Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Robs Lamplough

The Robert Lamplough stub lists participation in several non-championship F1 races. I can find confirmation of three: 1967 Spanish GP, retired after one lap; 1969 Madrid GP, (in an F5000) retired, 0 laps; 1971 BRDC International Trophy, retired (F5000); 1971 Jochen Rindt Gedächtnisrennen, 12th and last. The article's only cited reference is from RL himself. Can anyone come up with cites that can be added (or substituted) for his participation in any or all of the events listed? Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page there. The site I've linked to there will verify the results at all the 900 or so articles like this one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Formula_One

Is there a particular reason why this template only features two seasons or shall I just go ahead and link others in? Longwayround (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually it displays the current season, but because we are in-between seasons right now, it has the previous season and the next season displayed. So, no you do not need to link the others in. Editadam 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. Editadam 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Autódromo José Carlos Pace

The article about circuit claims the circuit was build there because the plan to build accommodations failed, but the reference article says the following:

"Sanson's ambitious project included the construction of large roads, multi sport complex and a racing circuit."

Also, I've found another, a bit longer article about the circuit and the area's history from circuit's own webpage. (written in Portuguese, Google translation can be found here, yet some sections need to be copy-pasted to Google Translator.) Here's a quote from it:

"Teria um hotel maravilhoso, praia artificial na represa e também teria o autódromo e ainda uma série de outras coisas para as pessoas morarem em Interlagos."

Google translation:

"Had a wonderful hotel, artificial beach and the dam would also have the racecourse and still a lot of other things to people they live in Interlagos."

So, I propose we start the History section like this:

"The land on which the circuit is located was originally bought in 1926 by property developers who wanted to build accommodations. They also planned to build a racing circuit there. Following difficulties partly due to the 1929 stock market crash, the project get stopped until in late 1930s it was decided to build a racing circuit. The construction of the circuit started in 1938 and the track was inaugurated in May 1940."

You can propose changes to my proposal.

Also, I think the Track Course section needs some fixing. The Wikipedia article says Arquibancadas ("Bleachers") [15] forms the end of what was once called "Cotovelo" ("Elbow") whereas that Portuguese written article says Cotovelo was former name of Bico de Pato.

"A Curva do S, de baixa velocidade, emendava na Curva do Pinheirinho porque realmente havia um par de pinheiros bem ali, ao lado da pista, e na Curva do Cotovelo, que depois virou Bico de Pato, pelo seu formato mesmo, parecido com o bico da ave, a curva mais lenta da pista. "

Google translation (needs to copy-paste):

"The S curve, slow speed, as amended at Wounded Knee Pinheirinho because I really had a couple of pine trees right there, next to the runway, and the curve of the elbow, which later became Bico de Pato, even by its shape, like the bird's beak, the slowest corner on the track."

The Portuguese article also speaks only about Curva do Café, not about a corner called Subida dos Boxes. Should we refer to that corner as Curva do Café, because Subida dos Boxes means Rise of the Pits, and that rise starts already from Junção corner.

Also, the Interlagos article claims the circuit is located in Interlagos neighbourhood whereas, to my understand, the Portuguese article says the neighbourhood in in the district of Socorro and the circuit is in the neighbourhood of Cidade Dutra. Can anyone confirm this? --August90 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport and other references

Looking at some of the articles, particularly season pages, I've noticed that we're relying on Autosport as a source a lot. They're very, very good, but I can't help but feel that we are using them entirely too much. I think we start needing to find some alternative sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport just happen to have the news up quicker than most. Also there is the fact that references to their site never suffer from link rot, unlike many other sites who regularly change without any consideration towards old links. QueenCake (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying taht we should stop using Autosport entirely - just that we should start using other sources where appropriate. For example, when Ricciardo and Vergne were announced as drivers for Toro Rosso, I put in a reference linking to The Australian instead of Autosport in the interests of spreading the sources out a little. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

