Talk:2013 World Rally Championship

Calendar

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	JWRC
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)

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)

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)

Removal of drivers from table

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)

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)

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)

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)