Talk:2013 World Rally Championship

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Calendar[edit]

So, I think the current calendar table is not very good. First of all, there's no reason to have one event in two rows. The empty flagicon template is also a bit odd. Also the surface shouldn't be bolded. Here's my version: (all the info may not be correct yet!)

Round	Rally name	Base	Surface	Dates	WRC2	WRC3
1	81e Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo	Valence, Rhône-Alpes	Mixed (Asphalt, snow)	16–19 January	Round 1	Round 1
2	61st Rally Sweden	Hagfors, Värmland	Snow	7–10 February
3	26º Rally Guanajuato México	León, Guanajuato	Gravel	8–10 March
4	47º Vodafone Rally de Portugal	Faro, Algarve	Gravel	10–12 April
5	33º Philips Rally Argentina	Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba	Gravel	3–5 May
6	59th Acropolis Rally	Loutraki, Corinthia	Gravel	31 May–2 June
7	10º Rally d'Italia Sardegna	Olbia, Gallura	Gravel	21–23 June
8	63rd Neste Oil Rally Finland	Jyväskylä, Keski-Suomi	Gravel	2–4 August
9	31. ADAC Rallye Deutschland	Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate	Asphalt	23–25 August
10	22nd Rally Australia	Coffs Harbour, New South Wales	Gravel	13–15 September
11	Rallye de France – Alsace 2013	Strasbourg, Alsace	Asphalt	4–6 October
12	49º Rally RACC Catalunya – Costa Daurada	Salou, Tarragona	Mixed (Asphalt, gravel)	25–27 October
13	69th Wales Rally GB	Cardiff, South Glamorgan	Gravel	15–17 November

Yes, it includes the flags of Sardinia, Catalonia and Wales (all autonomous places) to get a better idea where the rally is actually located.

For me, its ok. But We should wait 'till the final supporting calendar its defined. MNSZ (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the WRC2, 3 and J columns, largely because they'll have blank fields, which never looks good.

The reason why the calendar is spread across two rows is so that the support events can be fit into a single cell when they are added. It was felt that having individual columns for each put too much focus on the support categories, and that putting them next to each other (instead of aligning them vertically) skewed the table too much. As for the blank flagicon template, it appears that it is being used as a crude indent. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

I think you're right about the support categories, we can actually not include them at all in the main calendar. Instead we could reorder the whole page. First we have all info for the whole championship (calendar, changes, entries, standings etc.) and at the bottom of the page we have all the info for the support categories, first WRC2 (calendar, entries, standings) then WRC3 (with same stuff) and finally JWRC (with same stuff). Like in MotoGP page. Anti-lag (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To divide the calendar into the diferent sections, will be repetitive. One Calendar it's ok. I like the columns for supporting category becouse shows what round is for the supporting category, but it isn't really important. Besides that, the table fells more organized that the actual one (even without the support columns). MNSZ (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why did someone remove this new version when I added it? It still has the all same info in much neater space. I think you can see the info from this new table much more easier than the current one. If someone disagrees, you can tell it here. Anti-lag (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't have a consensus for a change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you tell me how to do that? Couldn't find myself. Anti-lag (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that it's confirmed that there will be no specific calendar for WRC-2 and WRC-3, we can drop the last columns and use this one. MNSZ (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can I add this new calendar or is there some thing that stops me to do it?

Final version would look like this:

Round	Rally name	Base	Surface	Dates
1	81ème Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo	Valence, Rhône-Alpes	Asphalt	16–19 January
2	61st Rally Sweden	Hagfors, Värmland	Snow	7–10 February
3	26º Rally Guanajuato México	León, Guanajuato	Gravel	8–10 March
4	47º Vodafone Rally de Portugal	Faro, Algarve	Gravel	10–12 April
5	33º Philips Rally Argentina	Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba	Gravel	3–5 May
6	59th Acropolis Rally	Loutraki, Corinthia	Gravel	31 May–2 June
7	10º Rally d'Italia Sardegna	Olbia, Gallura	Gravel	21–23 June
8	63rd Neste Oil Rally Finland	Jyväskylä, Keski-Suomi	Gravel	2–4 August
9	31. ADAC Rallye Deutschland	Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate	Asphalt	23–25 August
10	22nd Rally Australia	Coffs Harbour, New South Wales	Gravel	13–15 September
11	Rallye de France – Alsace 2013	Strasbourg, Alsace	Asphalt	4–6 October
12	49º Rally RACC Catalunya – Costa Daurada	Salou, Tarragona	Mixed (Asphalt, gravel)	25–27 October
13	69th Wales Rally GB	Cardiff, South Glamorgan	Gravel	15–17 November

Notes: Monte-Carlo is officially marked as Asphalt event, not Mixed. Supplementary regulations 1.2 Anti-lag (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the current table. Your proposed change is purely cosmetic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is cosmetic. Why should we have 27 rows in calendar when we can make it with 14 rows? I don't see a reason to keep WRC calendar different compared to every other motorsport calendars in Wikipedia. Anti-lag (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only cosmetic. Yes, it has the same information, but more easy to read. To me is best this way than the current table. But again, it's the same information. MNSZ (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more open to this older design of the calendar table now. The current version was introdced because I felt that the support categories tended to dominate the table, and I had to find a way to condense them down to a narrow column. Stacking them on top of one another and shaping the rest of the calendar around it worked best, but now that the support categories have been re-structured and drivers are free to choose which events they compete in, it's no longer necessary.

However, if we do re-introduce it, we would have to find the appropriate flag icons for the rally bases. For instance, Coffs Harbous should have the flag of New South Wales, not the flag of Australia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if we leave without flags on the base column? MNSZ (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs it. There's only a few troublesome flagicons, anyway, and I'm sure there's a solution for each of them.

Round	Rally name	Base	Surface	Dates
1	81ème Rallye Automobile Monte-Carlo	Valence, Rhône-Alpes	Mixed	16–19 January
2	61st Rally Sweden	Hagfors, Värmland	Snow	7–10 February
3	26º Rally Guanajuato México	León, Guanajuato	Gravel	8–10 March
4	47º Vodafone Rally de Portugal	Faro, Algarve	Gravel	10–12 April
5	33º Philips Rally Argentina	Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba	Gravel	3–5 May
6	59th Acropolis Rally	Loutraki, Corinthia	Gravel	31 May–2 June
7	10º Rally d'Italia Sardegna	Olbia, Gallura	Gravel	21–23 June
8	63rd Neste Oil Rally Finland	Jyväskylä, Keski-Suomi	Gravel	2–4 August
9	31. ADAC Rallye Deutschland	Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate	Asphalt	23–25 August
10	22nd Rally Australia	Coffs Harbour, New South Wales	Gravel	13–15 September
11	Rallye de France – Alsace 2013	Strasbourg, Alsace	Asphalt	4–6 October
12	49º Rally RACC Catalunya – Costa Daurada	Salou, Tarragona	Mixed	25–27 October
13	69th Wales Rally GB	Cardiff, South Glamorgan	Gravel	15–17 November

There's only four that we need to figure out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Changes[edit]

In the aftermath of Ford's withdrawal from the WRC, someone insists on removing Ott Tanak from the M-Sport entry on the driver table. I have explained to this person several times that they need sources to support this, and yet they have repeatedly ignored me.