BMW win credited to Sauber

The win of BMW Sauber at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners (constructors) is credited to Sauber, but should be credited to BMW. The team was a part of BMW at the time. The fact that it kept the name "Sauber" as part of the full name and that Peter Sauber later bought it back should not change this. At the time, BMW Sauber was more BMW than it was Sauber. Formion (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport/FORIX credits the win to BMW Sauber, as distinct from BMW or Sauber. However, F1.com does credit the win to Sauber. Our situation is basically down to our way of deciding if a team is a new team, or a continuation of an old one, i.e. arbitrary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Tyrrell get creditted for it's Matra wins? That might be a parrallel to establish consistency. --Falcadore (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Both the above sources (at least) credit them as separate teams. Of course by 1970 they were both on the grid competing against each other, so I guess it's easier to see them as separate teams in that sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate constructors. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

They're credited as separate teams as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

David Coulthard

I have over the last couple of days spent some time updating the David Coulthard article in order to remove what appeared to be significant WP:COPYVIOs. I have rewritten most of the text concerned but would not like to promise that significant sections of the article aren't still a close WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, there remain some sections that I've not had the will as yet to rewrite.

I have requested some assistance over at WP:CP but would also be pleased to see help from this project. Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you did forensic work on this before you started on your editing. This page has been a stable and naturally gowing entity for many years. Large parts of the material that you have identified as copyright violation are there in versions of the page as far back as 2005, and I have no doubt that with enough time to trawl a more thorough investigation would show sentences and phrases occuring on the DC Museum page that could be traced back to even earlier versions of the Wikipedia article. I have no idea when the DC Museum page was set up, but as they only claim copyright back to 2008 it would seem that their article is younger than the portions of the Wikipedia article that you think have been plagiarised from it. I think you may well be broadly correct - there is copyvio here - but it is their site violating Wikipedia's copyright, not us theirs. Pyrope 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. There was no reason to so suddenly close off the article like you did without checking the site the text was supposedly copied from is in fact younger than the article. As Pyrope pointed out, the site claims copyright to 2008, and just a casual look at the biography on that site shows how they attribute Wikipedia for some of the information they used. If they would use statistics from here for their page, it is not unreasonable to suggest (and the evidence clearly supports this) they have also copied that articles text. I'm not sure what the procedure is once someone has started an official copyright issue, but I recommend the text to be restored - keeping any rewritten portions that are better of course. QueenCake (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't do forensic work. I looked at wayback.archive.org and didn't find the site at all. This, however, is not grounds to assume that the text was not copied from the DC Museum site. Likewise, that site does claim copyright. The year specified is rather a red herring since such dates frequently do not have any relevance to the year of writing (a swift glance at the bottom of any page on The Guardian website, for example, would demonstrate this). Unfortunately, much of the text which I had thought to be a CopyVio had no source specified. I guess the key question now is: what is to be done?

Firstly, we need to establish whether the text originated with Wikipedia or with the Museum. If with the Museum then that website needs to bring itself in line with WP:REUSE. We would also in that case need to remove the references to that site as a source, reinstating the text which I may have erroneously removed and seeking reliable sources. (I've plenty of time to do this.) Longwayround (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

People claim all sorts of things all the time, whether they should or not is a different matter. I think you should take a look at this page edit, dated September 2004, which introduced a lot of the material you have identified. Note the fact that the sentence "His first season with McLaren was unremarkable..." was actually introduced even earlier, in this edit, from March 2004. Notice how the DC Museum page more closely resembles our current page, rather than these earlier pages, yet the text on the current (or rather, the December 2, 2011) page is obviously related to the earlier Wikipedia entries (albeit expanded, and with a more formal tone). Now, either somebody has been keeping the two pages synchronised down the years, or else the material on the DC Museum page is based on Wikipedia. As for your last point... xkcd has something to say. Pyrope 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern there, the text is similar and has been copied one way or the other, but I did question in this case whether immediately slamming the copyright notice in this case was the best approach. Claiming copyright does not mean they have the right to all the material, and I would disagree that the date is a red herring - The Guardian may claim copyright each year, but sites like the DC Museum that cite a range of years claim copyright from their foundation to the current year. For another more reliable point, a WHOIS query of the site shows that it was only registered in 2008 - and as has been brought up above large portions of content believed to be a copyvio dates back to 2005.

