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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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	Template:Country data Algarve Faro, Algarve	Gravel	10–12 April
5	33º Philips Rally Argentina	Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba	Gravel	3–5 May
6	59th Acropolis Rally	Template:Country data Corinthia 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)

Driver Changes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Team and Drivers Entries

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)

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
		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
		TBA	TBA
Mini (Mini John Cooper Works WRC)	Prodrive WRC Team	TBA	TBA
		TBA	TBA

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

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)

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
				3	Dani Sordo	Carlos del Barrio	0
Volkswagen Motorsport	Volkswagen	Volkswagen Polo R WRC	M	4	Sébastien Ogier	Julien Ingrassia	0
				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
				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	Rounds
Citroën	Citroën DS3 WRC	Citroën World Rally Team	M	Sébastien Loeb	Daniel Elena	0
				Khalid Al Qassimi	Marshall Clarke	0
Ford	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	Qatar M-Sport World Rally Team	M	Nasser Al-Attiyah	Giovanni Bernacchini	0

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)

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)

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)

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)

Qatar M-Sport

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Car numbers

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)