The source supplied makes it clear that Tanak has a contract to drive for M-Sport in 2013. In the absence of any source contradicting this, this is what we have to include in the article. Please do not remove it until you can find an alternate source.

To the person who is removing this content from the article, if you continue to do so despite being told that you need sources, it will be considered vandalism and your edits will be reverted on sight. You may even be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have saved me the time of posting this here. I have supplied you with sources backing my edits up but you have deleted them. I have copied them from our chat and have pasted them below for everyone to see. My sources are conclusive and more recent than yours proving without doubt that my edits are correct. Since our chat I have another top level source for you, again proving I am 100% correct and have included this below. I have even picked out the key words once again as you seem to find this difficult to understand.

RE Andreas Mikkelsen - "Capito has suggested that a third could be entered for Andreas Mikkelsen" also in the words of Andreas Mikkelsen himself!... "The deal is not signed but it's very, very close"

the words in bold prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that Mikkelsen is not confirmed for next season. Also this is a more reliable third-party source reporting on an interview with the VW Motorsport boss and is a more recent story than that currently on the page. http://www.wrc.com/news/archive/capito-dont-expect-too-much-too-soon/?fid=17803 and the new source... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104064/

RE Ott Tanak "Of the potential candidates, current semi-works M-Sport drivers Evgeny Novikov and Ott Tanak..." the words in bold prove Tanak is not confirmed for next season. Also this is a more reliable third-party source reporting on an interview with the M-Sport boss and is a more recent story than the on currently on the page - please update.

http://www.wrc.com/news/archive/wilson-you-can-win-with-kids/?fid=17775

I'm sure everyone who can speak English will agree these back me up 110% but if you still insist I have not provided sources I will gladly send you links to additional websites running the stories. I am sure I can find them in other languages too if that will make it sink in for you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look. I see you've done half a job.

First of all, your sources are better this time than they were last time. That's the good news.

Now for the bad: if you want to edit that information out, then you still need to supply a source. We had a source that clearly stated that Ott Tanak had a contract to drive for M-Sport in 2013. You have removed that information, but you haven't given a reference to support it. Do I have to draw this in crayon for you? Anything and everything that you add to or subtract from the article must have a reliable source to support it. If you can't be bothered doing that, then I suggest you stop editing Wikipedia. A job isn't worth doing unless you do it properly. Between coming to me sprouting some nonsense about how it's your job to know what is happening in the WRC, waving around a bunch of unreliable sources, failing to reference the article properly once you do, posting aggressive messages on my talk page to try and keep your edits intact, and failing to redirect anyone to this talk page who might object to your edits, I'd say you've made a real mess of things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted me to reference the blanks you should've said, it sounded like you were saying I hadn't supplied any. By the way these are the exact same sources as before, just with one additional one. I've said before that I just want this to be accurate and have even agreed with a lot of stuff you have done on here in the past mate. As for unreliable sources what is wrong with Autosport and WRC? I find it hard to see how you can get more reliable than that. Where would you like me to add the source for Mikkelsen as there is not a TBA row? If you feel I have been aggressive towards you please feel free to report me to Wikipedia. For the record, I am a motoring and motorsport journalist specialising in rallying which is my passion, this is how I am so up to date on what is happening. Hopefully this is all sorted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it pretty clear in the past that if you want to make any changes to the article, then you need to add references.

And your sources are not the same as the first ones you supplied. Firstly, you referenced Paddock Talk, which is not reliable, and then you linked to The Saudi Gazette, whose articles had clearly been written off the Paddock Talk ones, thereby failing the reliability check by proxy.

I don't care if you're a motorsport journalist. It doesn't count for anything, because we only have your word for that - and on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Your edits need to comply with Wikipedia policies. We can't just take your word for it that you're a journalist and make edits based on that and that alone, because we can't prove those are true.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's editing policies before you continue making changes to any articles - and that you have a think about how you present yourself around here. Demanding that people acknowledge your contributions when you provide no sources and don't edit properly won't get you anywhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources and have always provided sources to you personally, I was unaware you had to reference blanks which is the only reason they were not added to this page. If you have a look at our talk page you will see I agreed with you about the PaddockTalk and Saudi sources which were in reference to a totally unrelated edit to the one this talk page is in regards to so I do not see why you felt the need to mention that here. I agreed to wait until they are published by more mainstream authors. I have never made any references based on my profession and have always supplied at least one online article to you personally to back up my claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Neuville

Just a quick point, I'm not convinced Thierry Neuville has been confirmed for Citroen yet. Have found this article on Autosport showing he is still in the running for the M-Sport seat. I believe Citroen are yet to confirm anything definite with Neuville as obviously they have more drivers this season with Loeb being part time and the arrival of Al-Qassimi. What do people think?

"Other possible drivers include Evgeny Novikov, Thierry Neuville and Ott Tanak."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104656 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuville can be under contract with Citroen, and M-Sport buy him out. Just because one team is considering him, that doesn't automatically invaldate the reference showing him driving for Citroen. If you want to remove Neuville from the table, you have to prove that there was no contract to begin with for 2013. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ok I see you're point. Let's wait and see what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuville has now been confirmed at M-Sport as expected. Grant1990 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team and Drivers Entries[edit]

Wouldn't be better to divide the Teams and Drivers entries to show the different rules in witch they apply?

- Manufacture Teams - WRC Teams - Mayor Entries not registered to score point.

What do you think? MNSZ (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer entries
Constructor	Team	Drivers	Co-drivers
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Citroën World Rally Team	Khalid Al Qassimi	TBA
		Mikko Hirvonen	Jarmo Lehtinen
		Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio
Volkswagen (Volkswagen Polo R WRC)	Volkswagen Motorsport	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila
Volkswagen (Volkswagen Polo R WRC)	Volkswagen Motorsport	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia
WRC Teams Entries
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Citroën Junior World Rally Team	Thierry Neuville	TBA
Ford (Ford Fiesta RS WRC)	Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	Nasser Al-Attiyah	Giovanni Bernacchini
		TBA	TBA
		TBA	TBA
Major entries not registered to score manufacturers points
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Citroën World Rally Team	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena
Hyundai (Hyundai i20 WRC)	TBA	TBA	TBA
Hyundai (Hyundai i20 WRC)	TBA	TBA	TBA
Mini (Mini John Cooper Works WRC)	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA
Mini (Mini John Cooper Works WRC)	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA

When there are more teams, would be looking better. MNSZ (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest waiting until more teams are confirmed to have joined the championship. That way, we will know where best to place some of the existing ones (I suspect Loeb will be run out of the Citroen WRT team, for instance, but I can't prove it) and if breaking the table up into three segments is needed.