Now for me there is more than enough evidence that text originated on Wikipedia. The text will still need referencing, but the notice can be removed and the page restored. QueenCake (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Longwayround (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found alternative sources for every statement that I had previously attributed to the DC Museum. I hope you will agree that the article is significantly better-referenced now. I'm inclined to see whether my library has a copy of DC's autobiography as that ought to sort out the rest. Longwayround (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

...and in the meantime how about restoring the page? I think we've fairly firmly established that the material is not and never has been copyvio, yet the David Couthard page is still a bombsite. I'm tempted to revert to the December 2 version, and then try to integrate any references that you have identified. Any objections? Pyrope 14:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it a bomb site? I have not removed the Copyvio templates as the text "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" suggests I should not and at least one other user has suggested that the text was based on the information at the DCmuseum site. If you wish to remove the Copyvio templates, whether by reverting or simply removing them, I shall not stop you. I would, however, suggest, that removing the templates would be the least harmful of those two options. Longwayround (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The template also says "If you have just labeled this page as a potential copyright issue, please follow the instructions for filing at the bottom of the box." You did not do this so admins and copyright clerks have no way of seeing that there is a problem. As for the user who suggested that the text was based on the DC Museum site, I assume that you are referring to DH85868993? Their comments were made before QoC and I put in the legwork to establish a timeline and relative age for the two pages, and I'd be interested to see what they say now. Pyrope 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On the assumption that the "one other user" is me: It was a mistake on my part to suggest that the Wikipedia article text had been copied from the DCmuseum site, without checking for myself which existed first. Queencake and Pyrope seem to have established fairly conclusively that DCmuseum copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Which of the instructions did I not follow? Longwayround (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I see you added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 December 11. However, you don't appear to have notified any of the authors who added "copyvio" material. Had you done so you might have spotted what myself and QoC did, that most of the material had been added piecemeal and organically over a period of several years. Pyrope 23:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you really haven't looked very hard. Considering that I stated exactly which edit I suspected, it should have been fairly easy for you to find the relevant message, not that there was any need for you to go looking. Would you like me to tell you exactly which Copyright Clerk I asked for advice as well? I don't, however, think this is at all helpful. The editor who I had probably erroneously suspected has not contributed to Wikipedia since 24 April 2011. Now, if you have something constructive to state, I'm all ears. Longwayround (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you put the page back to a proper, unmutilated state? How about you check properly before you start accusing other editors of copyright violation? Pyrope 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the first question and I've not accused anybody of anything. Now, please, if you have something constructive to state, I'm all ears. Longwayround (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, a copyvio is an accusation. To say otherwise is like arresting someone is somewhow not accusing someone of a crime. However in this instance the copyvio seems to be unfounded. A restoration is a sound idea. --Falcadore (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Having come back from a break, and noticed that no admin or anyone associated with the Copyright Issues page has even glanced at this page, I've gone and restored the article myself. I know that's not meant to be the procedure, but David Coulthard's page sitting around half ruined, when we have quite reliably shown this is a false alarm is not remotely a constructive thing. Thanks Pyrope and DH for helping to establish this was not a copyright violation. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple English

As most of us here speak English, surely it wouldn't be too hard to start some articles in the Simple English Wikipedia (I "half-copied" (copied then edited massively) the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix (here)). Couldn't be too hard, now, could it? Spa-Franks (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How to cover the Enstone F1 team

With the Enstone team apparently about to change, not only its 'constructor' name, but its team name too, we need to seriously consider how we handle it in our articles.

The last time this team changed its 'constructor' name (from Benetton to Renault) its new life and history was shoe-horned into the Renault F1 article, as if it was somehow related (in anything but name) to the previous team to use "Renault" as its 'constructor' name. So are we now going to tack it onto the end of the Team Lotus (current) article (the previous user of "Lotus" as their 'constructor' name, or even the Team Lotus article, the original user of that 'constructor' name? I hope not.

This team is the same underlying team that started life with a 'constructor' name of Toleman, then changed it to Benetton, then to Renault and now to Lotus.

As I see it, there are two logical options to ensure consisency with other team articles (c.f. the other teams that just have, or are about to, change their team names and 'constructor' names):

1. Create one new article as a merger of the Toleman, Benetton and appropriate portion of the Renault F1 article and cover in it the whole history of this team. Its name could be "Lotus F1 Team", or whatever the teams official name becomes for the new season.
2. Create two new articles: to follow the pattern of the Toleman and Benetton articles. One called "Renault in F1", or whatever, to split out content from the Renault F1 article into - the content that doesn't relate to the Enstone team, and be an umbrella article for all the Renault complexities. Then strip Renault F1 down to cover just the Enstone team's Renault days. And create another new article called "Lotus F1 Team", to cover the team under Genii/Lotus ownership. That would also allow another article "Lotus in F1" to cover all the Lotus complexities.

