar articles do is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's possible they need to improve their articles to show information more clearly, but that is a completely separate system that isn't particularly comparable to this one anyway. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a policy that works for AFD, and may not be applied here as this is just a general discussion. Anyway, I have no problem with what the final layout is, but I do have a problem with using points, rather than position. Like I said, all four pieces of results should all positions for the sake of consistency, and the consist of points can be compensated in rally articles, like I demonstrated above. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why has the ambiguity to be eliminated in this one single standings table? There are lots of ways to erase the ambiguity, and a points scoring table in the individual rally article is the perfect place to do it. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This radical new format means the opposite: rally positions mean nothing to this WRC championship, points mean little to the rallies. WRC2/3/Junior crews and those in national championships will still be scoring via the start-to-finish rally only, they won't care for this new format. So, personally I wouldn't mention these points on rally articles (unless pertinently/incidentally in text) and if anything should go from this page in the name of clarity and erasing ambiguity, it should be the final positions. It is these, that should be on the rally articles. I understand that is not consistent with the history of motorsport or how it is widely covered on Wikipedia, but that is how radical situation this is. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this "consistency" not only works for the four pieces of results, but also works along with the entire motorsport community, where the wide practice is filling in with position. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the simple reason is that the overall race/rally positions are used as tiebreakers for competitors tied on points. Tvx1 09:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming here as someone who does not follow rally (but will watch it if it is on TV), did not know about the new rally points system until 5 minutes ago. There are several points I would like to make as a complete outsider. Firstly, on the side note of NASCAR, the championship table for the 2022 NASCAR Cup Series is very confusing, I don't know if they could have made it simplier, but it is a perfect example of why chucking everything as a note is not a good idea. Secondly, the notes system proposed by unnameless is exteremely confusing, because it is not easy to tell if it is superscript or subscript when you only have the hypen next to it (i.e. you would ideally change "3" to "X3" and "3" to "X3" to make this clearer?) This is absolutly necessary for the proposal where there is a subscript before and after the letter, or 2 numbers as sub/super script. Because you end up having to guess which is which.
Having two peices of info as sub/super script is also not great because it is not immediatly clear what order it goes in. (21 3 2) What you end up having to do is guess that it goes in the order of Saturday, Sunday. This is one of those things that is obvious when you say it out loud, but not obvious when you are looking at the table. It also raises the issue of what do you do if they score points for the Sunday, but not the Saturday? Therefore, with respect to the super/sub script options I think that
12 3 4
is probably the easiest for viewers to interpret, so long as the key is sufficently clear. Even if only one or two of those numbers are present it will still be clear what each one refers to (again given the key is sufficntly clear, I again suggest my "X3" option. A concern I do have with this though, is it is not very accessiable to editors. Maybe this is something that can be templated? After that, I think that
412 3
would work for the same reason, again given a sufficently clear key. However, this option would be second to stacking the three because it looks strange visually to have one to the left and the other two to the right.
However, my prefered option by far, is:
1 13+7+4
This option is cleanest and easist to intepret. Yes, it is not ideal that we will have "0+0+2", but with any of these proposals some form of compromise is necessary, and I don't see any major problems with it. Again, a suffiently clear key is what is necessary, but given that I don't see any issues with this option.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with SSSB lastest post. Having final position and "Saturday+Sunday+PS" below (sorry editing on mobile) looks the best solution. We must take in mind this is an encyclopedia for everyone not a rally database, so someone not related with this should be able to understand this.
The other solutions looks too complex to me, a WRC fan, so how will they look to an "outsider"?
Another outsider here. I generally agree with SSSB on this. If the points need to be shown, than the 1+2+3 version makes the most sense to me as an outsider visiting to learn more.
There is no standard to rule out the use of misery image. What the image matters is to provide visual information for readers, not suggest how the mood of the people in image. Let alone that is purely POV. Anyway, I swapped with a happier image as the request. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this correct? The source has disappeared. There is an ARA rally happening in June in Chattanooga, going to be the Rally USA, is that supposed to be the demo? Rally Wonk (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake by the officials followed by nobody appealed. Maybe down to the deposit needed, maybe because nobody cares. Therefore nothing will be done. This is Wikipedia, it repeats sources not logic or sense. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today in Latvia, Lappi has reportedly retired after the final stage. With this precedent, it is probably worth waiting for confirmation of the classified results before spending effort on updating the points table. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Grégoire Munster