Hopefully next year we will be able to include a numbers column again. This year's table was going to be a mess with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to put Manufacturer Teams ahead of WRC Teams, because they are definately more significant and should be first in the table. I have also solution for including the car numbers to the table

===Manufacturer entries===

Team	Constructor	Car	Tyre	No.	Driver	Co-driver	Rounds
Manufacturer Teams
Citroën World Rally Team	Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	2	Mikko Hirvonen	Jarmo Lehtinen	0
Citroën World Rally Team	Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	3	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	0
Volkswagen Motorsport	Volkswagen	Volkswagen Polo R WRC	M	4	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	0
Volkswagen Motorsport	Volkswagen	Volkswagen Polo R WRC	M	5	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	0
WRC Teams
Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	Ford	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	M	6	Mads Østberg	Jonas Andersson	0
Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	Ford	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	M	7	TBA	TBA	0
Citroën Junior World Rally Team	Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	M	8	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	0

===Other major entries===

Constructor	Car	Team	Tyre	Driver	Co-driver
Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	Citroën World Rally Team	M	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena
Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	Citroën World Rally Team	M	Khalid Al Qassimi	Marshall Clarke
Ford	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	M	Nasser Al-Attiyah	Giovanni Bernacchini

The numbers I have made up from my own mind but you get my idea. What do you think? Anti-lag (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that solution will be necessary. Part of the reason why we cut the numbers from this year's table was because the VW Motorsport Skodas used six or seven numbers over the course of the year, and also because a lot of the privately-entered drivers used the same numbers as each other in different rounds. Hopefully, the new system with WRC-2, -3 and J will sort that out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea in my opinion. It looks a lot clearer this way (first example) and is more informative. It would be good to have the number back but it does get awkward when they constantly change so maybe just have numbers displayed for the ones that are set for the season (manufacturer & WRC Team entries)?

I'm thinking the second option would be good, I've never really been keen on seeing them sorted by car. Another alternative could be to use the layout of the second one but have them in championship order and not split by the type of team. What do people want to go with then? Grant1990 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the system we have now works just fine. It was introduced because recent seasons have seen a high number of additional entries in WRC equipment for one or two rallies, and the idea was to streamline it to make it a little more readable. It's used on all manner of motorsport pages, including the IRC, Formula 1, DTM and even NASCAR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar M-Sport[edit]

I believe that the team and driver table should list Qatar M-Sport as being a Qatari team. Although M-Sport is a British team, the presence of Qatar as title sponsor is significant. In the past, Nasser Al-Attiyah's Qatar-backed teams have competed under a Qatari licence, even though they have been operated by French team PH Sport (who also ran Neuville's Citroen Junior car in 2012). Someone raised the point that Ford was not run under the Abu Dhabi flag when they were known as Ford Abu Dhabi a few years ago, but that was not the same team as M-Sport (even if M-Sport were running the cars; the FIA recognised them as separate teams), and since Abu Dhabi is not in Qatar and the money is not coming from the same place, the nature of the deal is inherently different. Furthermore, with Ford pulling its factory backing and Qatar having purchased the naming rights sponsorship to the team, there is more evidence that the team will run as a Qatari team than as a british one.

Therefore, I propose that Qatar M-Sport be listed under a Qatari flag given the historical precedent of Qatar World Rally Teams operating under a Qatari flag, at least until such time as an entry list is produced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can keep it with Qatari flag until we get a confirmation from somewhere. Or maybe put it like

? Last year the only entry list where we could see the teams nationalities was Rally de Españas entry list. (There you can also see for example that WRC Team MINI Portugal is Italian team because it was operated by Motorsport Italia.) Hopefully we don't have to wait that long this season. Anti-lag (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that reference, The Al-Attiyah entry is listed as Quatari (Hans Weijs entry), but run by a French team. So I think we must have the Quatari Flag for Qatar M-Sport. Other case was when we have the Munchi's Ford World Rally Team, as it was listed as an Argentinian team, but I think it was run by a team from other nationality. MNSZ (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but going back to the rally Spain entry list, is it really any different to when Ford sponsored M-Sport? The team was listed at British then and not American and that was a much more lucrative deal than the Qatar one this season. If it was down to me I'd say leave it as British until we hear otherwise as M-Sport is a British team and company whereas putting it down as Qatari is merely speculation with nothing to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is different to when Ford sponsored M-Sport - primarily because Ford is not a country.

As for your objection to listing the team as Qatari until we hear otherwise, I have already demonstrated that there is an historical precedent to Qatari-backed teams competing under a Qatari flag. This is not speculation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, Ford is not a country but it's a sponsorship deal which is all this is with Qatar. Unless you have a source article to back up your claim it is speculation. Now it's your turn to find an article to back up your points! You have to play by your own rules mate. No article = speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we have the case of the Munchi's Ford World Rally Team and Adapta World Rally Team, both run by M-Sport, but with the flags from where the principal sponsors are. Even last year Qatar World Rally Team was run by Citroën Racing, but appears as a Qatari Team. There is no article that claims this, but the antecedents are there. I think Qatar M-Sport must be listed as Qatari for the moment. MNSZ (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, it appears we have a preliminary consensus in favour of keeping it as Qatar. You're the one who needs to supply a reference if you want to change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't agree that you can change it without references but I can't but I'm too busy for warring. I will wait until the news actually comes out (so there is an actual, credible reference to support the edit) and let you change it back to GBR. It's no different to saying Citroen Total Abu Dhabi (which I'll add, I edited weeks ago but it was removed despite me providing adequate and multiple sources. And I also supplied sources showing Loeb would be part of the works team but this too was removed) should be listed as a UAE licensed team due to their sponsorship. I cannot believe what is happening with this page, at least some of your errors have been corrected today.Grant1990 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided were removed because they didn't satisfy the conditions of WP:RELIABLE. The sources currently provided do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say it ;) Grant1990 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Because Wikipedia is not a battleground. Saying something would insinuate that you think you have won something; however, nobody is keeping score. And based on a) the lack of evidence to support a certain flag and b) the historical precedent of Qatar-backed cars competing under a Qatari flag, having the Qatar flag before the entry list was announced was the right way forward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is not a battleground. I will however point out a) the lack of evidence to support a certain flag (that means you adding the Qatari flag) and b) the historical precedent of the M-Sport team competing under the British flag whatever the size, nature or nationality of their sponsor, having the British flag before the entry list was announced should've been the right way forward. I really don't see how you can demand sources from everyone else then not use them to back up your own edits especially as so many of them have turned out the be wide of the mark. We have both had our say now, the entry list has been released and the error on the page corrected so hopefully this is where we shall leave this. Grant1990 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have both had our say now, the entry list has been released and the error on the page corrected so hopefully this is where we shall leave this.

What were you saying about this not being a battleground? The fact that you felt the need to drag this up two weeks after it had been resolved just to have the final say stinks of saying "I told you so!". Lose the attitude, or don't bother editing anymore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Car numbers[edit]

Seriously what is going on here!? Who removed my update of Loeb's number? I supplied a credible source, here it is again http://www.wrc.com/news/archive/four-rounds-for-number-one-loeb/?fid=18055 and here is the quote incase you're incapable of reading "They [Loeb & Elena] will carry the number one on their Citroen DS3 WRC". This is the OFFICIAL WRC website, you can't get more credible than that. Furthermore, the champion always carries the number one in his defence year. Why was this removed? If things don't improve here I will take the matter up with Wiki Moderators! Sorry for the people that do update this page responsibly but this is getting ridiculous now! Grant1990 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the history of the document, the edit was removed because the numers and rounds are added just when the official entry list of THAT rally is out. Like, we know Loeb is going to be in Rally Argentina, but the round will be added when the Argentina Entry List is out.