My preference is option 2. -- de Facto (talk). 13:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I recently explained my opinion on this in a topic above. I don't see need to have articles for both Renault in F1 and "Enstone Renault". E.g. BMW Sauber is a only section in BMW in Formula One article. The company history (e.g. ownership changes and biggest achievements) can shortly be described in Lotus F1 Team article. The Renault in F1 article can have separate sections for Equipe Renault and Renault F1 Team. I think the '11 season is the biggest issue, was it part of Renault's or Lotus's history? --August90 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

August90, logically then, you would favour adding the teams new life under Lotus into the old Team Lotus article - and not creating a new article for it - as that's what happened with the team under Renault? -- de Facto (talk). 13:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault and Lotus are a bit different cases. I really think Renault F1 Team should have had (but not anymore) a separate article, as it was a separate company to Equipe Renault. That's what I think about Lotus F1 Team, as well as about Mercedes GP. But, once those teams have left F1, I don't see a reason why their history couldn't be explained in an article that tells about mother company's F1 activities, also as an engine supplier, or even as a sponsor. Also, adding Lotus F1 Team to Team Lotus's article is a bit problematic because the current team is Group Lotus's, whereas Team Lotus was a separate entity that, even in the days of original Team Lotus, had different owners than GL. --August90 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Now explain me why ownership by X or Y is so decivise and important, more important than name of constructor! If so, then create separate articles: Brabham (Brabham era), Brabham (Tauranac era), Brabham (Ecclestone era) etc. By the way I hope idea of merging Toleman, Benetton and Renault is only bad joke. Yurek88 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'merge' scenario would give a more consistent set of articles than we currently have. However, I believe that the better solution to achieve consistency would be to split-out a "Renault in F1" article from the "Renault F1" article and creating a new "Lotus F1 Team" article. Leaving us with four articles covering the history of the Enstone team (Tolman, Benetton, Renault F1 and Lotus F1 Team) and a new umbrella article for the Renault Factory involvement. -- de Facto (talk). 14:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault F1 Team can be a section of Renault in F1, just like BMW Sauber I've already mentioned. Renault F1 Team could be a redirect to that section, just like BMW Sauber is a redirect to a section of article. That's why I don't think we need a separate article for Renault F1 Team, only a section. --August90 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a simple solution to this. The Renault F1 article can cover both constructors known as Renault, as it currently does (in the same way as Mercedes GP and Honda Racing F1 do). The create a new article called Lotus F1 for 2012 onwards. - mspete93 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think withdrawn car manufacturies articles should be renamed in style "(Manufacturer) in Formula One", if those manufacturies have had multiple own teams, or have been engine suppliers, like Renault, Honda, and Mercedes. I doubt Honda teams have always been known as Honda Racing F1, and they didn't supply engines with that name. So, I'd move Honda Racing F1 to Honda in Formula One. --August90 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, to be honest, I dont understand what you are solving here, guys. It is pretty simple. Lotus in 2012 season will be the same come-back as Alfa Romeo (1950-1951 and then 1979-1985) or Mercedes Benz (1954-1955 and then since 2010) or Honda (1964-1968 and then 2006-2008) or Renault (1977-1985 and then 2002-2011) did. Therefore there is no need to speculate about the creation of new article which would refer to new Lotus team in 2012 season. It would be the best to continue in the article about old Chapman's Lotus team such as it is done in articles about Alfa Romeo or Mercedes or Honda in F1. The change of owner is also irrelevant. For example, some teams, Ligier or Minardi, also changed their owners (Ligier's ownership shifted from Guy Ligier to Flavio Briatore, Minardi's ownership shifted from Giancarlo Minardi to Paul Stoddart), and despite of this fact, there is only one article referring to Ligier or Minardi respectively here on wikipedia. If Kimi Raikonnen win a race during 2012 season, it will be the 80th win for Lotus as F1 constructor, the first win since Ayrton Senna's win at 1987 Detroit Grand Prix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case at all. The team formerly known as Renault will be called Lotus as per Lotus Cars or Group Lotus, which has very little to do with Team Lotus. Just because it has the same constructor name does not mean it's a continuation of Team Lotus. They're not pretending that it is, either. I doubt very much whether any reliable source will treat this team as a continuation of Team Lotus. Even if it were, we wouldn't continue its history in the same article for the same reasons as we didn't do so with Tony Fernandes' shitboxes over the last couple of years - they even pretended to be a continuation of the original team, and we still had a separate article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to question your claims. You wrote: "Just because it has the same constructor name does not mean it's a continuation of Team Lotus." This assertion I could use referring to the article about Renault F1. What has current Renault F1 team to do with French company Renault apart from just the same name (engine supply is irrelevant in this case) ?? In 2011 season, French company Renault had no involvement in the F1 team bearing name "Renault", and despite of this fact, here on wikipedia is only one article referring to the Renault team in F1 during whole period from 1977 to 2011, and statistically also the results and achievements achieved by current Renault F1 team in 2011 season are automatically counted to the previous Renault results during period from 1977 to 2010.