Speaking of witch, when the Monte-Carlo Entry List is out (next friday 21th), should we remove the drivers that announced there participation in another round or will stay as "TBA"? Example: Mikkelsen will appear in Portugal. So, when the Monte-Carlo entry list is out, We should remove him or just maintain the "TBA" in the round column? MNSZ (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason for this, Grant, and it's not a question of a source's crediblity — generally, we don't put numbers into the table until all cars have been assigned numbers. This is something that happens at pretty much every single motorsport page on Wikipedia. Take the 2013 Formula One season page, for instance: the FIA has published a provisional entry list that includes some numbers, but only about half the grid has them. The editors there decided to wait until all of the cars had been assigned a number before adding them in - and we did the same thing on the 2012 World Rally Championship seson page. We waited until the entry list for Monte Carlo had been published before adding those numbers in (they were later removed from the table because as the season went on and drivers started using multiple numbers, it ended up making for a complex and unsightly table). The only exception to this generally takes place when teams and drivers join the championship after the first entry list has been published (in this case, Andreas Mikkelsen).

Since you're relatively new to Wikipedia, you should know that Wikipedia is not a race. Just because something happens, it's not automatically notable enough to be edited in. Knowing when to add content straight away and when to wait is an important skill to have. For instance, we know that Loeb will be #1 when he competes - but is it so critical to understanding the article that it has to be added in before any entry lists are published? The fact that Loeb will compete is the important point here; the number he uses is irrelevant. It's certainly notable enough for inclusion, but only once every single car entered in Monte Carlo has a number of its own (and, for future reference, numbers don't need to be referenced - unless that driver is changing from a number he always uses to something else, like in NASCAR). We can, of course, discuss changing the trend for this page if you think there is a strong enough case for Loeb's number to be included before any other numbers are published, but you may also want to consider bringing the matter up at WikiProject Motosport.

Also, it's my fault that that numbers column appeared. I was expecting an entry list for Monte Carlo sooner rather than later. I must have misread my source that told me entries closed on the 14th as meaning entries would be published on the 14th. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS — Going to the administrators is a last resort. You should never threaten to go to them before exhausting every avenue of discussion to resolve a situation on your own. Running straight to an adminstrator because your changes were reverted or removed without having discussed it first is considered to be very rude, and may even be interpreted as an attempt to force your preferred edits onto the page.

PPS — Made this discussion a subsection of its own, rather than just tacking it onto the end of the above discussion.

It's probably best that the column has been removed going by that then and like you said, bring it back when the first entry list is out. I added Loeb's number because I had a source confirming it, and it is a foregone conclusion, the champion carries number 1 regardless of how many rounds he competes and only the champion can use it. Also under the regulations of the WRC the lead drivers of the manufacturer teams have a set number for the season unless they change teams, which is another reason I felt it safe to add Loeb's number before the first entry list was announced.

I appologise for losing it a bit with my previous post but I was struggling to see what you wanted from me as I provided a credible source. We are both obviously very passionate about the WRC and want this page to be accurate so what do you say we discuss any changes edits here before just removing/undoing them as long as they have been added in good faith and with a solid reference? I have been very busy this month so have not been able to respond to talk page posts as quickly as usual but I will have more time now so I am confident this method will work if you are willing to go with it. Let me know what you think. Grant1990 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how Wikipedia works. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure it happens then. Just a minor point, I think we have the name of the second Citroen team slightly wrong. According to Citroen Racing on Twitter (@CitroenRacing) it should be Abu Dhabi Citroen TOTAL. The Tweet can be found here on 5 Dec (https://twitter.com/CitroenRacing) but it's not easy to pinpoint as a reference. Will probably be easier to show on the entry list in a few days and the team will probably need to be moved to the upper section of the table too. Grant1990 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the team name includes TOTAL for sure. And the team will probably score manu points also. The problem is that Al-Qassimi won't compete in Monte-Carlo if I remember right, so we have to wait till the Sweden entry list. Anti-lag (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can use Twitter as a reference, provided that it meets WP:RELIABLE. In this case, the team's official Twitter feed satisfies the conditions, so I will make the change (and add an extra slot in, because it makes clear that the car will be entered at all events, even if al'Qassimi only does eight rallies).

Secondly, when it comes to editing Wikipedia, what is true is what you can prove. If you make an edit that is properly references with a reliable source, it is true. If new information comes to light that forces that information to change, then it is also true. For instance, that Twitter reference says that Citroen will run al'Qassimi's car at all 13 rallies in 2013. However, it is entirely possible that they intended for Thierry Neuville to drive that car (it's hypothesised by someone responding to the Tweet). Now that Neuville has signed with Qatar M-Sport, the plans to run that car all 13 events may have changed - but until such time as we can prove otherwise, we have to keep the content in the article as it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I was thinking I would need to reference the actual tweet, cheers for updating. Now Sordo has been confirmed for Abu Dhabi Citroen Total for the events that Loeb does hopefully we will get confirmation with the Monte entry list as they are both due to compete. Grant1990 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the individual Tweet. The reason why we can use it as a reference is because it comes from Citroen's official Twitter feed, so anything they say there can be treated as an announcement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm following all the big names connected to the WRC so I'll be sure to use their official pages as a source if I see anything concrete. How did you reference the individual tweet just so I know for the future? Grant1990 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste the Tweet I used, then replace the content with what you have. Just be careful, though - you can't rely on Tiwtter eeds too much, even if they come from official sources. They are supplementary sources at best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WRC-2 and Group N Cup[edit]

I don't thinks that discriminate the participants in the WRC-2 as it is is the best way to go. Drivers in Subarus and Mitsubishis are also participating for the title in the championship. The Cup is only an additional (That's the way I understand it). So put them as "different" category, sounds like they are not participating in the same championship. Don't know really what would be the solution, maybe just add a reference that also there is a cup for Group N cars. Just don't feel that the icons are the best way. MNSZ (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to divide the table into two parts, like the WRC entries table. I'm mostly just experimenting with the class markers in case we want to adopt the system in the WRC table itself, for points-scoring and non-points scoring teams. I've fixed it up now to mark Group N drivers are being able to compete for both titles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been thinking about this, and I feel that it is important that we distinguish between the classes of cars being used because there are so many - there are five different ones under Group R, plus Group N and S2000. This is something that other motorsport season pages, like this one do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, here is what I see as being a neater version of the WRC table:

Constructor	Team	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Co-drivers	Class	Rounds
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	WRC	1
	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Khalid Al Qassimi	Scott Martin	WRC	TBA
	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi World Rally Team	M	TBA	Mikko Hirvonen	Jarmo Lehtinen	WRC	1
			TBA	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	WRC	1
			TBA	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	TBA	TBA
	Bryan Bouffier	M	TBA	Bryan Bouffier	Xavier Panseri	NR	1
Ford (Ford Fiesta RS WRC)	Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	M	TBA	Evgeny Novikov	Ilka Minor	WRC	1
			TBA	Mads Østberg	Jonas Andersson	WRC	1
			TBA	Nasser Al-Attiyah	Giovanni Bernacchini	TBA	TBA
	Qatar World Rally Team	M	TBA	Juho Hänninen	Tomi Tuominen	WRC	1
	Qatar World Rally Team	M	TBA	Thierry Neuville	Nicolas Gilsoul	WRC	1
	Jipocar Czech National Team	D	TBA	Martin Prokop	Michal Ernst	NR	1
	Julien Maurin	M	TBA	Julien Maurin	Nicolas Klinger	NR	1
Mini (Mini John Cooper Works WRC)	Bruno de Pianto	M	TBA	Michał Kościuszko	Maciej Szczepaniak	NR	1
	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA
	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA
Volkswagen (Volkswagen Polo R WRC)	Volkswagen Motorsport	M	TBA	Jari-Matti Latvala	Miikka Anttila	WRC	1
			TBA	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	WRC	1
			TBA	Andreas Mikkelsen	Mikko Markkula	TBA	TBA

Icon	Class
WRC	Nominated to score manufacturer points
NR	Major entry not registered to score manufacturer points

Or, alternatively, there is this:

Constructor	Team	Tyre	No.	Drivers Co-drivers	Class	Rounds
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Dani Sordo Carlos del Barrio	WRC	1
	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Khalid Al Qassimi Scott Martin	WRC	TBA
	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi World Rally Team	M	TBA	Mikko Hirvonen Jarmo Lehtinen	WRC	1
			TBA	Sébastien Loeb Daniel Elena	WRC	1
			TBA	Dani Sordo Carlos del Barrio	TBA	TBA
	Bryan Bouffier	M	TBA	Bryan Bouffier Xavier Panseri	NR	1
Ford (Ford Fiesta RS WRC)	Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	M	TBA	Evgeny Novikov Ilka Minor	WRC	1
			TBA	Mads Østberg Jonas Andersson	WRC	1
			TBA	Nasser Al-Attiyah Giovanni Bernacchini	TBA	TBA
	Qatar World Rally Team	M	TBA	Juho Hänninen Tomi Tuominen	WRC	1
	Qatar World Rally Team	M	TBA	Thierry Neuville Nicolas Gilsoul	WRC	1
	Jipocar Czech National Team	D	TBA	Martin Prokop Michal Ernst	NR	1
	Julien Maurin	M	TBA	Julien Maurin Nicolas Klinger	NR	1
Mini (Mini John Cooper Works WRC)	Bruno de Pianto	M	TBA	Michał Kościuszko Maciej Szczepaniak	NR	1
	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA	TBA TBA	TBA	TBA
	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA	TBA TBA	TBA	TBA
Volkswagen (Volkswagen Polo R WRC)	Volkswagen Motorsport	M	TBA	Jari-Matti Latvala Miikka Anttila	WRC	1
			TBA	Sébastien Ogier Julien Ingrassia	WRC	1
			TBA	Andreas Mikkelsen Mikko Markkula	TBA	TBA

Icon	Class
WRC	Nominated to score manufacturer points
NR	Major entry not registered to score manufacturer points

I think that either of them would look better than the current one. Cars nominated to score points are given the priority under each manufacturer heading; they will be arranged internally by number when numbers are released. Non-scoing cars are arranged by the number of rounds they attend, then alphabetically. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is actually pretty good IMO. For those two tables, I would go with the upper one because the latter one might become a chaos if there's for example many co-driver changes. Anti-lag (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Anti-lag. I'd forgotten about the possibility of co-driver changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one is better. Shouldn't say "M" for Manufacture more that "WRC"? Why won't we try with the 2012 teams and drivers, to see if it is too caotic than the one we are using now. MNSZ (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used "WRC" because I didn't want to create confusion with the "M" marker for Michelin tyres.

And I don't think we need to "try it out" in the article first. It's no chaotic at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use "WMC" instead of "WRC". "WRC" is not accurate since all the entrants in the table drive WRCars. And I think we should not use icons for unregistered entries, because "unregistered" is not a class. The unregistered entries are not eligible for any championship (except the Drivers' Championship, which is open to everyone), so no icon is needed. Icelan (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never used "unregistered" as a class. The specific description is "Major entry not registered to score manufacturer points", which is taken directly from the heading in the table break on the current page and could not be any more clear than it already is, short of "World Rally Car entry not registered to score manufacturer points". Perhaps the "NR" designation could be changed to something else, but I only included it on this page because I needed to describe the entry somehow.

The purpose of having the "WRC" tag is because I would like to see this system expanded into the rally report pages. Kind of like this. There have been plenty of instances in the past where cars from outer categories - like Super 2000 - have finished inside the top ten. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I might have found a solution to that. I'm just going to do a short version to save space:

Constructor	Team	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Co-drivers	Class	Rounds
Citroën (Citroën DS3 WRC)	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	WRC	1
	Abu Dhabi Citroën Total World Rally Team	M	TBA	Khalid Al Qassimi	Scott Martin	WRC	TBA
	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi World Rally Team	M	TBA	Mikko Hirvonen	Jarmo Lehtinen	WRC	1
			TBA	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	WRC	1
			TBA	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	TBA	TBA
	Bryan Bouffier	M	TBA	Bryan Bouffier	Xavier Panseri	WRC	1

Icon	Class
WRC	WRC entries nominated to score manufacturer points
WRC	Major entry not registered to score manufacturer points
Other	Major entries outside WRC class not registered to score manufacturer points

The difference now is that all WRC entries are marked "WRC" - but the background colour is difference depending on whether or not they are nominated to score manufacturer points. This should open things up in the event someone like Volkswagen want to run a Super 2000 car as a major entry again, to develop drivers like Abbring and Wiegand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in car models[edit]

Seeing the Table, I came to the doubt of what's the idea to put entries, when there are more than one car per maker. For example, there is an entrie whit a Ford Fiesta RRC, other with the Ford Fiesta S2000, and other with the new Ford Fiesta R5. How the first column will look like? MNSZ (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about we wait until that actually happens before we attempt to deal with it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, whe reach this point. Matthew Wilson is set to drive a Ford Fiesta R5, not an RRC. In this case in special, we could erase him from the table (he is set to run on the second half of the year, not before), or ad a new column, one for the maker, and other for the car. What you think? MNSZ (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can remove the class name from the first column (just write "Ford Fiesta"), and use the icons to indicate its specification. Icelan (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we also have the Mitsubishis Evo IX and Evo X, witch are the same specification. MNSZ (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was easily fixed - I just listed the car as a "Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution" because I don't think the precise model of the car is that important since they aren't substantially different to one another. They both fall into the same Group N category. Which is basically what Icelan proposed. Unless you have an alternative proposal, I think we should keep going like this.

PS - I made this part of the discussion its own subsection to save us having to scroll through everything to find the most-recent comments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentos Ascania Racing: RRC or S2000?[edit]

I cannot find a single English-language source to support the claim that Mentos Ascania Racing will use a Regional Rally Car rather than a Super 2000 Mini. Google Translate has been unable to translate any of the sources that have been given in English, so I am not satisfied that they meet WP:RELIABLE.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure if RRC is a class of rally car; as far as I am aware, it is simply a designation that Ford gave one of their Fiestas. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Okay, I've looked into this - asked around, did some digging - and it is my understanding that RRC is not a stand-alone class of car, but simply an internal name for it. Even if the manufacturer refers to the car Mentos Ascania are using as a "Mini John Cooper Works RRC", it is still classified as a Super 2000 car.

And since we can't verify the sources given claiming that Mentos Ascania will use an "RRC" car, I think we should leave it as S2000 until such time as we can prove otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RRC is a downgrade of a World Rally Car. Same engine (1.6T) with a smaller restrictor and with the S2000 bodywork.

And, as far as I'm concerned, MINI have never even build a S2000 (2.0 atmosphéric engine) car. If you open a bonnet of any modern MINI rally car, it will have an 1.6T engine there.

But I think we can put the RRC's to the S2000 category. Look the Monte-Carlo regulations 4.3 and there you'll find eligible cars for 2013 season. There the RRC and S2000 are both under the name "S2000-Rallye". But the car that Ascania Racing uses is named Mini John Cooper Works RRC for sure. Or S2000 1.6T if you want to put it that way but it equals to RRC. Anti-lag (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so concerned about the name as I am the class. Everything I have seen so far shows me that RRC cars fall into the Super 2000 class, rather than form their own, separate, stand-alone class. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers and WRC Teams[edit]

Ok, according to te 2013 wrc regulations that written in the PDF released by FIA, a Manufacturer should contest the 13 rounds of WRC with at least 2 cars and obviously they will score for the manufacturer championship. While WRC Teams, they have to take part in 7 rallies at least and one of them should be outside europe with one car at least. They will score points for manufacturer championship as well if their cars have the same homologation of cars regiesterd as manufacturers, which is the case. There is no mention of what so ever about scoring only in 7 rallies maximum. One of the main differences between manufacturers and teams is the testing days, as manufacturers have 42 days a year, while teams have only 15 days a year. 2013 WRC regulations

Another point regarding the teams enteries table, should we differentiate between enteries regiesterd as Manufacturers and enteries regiesterd as WRC Teams?

A Obeidat (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entries table already does that. Manufacturer entries have a gold WRC marker (WRC), while WRC teams have a silver marker (WRC). They're both marked "WRC" because they both enter World Rally Cars. The difference in colour is there to differentiate between the two types of entry, manufacturers and teams. It was done that way in case there are any major entries like Volkswagen entering Skoda Fabias again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok what about background color coding of the Teams cells in the table, to differentiate between manufacturer, WRC team and non major enteries? for example VW motorsport and Citroen Total, and Qatar M-sport have certain color background to tell those regiesterd as manufacturer.. Lotos, Abudhabi....etc have another color.. A Obeidat (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the gold and silver marks are for. Gold is a manufacturer team. Silver is a WRC team. Bronze is a major entry that is neither manufactuer nor WRC (like the Skodas VW entered last year). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry maybe I did not make my self clear, what I meant by WRC Team, a team that wil take part in 7 rounds at least and will score points for manufacturer, like Lotos, Qatar WRC... and non major enteries like Jipocar Czech National Team, Julien Maurin....etc A Obeidat (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are based on the priority status that the FIA gives each car. Lotos and Qatar WRT are listed as Priority-1 on the Monte Carlo entry list, the same as Volkswagen and the Citroen Total Abu Dhabi cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I try to explain these as there are lots of misunderstandings in this talk.

There are three different types of World Rally Car entries:

1) Manufacturer Teams, (marked as WRC in this article), includes Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT, Qatar M-Sport WRT and Volkswagen Motorsport. They must enter two WRC cars in every rally of the year and will score manu points from every rally they enter.

2) WRC Teams, (also marked as WRC in this article), includes at least Qatar WRT, Abu Dhabi Citroën and Lotos Team at the moment. Must nominate at least 7 rounds (= 7–13 rounds) with one or two WRC cars. They score manu points in every rally they have nominated before their campaign. Which means they can score manu points in 13 rallies if they have nominated 13 rallies.

3) Entries not scoring manu points at all, (marked as WRC in this article). In Monte-Carlo, that means Prokop, Bouffier and Maurin.

The question that A Obeidat asked was that should we seperate Manufacturer Teams and WRC Teams. Because now we have them put in together. I think we should seperate them (with different background colors again maybe?) Anti-lag (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discriminate Manufacture Entries from WRC Teams Entries an Non registered entries. That's why early on I propose to divide the table in three. Now I think the table we are using now is ok, but we should add a new color to the WRC Teams scoring Manufacture points. Other alternative could be leaving the Icons in two colors, but also put different colors to the name of the team to distinguish between the three alternatives. MNSZ (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the different background colours. That's what the gold, silver and bronze are for. Gold is a manufacturer team. Silver is a WRC team. Bronze is for any major entry that does not fall into either category. The only thing that needs changing is the wording in the table explaining each label. This is all it will take:

Icon	Class
WRC	WRC entries nominated to score manufacturer points
WRC	Major entry not registered as a manufacturer
WRC	Major entry ineligible to score manufacturer points

Bronze was originally for an entry that was not in the WRC class, like the Skodas that Volkswagen entered this year, but I think it's unlikely that that will happen in 2013, and even if they do re-appear, this new wording still covers them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think on it, the more I feel that differentiating between manufacturer teams and WRC teams is unnecessary. Both can score manufacturer points; the only difference is in the rules that determine when they can score manufacturer points. Since WRC teams can score in any rounds they participate in - as opposed to the limit of seven that I originally believed to be the case - it is possible for them to score points in every single round of the championship, provided that they take part in all thirteen rallies. This effectively makes them no different to a manufacturer team, and thus the difference is purely semantic (yes, there are other rules that define manufacturer and WRC teams, but I hardly think that the number of testing days available is pertinent to who scores and when), and the net result is that the driver table is unnecessarily complex. Thus, for the purposes of simplification, the gold and silver tags should determine who is entitled to score manufacturer points rather than the points-scoring category that they fall into, because the category of manufacturer or WRC team does not affect a team's ability to score points, and nor does it alter the points that can be scored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official Entery list for Sweden, Jarrko Nikara Team name is Jarrko Nikara, I am not sure, shall we make a new cell for him in the table or leave it as it is as we all know he is driving for Prodrive? A Obeidat (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The private drivers are usually entered with their own name because it's much cheaper not to have team's name in Entrant column. For example Jari Ketomaa is entered to Sweden with his own name allthough he's driving for Autotek Motorsport. We should have the team names if we just can prove the driver is driving for that team. Anti-lag (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, sometimes the draft Entry List shows the teams wrong. That was the case with the Loto WRT on Rally Monte-Carlo. It wasn't the same "name" in the Draft Entry List as in the final. I didn't see the Final Entry List for Rally Sweden, so that even maybe change. MNSZ (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for WRC-2, -3 and JWRC[edit]