What has current Renault F1 team competed in 2011 season shared with "old" Renault team which competed during 1977-1985 ? Renault F1 team 1977-1985 Nationality: French (holding french licence) Based in: France Owned by: Renault (100%)

Renault F1 team in 2011 Nationality: British (holding british licence) Based in: United Kingdom (Enstone) Owned by: Genii Capital, Luxembourg based company (75%) and Lotus Cars (25%)

and despite of all these facts, here on wikipedia is still only one article about Renault F1, covering whole period 1977-2011, and statistically, results are counted together. So why shouldn't Lotus be presented on wikipedia in only one article, covering period from 1958 to 1994 and then since 2012 ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.209.91 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault F1 has been based in Enstone since 2000. The license is arbitrary, Benetton Formula moved from a British to Italian license during its lifetime. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: the Enstone team was known as as "Renault F1" from 2000 until 2010. Since the end of 2010 it's been know as "Lotus Renault GP", and it looks likely to be known as "Lotus F1 Team" shortly. -- de Facto (talk). 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I only wanted to point out that Renault team in 2011 season comparing to "old" Renault team in 1977-1985 is the same case as Lotus in 2012 season comparing to "old" Lotus team in 1958-1994. That means, different owners, different bases (HQ), in case of Renault even different nationalities, but still presented only in one article here on wikipedia. When Renault can be presented in one article covering whole period from 1977 to 2011, why Lotus not ? Why should we create a new article for Lotus in 2012 season ?