I've decided to create separate pages for the WRC-2, -3 and JWRC. The reason for this is because the article was becoming extremely cluttered with tables, and with the Monte finishing today, there would be another two or three that get included. So I decided that this page should be for the WRC only, and the feeder series could each have their own page. There is a precedent for this: the 2013 Formula One season page does not have subsections for its support series; rather, the 2013 GP2 Series season and 2013 GP3 Series season have their own dedicated pages, so I think the move is justified. It certainly makes the page neater. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shock to me that you made such a significant change before having got a consensus. As far as I know, GP2 and GP3 are not as closely related to F1 as WRC2, 3 to WRC; they are not sanctioned by FIA and run separate races from F1. MotoGP and its feeder series, Moto2 and Moto3, are all in a single page 2013 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. The current structure of WRC season pages has existed for a few years, and I can't see a reason for changing that. Icelan (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junior categories of WRC aren't notable enough for the separate articles. I absolutely support Icelan, the old format was more appropriate. Cybervoron (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia supports being bold with your edits. This falls under that category. Furthermore, just because something has always been done one way, it doesn't means it always has to be done that way. Look, for instance at the 2011 World Rally Championship season and the 2012 World Rally Championship season pages. On the 2011 season page, we included the numbers used by each driver. On the 2012 season page, we did not include them. The reason for this was because several drivers - most notably Ogier and the Volkswagen drivers (running in Skodas) - were using different numbers at every event. Including them all made the entire table awkward to read, so we stopped using them.

Secondly, if these championships are not notable enough to have separate pages, then why does the FIA award separate titles to the drivers who win those championships? I would argue that they are more notable than the GP2 and GP3 Series, because the GP2 and GP3 champions are not known as "World GP2/GP3 Series Champion". Similarly, the winners of the MotoGP feeder series are not are not recognised as "World Moto2/Moto3 Champions" (as far as I am aware). For instance, look at Benito Guerra Jr.. He is recognised as the 2012 World Production Car Rally Champion because he won the PWRC. Likewise Craig Breen, who is recognised as the 2012 World Super 2000 Rally Champion. The drivers who compete in the WRC-2, -3 and J series are contesting a championship that is recognsied by the FIA, each ina different specification of car (or specifications that qualify under the rules). Because of this, the WRC-2, -3 and J are more than simple feeder series or support categories: they should be treated as independent championships, even if they are run concurrently to the WRC proper and are not considered to be as prestigious.

Thirdly, the argument that the WRC-2, -3 and J are not notable because they are not run separately to the WRC doesn't hold much water. Have you seen the live timing for the Monte Carlo Rally? It takes an hour and twenty minutes to get every single car into the stage, and with up to six stages a day - plus liason between stages - running them separately simply isn't possible. Though if you really want to get down to it, all of the WRC cars run through a stage, then all of the WRC-2 cars, all of the WRC-3 cars, and so on and so forth. The MotoGP page might have all three categories on the one page, but look to:

In each of these instances, we have motorsport series that has a "main" page, with pages for individual feeder series. Many of them are run by their own individual bodies that are separate from the FIA. And the only differences between those pages and this one are as follows:

1) The teams and drivers competing in each series are different — which happens here; Sebastien Loeb does not compete in the WRC-2, just as Esapekka Lappi does not contest the WRC.

2) The calendars are different — but the WRC-2, -3 and JWRC have different rules that affect which rounds drivers compete in.

3) The races are run separately to the lead series — but as I've already demonstrated, the different categories of rally championships start at different times, but physically separating them out in any more meaningful way (ie only starting WRC-2 once the WRC cars have finished a stage) is impractical, if not impossible.

4) The FIA recognises the winner of each WRC championship as a World Champion in that particular discipline — other championships have no such recognition.

Finally, many of these support series pages - most notably the Formula Renault pages - are separated out for practical reasons. It would simply be too ungainly to have every single Formula Renault 2.0 championship on one page, so they have been split. Likewise, with four separate championships under the WRC, the article would balloon out to have a dozen tables (four team and driver tables, four results tables, the manufacturers' championship table, the calendar and the rally summaries) and become cluttered. If you look at any of the Formula 1 season pages, you will see that most editors are unwilling to include more than four tables in a page (teams and drivers, season summary, and points tables), and there is a strong movement to cut that down to three tables (by getting rid of the season summary). Having an article that is simply too long and will continue to grow - as this one will - is one of the strongest arguments for splitting an article up. After all, I just cut 20,000kB out of the article to create these separate pages. That's no small amount; it accounts for about a quarter of the article.

Therefore, I believe that not only is separating the WRC championships into individual pages justified, it is more justified than in many of these other series. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern about table clutter, but I too do not agree with the split. In Monte Carlo, there were eight starters for WRC-2 and two (!) for WRC-3. World championships or not, these do not deserve their own season articles in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Furthermore, readers should not have to jump between four different articles to get information on a single WRC season. To reduce clutter, the support championships could be limited to a single table each. Prolog (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against this change. And why do you, Prisonermonkeys, say that Esapekka Lappi doesn't contest in WRC? Of course he competes and so does all the WRC-2 and WRC-3 drivers.

I have said this earlier, but the better way to do this would be reorganise the whole page. First we would have all info for regular WRC (calendar, entries, result, standings) and after them there would be WRC-2 (entries, result, standings) and then WRC-3 (entries, result, standings) and then JWRC (entries, result, standings). It would make much more sense because, as is said, those feeder category drivers compete also in the WRC. For example Sepp Wiegand just scored 8th place overall in Monte. Anti-lag (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that the four categories should be together. And I too agreed that such big change should have a consensus before doing it. For the reader looking for information, was easier with the four championships in only one page. In the 2012 season, there are 11 tables (If I'm correct, is the same quantity that will be in 2013 when the J-WRC start), and the page work just fine. MNSZ (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I completely disagree - these drivers are competing in their own categories first, and in the wider WRC second.

And eleven tables is still far, far too many. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disaggre in separate pages.--Jorjum (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a viable alternative solution, then? So far, nobody has addressed the way the FIA issues separate world championship titles for each championship, which is more than can be said of each of the examples I gave above. That alone is more than enough justification to separate the pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, there are two things: 1- There was no need for a change. 2- If you think that a change so dramatic was needed, you should propose it here before, not "just" do it.

If there where too many tables, maybe we could hide the less needed ones. Now, if we will keep the four pages, we have to make sure that they are actualized on time and "not forgotten" (like the last season of the IRC) MNSZ (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too difficult to keep them updated. We managed just fine when they were on one page; the only difference now is that you have to open up a separate tab in your browser to access the other pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what prisonermonkeys did, the article page is much more orgnised now. However, since most of you do not agree with what he did, what about have a single article for WRC2,WRC3,JWRC? A Obeidat (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't really do that. It would count as original research, because we would have to come up with a name for the article, and that name is something that would not be used outside Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the championship are divided, we should add to each page the tables for co-drivers and teams for all championships, and the production cup for the WRC-2 page. MNSZ (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with that. Anti-lag (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeb's entries[edit]

Just curious, why was my edit about Loeb's entries removed? The sky link clearly stated the four rounds he was competing in.--Josh Mertz (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed because we don't add the rounds a driver participates in until an entry list for those rounds is released. For instance, Loeb might be planning to take part in Rally Argentina, but that doesn't actually mean that he will. He might get injured and be unable to participate. Or he might change his mind and do Rally Italy instead. Or any one of a dozen other possible reasons. So we wait until an entry list is published, because then we know for sure that a driver will be entered in the event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson on Sweden[edit]

Apparently, Matthew Wilson is not Scoring Manu points (ref: http://www.wrc.com/results/2013/rally-sweden/entry-list/), but uses the car, number and entry of Nasser Al-Attiyah (who was expected to be able to score points). So I don't know if is an error of the page, or we should take Wilson out of the Manu Teams and put him with Hanninnen on the Mayor entries not registered to score manu points? On the official Entry List, still appears Al-Attiyah. Anybody has any source showing Wilson as an WRC Team Entry? MNSZ (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rally summaries[edit]

- Monte Carlo rally : "Despite beating Loeb's times on several stages, Ogier was quoted as saying ......"

A reader who didn't follow the event will understand that Ogier was fastest than Loeb on this rally, and that, if he really wanted to, he could have easily won the event, which is of course not correct. The sentence "despite beating Loeb's times" clearly ommits the obvious fact that after building a one minute margin Loeb was in control during the last two days of the rally. This phenomenon often happens in WRC.

- Rally Sweden : "Ogier took the lead of the rally early on the first day, and maintained a thirty-second lead over Loeb until..."

This sentence assumes that Ogier magically built his thirty-second margin over Loeb, but it ommits the important fact that Loeb set a bad time in the QS which resulted in a bad road position and a poor set-up choice. The next day, Loeb set approximately the same times than Ogier.

Feel free to remove what I added if in the meantime you change those summaries to be more neutral. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodada (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but pretty much all of the changes you made to the article have the same problems that you claim to be fixing. With regards to the Monte Carlo Rally, Ogier was beating Loeb's times, even when he wasn't winning the stages. You will note that Loeb only won two stages on the second day, and three stages on the final two days. As for the Rally Sweden edits, your edits imply that if not for the setup problems and poor qualifying time, Loeb would have beaten Ogier.

I'm all for making changes to articles to improve them, but please make sure you're actually fixing the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK ! The details I added are not perfect, so of course feel free to improve them. In my opinion, what should appear in the previous summaries is :

Monte Carlo ==> Loeb quickly built his one minute margin ; Ogier is very happy with his second place because Loeb does not compete for the world title ; "despite beating Loeb's times" should disappear as it is not relevant (Loeb controlled his speed with a one minute margin during days 2 and 3) and it can create confusion for readers.

Sweden ==> loeb set a bad time in the QS + poor setup choice for day 1. Of course that does not mean Loeb would have beaten Ogier but the margin would have been smaller. If you understand french, here is Loeb's feeling about that : http://www.sebastienloebracing.com/suede-etape-4-pas-de-regret-a-avoir/ Woodada (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ogier did beat Loeb's times in Monte Carlo. And as for Sweden, you are assuming that the gap from Loeb to Ogier would have been smaller if Loeb had had a better setup and qualifying position. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ogier did beat Loeb's times" ==> Yes that's true. And Novikov, Hanninen, Sordo, Bouffier, Ostberg, ... nearly everybody did beat Loeb's times. That's why, as I said, stage times are not relevant after SS4 when Loeb built his one minute and 20 sec margin. This is very common in WRC. Thus, saying "despite beating Loeb's times" assumes that Ogier was faster than Loeb on the Monte which is not correct.

"you are assuming that the gap from Loeb to Ogier would have been smaller...." ==> I am not assuming that ; LOEB is assuming that (http://www.sebastienloebracing.com/suede-etape-4-pas-de-regret-a-avoir/). For the Monte, the summary recounts what Ogier assumed during the event (beating Loeb was not part of the plan...). To be more neutral, the sweden summary should recount what Loeb assumed too. Woodada (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer's standings[edit]

This may not be the right place to ask this, but I had a question regarding the manufacturers standings. According to this article Qatar World Rally Team has run at least 2 cars in every rally so far this season but that their second car was only eligible to score manufacturers points in 4 of the 7 rally's so far. Why is that? For example why was Nasser Al-Attiyah eligible to score points in rounds 3, 6 and 7 but not in round 4? The same question applies to the Abu Dhabi Citroen World Rally Team which ran a second car in round 2 but only had one car eligible to score manufacturers points. I was under the impression that all teams that were eligible to score manufacturers points could nominate two cars to do so at each rally. Is that not true for the satellite teams? Thanks for any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.174.153 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every Team taking part in Manufacturers' championship must nominate the rallies they will score Manu points before they enter their first rally. In case of Qatar WRT, it's been before the Monte Carlo Rally. They have nominated Car 11 (Neuville) in every rally, but Car 6 (Al-Attiyah) only in selected events because he can't do all the rallies because of his other duties. Monte Carlo was nominated for Car 6 despite Al-Attiyah wasn't able to drive there, because Qatar WRT knew that Juho Hänninen will drive their car there. But they couldn't nominate all the rallies for Car 6 because they can't be sure if they have driver in every rally.

The plan for Al-Attiyah was to drive in rounds 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13. And Hänninen got round 1. But Al-Attiyah was ill in round 2 so he was replaced by Matthew Wilson. Wilson couldn't score Manu points because of the late replacement. Al-Attiyah later added round 4 to his own programme but wasn't able to score Manu points there because that round wasn't nominated before the season.

Another case, the Abu Dhabi Citroën Total WRT. They have nominated every rally for Car 10. And that is Khalid Al-Qassimi's car in most rallies. But it is given to Dani Sordo when Sébastien Loeb drives for the Citroën WRT. The problem occurred when both Al-Qassimi and Loeb wanted to drive in round 2 (Sweden). Then Sordo was just given a second car of Abu Dhabi WRT, but of course wasn't able to score Manu points because Car 14 isn't nominated for the team.

Because Car 10 is nominated for every rally, they have to sometimes find replacement drivers if Al-Qassimi nor Loeb is driving. For example in round 3 it was Chris Atkinson driving and in round 8 it will probably be Kris Meeke.Anti-lag (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. That makes sense. I wasn't aware that they nominated drivers to score points before the season and not before each rally. Thanks for the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.174.153 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Drivers' Championship[edit]

Just noticed that Co-Drivers' Championship tables have been added not only to this page, but also here and here. I don't think they are necessary, since there is very few co-drivers changes over the course of a season. It is redundant with the Drivers' Championship tables and brings one more table to pages that are already full of tables. What do you think ? Maimai009 13:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The championship for Co-Drivers is sancionated by FIA and has a champion, so I think that it's ok to be there. I really don't think that the thing is that drivers don't change co-drivers much, but we have to try to show the championships that are being running. If all the categories of the championship would be in the same page, then I would think that is too much, but as we have it now, I think it's ok. I post this theme on the talk page, and has 1 agreed and no one else commented. Do you think that we shouldn't have that table? MNSZ (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I think that table shouldn't be here. I am fully aware that it is an FIA sanctioned championship but just because something exists doesn't means it has to be reported here in Wikipedia. For instance Co-drivers championship isn't notable since it virtually matches drivers championship. Having a table for that is redundant with both the drivers championship table and the team and drivers table. To me it's just adding a table for the sake of it. Maimai009 13:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little excessive as well. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 World Rally Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]