I propose to incorporate Lotus competing in 2012 season in the article about old Lotus competing 1958-1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.209.91 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The team's headquarters should play no part in comparing the old team to the new one. Teams move bases all the time, and the actual physical location of the team does not have to match the inherent nationality of the team. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless and misleading to compare the Lotus situation with the Renault situation. They are two different teams with two entirely different backgrounds. Collecting a couple of similarities and claiming we should treat them the same is no help. Why on earth would we have Team Lotus and the 2012 Lotus F1 team in the same article, and not include Fernandes' team? The lack of logic in this argument is quite spectacular. They all have the same constructor name but it's pretty clear that they are three separate teams, and should have three separate articles. We do actually want some people to understand what the hell we are talking about, after all. The real question is at what point do we decide that Lotus / Renault / Genii became distinct from the older Renault team. That's the vital point to discuss. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet and with The359. It's not the location or ownership, or the owner's nationality that is important. What I believe is important is the people, the heritage, the tradition and the lineage of the team. The current Enstone team is essentially the team that started life as Toleman, in Witney - the team that then moved to Enstone whilst known as Benetton. There will almost certainly be current team members who joined when it was Toleman. The ownership, location, name, even flag, may have changed - but it is still the same "team". This team, now using the "Lotus" name, no more belongs in the Team Lotus article than it belonged in the Renault F1 article when it was using the "Renault" name. -- de Facto (talk). 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution to all of this is fairly simple: we discontinue the pages for the current Team Lotus, Renault F1 and Virgin Racing. They will no longer be credited as receiving points, so we can't attribute results to them, even if they are the same team racing under a new name. Instead Team Lotus (current) should become Team Lotus (2011) (or possibly "Team Lotus (2010-11)"). Renault F1 should be Lotus F1, and Virgin Racing should become Marussia F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Lotus/Renault is the only team that needs a new article so far, maybe Marussia/Virgin, too. Both those teams have had ownership changes and especially Renault have been completely rebranded. Instead, for Caterham/Team Lotus this is just a name change. So, for Caterham, and maybe Marussia, I'd wait to see if Melbourne is considered to be their 1st or 39th race by reliable statistics pages.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Team after F1 is usually dropped from team names, it's a part of team's name. Renault didn't always seem to have "Team" after Renault F1, and Williams seemed to use name WilliamsF1, so I understand dropping "Team" in those cases. Also, dropping "Team" from HRT F1 is somewhat logic as HRT came from Hispania Racing Team. But, if Lotus F1 Team and Marussia F1 Team begin to use word Team even in their official logo, I don't see why it should be dropped from Wikipedia article's name. --August90 (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't just create our own standars here. If Formula 1 officially considers Lotus F1 (which is the new team's name) to be a continuation of the Benneton team. Team Lotus was the Lotus team run under Colin Chapman, not the one that is now Caterham. We' may have to wait and see if the FIA considers them a completely new team, as they did with Marussia and Virgin. If that happens, then we should make a new Lotus F1 Team article and make the Renault F1 team page into a former F1 team. Considering that they switched licenses from France to England, the second may be the case. Gaeaman787 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@August90 - that's true, the team's trading names are Marussia F1 Team, Lotus F1 team, not their full names. But we don't have the Mercedes article named Mercedes AMG Petronas GP Formula 1 team or whatever its called. Gaeaman787 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone already made an article for Caterham F1 which is seperate from the Team Lotus article. Why do we have a bunch of articles splitting up a single team's history. Personally, we should dump the Team Lotus (2011) article, since Caterham is a direct continuation of that and its still owned by Tony Fernandes. Lotus F1 is a continuation of Renault F1. What we just did is the equivalent of making an article for BMW Sauber when its Sauber F1 in 2012!.Gaeaman787 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Lotus teams

Overnight, I've seen this article (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96726) emerge, stating that all Lotus-backed teams will carry the same livery. It further suggests that Lotus F1, both Lotus ART teams and all Lotus Indycar teams (except HVM, at a sponsor's request) will receive works support: "All the works supported racing activities will be black and gold, and all the customer racing will be green and yellow or whatever," said Bahar. So perhaps we should start up a page like we do with ISR Racing and have all Lotus-supported teams on the one page. The groups operating the teams are different - ie ART Grand Prix, the former Renault F1 team, Bryan Herta Autosport - but they're all bound together by works support. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain 2011

An editor has questioned whether the (scheduled, postponed, rescheduled then eventually cancelled) 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix should be included in {{F1GP 10-19}}. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:F1GP 10-19#Bahrain '11. (I thought I'd mention the discussion here, since I thought not many people would have that template on their watchlists). DH85868993 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ITV F1 & Autosport

Just as a heads up to everyone here, the ITV F1 website went offline recently, which has unfortunately left us with a large amount of dead links on any page with references to the site. Since they don't seem to have transferred any of the content, best way to fix them is by using the Wayback Machine or finding a new source.

Also, on a better note, Autosport currently have the race reports from their magazine up for free on the website. Hope someone finds it useful :) QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Team article names

I've been wondering this for a long time, why do we drop "Team" from team names when the team's name is something like "XYZ F1 Team"? I'd understand dropping the whole "F1 Team" part better, "F1 Team", not only "Team", is almost always an addition to team's common name, like in Sauber and Force India's case. That's also the case with Lotus, Caterham, and Marussia, but Wikipedia needs a disambiguator to separate those teams from car manufacturies. But, what's wrong with "F1 Team"? Williams seems to be the only team using "F1" commercially in their name without "Team", so Williams F1 is OK for me. But I don't understand why we couldn't use the "XYZ F1 Team" form in titles if a team uses mainly that form of their name. I don't think dropping one word from the title is a huge advantage, and I don't think a Wikipedia police should be more important than using real name. E.g. Caterham seems to refer to their team mainly as Caterham F1 Team. Anyway, I think hardly nobody speaks about Lotus F1, Caterham F1, Marussia F1, and HRT F1.

I suspect the more recent articles (e.g. Marussia F1, Lotus F1, Caterham F1, HRT F1) have been so-named "for consistency" with existing articles like Renault F1 and Williams F1. But I also note that "xxx F1" is also a little more "change-proof" than "xxx F1 Team" - consider that if our Caterham article was called "Caterham F1 Team" and next year Tony Fernandes decided to rename his team to "Caterham F1 Racing" (not that he would ever do such a thing :-) then we'd probably need to rename our article too. Whereas because our article is called "Caterham F1", then we probably wouldn't need to rename it. Finally, "xxx F1" is a somewhat more "flexible" name - it can be read as "xxx F1 Team" or "xxx the F1 team" or "xxx in F1", depending on the reader's particular point of view, whilst still disambiguating the article from another potential article named "xxx". DH85868993 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, should Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 articles be moved to "Renault in Formula One" and "Honda in Formula One" in style of Alfa Romeo in Formula One, as Renault F1 Team and Honda Racing F1 Team haven't been the only names of Renault and Honda F1 teams, and they've also been only engine suppliers at times. --August90 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On your second point, yes I agree that both articles should be moved. They contain information from what was essentially two separate organisations, as well as the engine operations during those times. Also, we have a Renault Sport F1 article, that personally I would support merging back into the engine section of the Renault article. It is just copying a great deal of information - and it's more poorly written, from the current Renault F1 page. It would also be best if the Renault in Formula One article was written chronologically, rather than a mish mash of information all over the place. QueenCake (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also support the renaming of Renault F1 to "Renault in Formula One", Honda Racing F1 to "Honda in Formula One", and the merging of Renault Sport F1 into the "Renault in Formula One" article. DH85868993 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of sorting Renault F1 out, including making it chronoglogical. We do have a seperate article for Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines though - I don't know if there's a way of making Renault Sport F1 worthwile without it being a copy of what will be on the standard Renault page. - mspete93 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done on doing Renault, that page really needs it! On the subject of Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines, perhaps that article too should be merged into Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? Or possibly a better idea, we also create a "Mercedes in Formula One" page, where we can put the current operation, the engine article, and of course the Silver Arrows of the 1950s. QueenCake (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, possible. But for current teams I think it is best to use their current common name. Mind you, our article is still called Mercedes GP, when the team is now just called Mercedes AMG Petronas (F1 Team). So perhaps Mercedes in Formula One would be best. Let's not do a Prisonermonkeys and do that without getting consensus first though! - mspete93 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of "making Renault F1 chronological", I'd still like to see a distinct "Renault as an engine supplier" section, since their history as an engine supplier overlaps and intersperses their involvement as a constructor/team. I'm in two minds about merging the various Mercedes-Benz-related F1 articles; I like the idea of a single "Mercedes-Benz in Formula One" article, but the existing articles are fairly stable and non-controversial, so it might be better to leave them as they are. Having said that, if there is consensus to merge them, the off-season would be the best time to do it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's "Renault in F1" or "Lotus in F1", or whatever, I'm seeing it doesn't actually solve anything, because it just becomes an umbrella for linkouts to the "main article" under another name...& we're right back here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, the Mercedes-Benz cars in the 1930s were entered by "Daimler-Benz" rather than Mercedes. So it's not altogether clear cut. Also, if the article was "Mercedes in Formula One", you'd have to remove the 1930s as it was pre-F1. Readro (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to a few points in one post here, mspete while I do agree for a current team it may make sense to have its current name, but given that there is basically an unlimited amount of ways to put all your sponsors and variations in the current name, it will always have Mercedes and Formula One in the name. Of course there we could just call it Mercedes F1 or keep the current name, but I do think that the engine article and information on the 50s team should be on the same page. You'll also notice that currently, any link for Mercedes from a 1950s article goes straight to Mercedes GP, despite the complete lack of information on that page.

Just on making it Renault chronological, since I brought it up my main intention was just to have the old team first on the page, followed by the Enstone one. I do support keeping a separate section for the engine supplier, as it has been distinct from the actual racing team.

Also Readro, the 1930s should of course stay distinct. That's covered on the Mercedes in Motorsport page, but if we do create a new page we could provide some history of the pre-war racing. QueenCake (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, Mercedes GP is another one of those pages that has been messed up by someone's obsession with previous incarnations of teams. This is what it used to be like [1]. - mspete93 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that looks close to what I had in mind, with some expansion needed on the early team. Perhaps it would be better for the European championship results not to be included on that page, they do seem out of place since they are not Formula One results. I would do the page myself if that's what we want. QueenCake (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the entrant may have been Daimler-Benz in the 1950s as well. Worth checking I think. Readro (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Giving it a quick look, both Daimler-Benz and Mercedes-Benz seems to have been used interchangeably. On here, the entrant name seems to be Daimler-Benz, but the cars are called Mercedes! I would say that it's a technicality anyway, at this point it is the same company, and the team is mainly referred to as Mercedes. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@DH85868993: As you said Caterham F1 Team could become e.g. Caterham F1 Racing, that's not possible, "F1" in team names must always be with "Team". Anyway, I still think e.g. Caterham F1 Team would be a better title than Caterham F1.

When it comes to Renault, Honda, and Merc, as well as to Toyota, I think the article about an active team of a car manufacturer should have its common name as its article's title. In Merc's case it's a bit difficult, as usually people talk about Mercedes, but that can mean Mercedes-Benz, too. And Mercedes GP has been a commonly used name of Merc team, but they don't have anymore GP in their name. "Mercedes Formula One team" with small t might be an option, as it means the F1 team of Mercedes. And, I'd understand also "Mercedes F1", as Merc have "Formula One Team" addition in their trading name. Yet I wouldn't like it, as "Formula One Team" seems to be only a clarification in their name, just like in Red Bull Racing's logo. At the moment people seem to consider AMG as a sponsor, but if Merc team will commonly be referred as Mercedes AMG, I don't see, why we couldn't use that as the page title.

But, if there have been many incarnations of a car manufacturer's F1 team, maybe the article about the active team should contain only information about that latest incarnation, and there could be information about previous incarnations in "XYZ in Formula One" articles. That could be the case with Merc, as well as maybe with Lotus (Original team, Fernandes's team, and Enstone team) and previously Renault and Honda. I mentioned Toyota before, as I think Toyota Racing is OK because it was the only F1 team of Toyota. And, I think there can be separate articles about car manufacturies active F1 engine plants, like Renault Sport F1. --August90 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would a team not be allowed to use the title F1 Racing? What basis do you have for this apparent fact? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FOM doesn't accept teams to use "F1" without "Team". Initially Tony Fernandes wanted to call Lotus Racing as "Lotus F1 Team". But he wasn't allowed to use "Team" with "Lotus", so he wanted then to use name "Lotus F1 Racing". But he had to drop "F1", because there should've been "Team" after "F1". --August90 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not telling me where you are getting that from. The only instance I can recall was USF1 temporarily changing their name to USGPE because they were not yet a Formula One team. That however does not address the use of the term Racing over Team. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave a brief look on Augusts behalf, but I couldn't find anything stating that you must use "F1 team". However I have most definitely read that multiple times, and you'll probably notice every current team either uses "XXXX XXXXX F1 team" or leaves it out.

I don't agree with having a separate article for an active manufacturer team, and one containing all the previous incarnations. That to me defeats the point in having a "XXX in Formula One", in that it is seen as one team, with multiple periods of participation. I'll argue that readers would be interested in the entire team history, not just the current period. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Midland F1 Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Williams F1. Pyrope 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. It was User:DeFacto who removed the 1954-55 history of Mercedes from the Mercedes GP article [2]. Does anyone agree with this change? I'm almost certain that when that page was created when Mercedes bought Brawn there was an agreement here that it should include the 1954-55 stuff. - mspete93 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that change in the slightest. Looking in the archives, there's a few discussions (like here), as well as the Mercedes GP talk page having several discussions that state the idea was to have one page for both the previous and current teams. If nothing else, that previous history should be restored. QueenCake (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I deleted it, and provided a full explanation. It has nothing to do with that article which documents a team which didn't exist in that guise until 2010. That content was added by an anonymous editor in November, and with no explanation at all. It rightly belongs in the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport article, which was already summarised further down in the article in question at Mercedes GP#Mercedes Benz anyway. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You did provide your full explanation, but that was completely against what the consensus was to have a page containing the 1954-55 history and the current team. Whoever added it is irrelevant now, the content is wanted on the Mercedes GP page. If we weren't currently discussing the pages I would revert it back. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read it or even see it?

1. A summary of that unrelated and irrelevant history is already in the article once, and a wlink given to the article which (correctly) contains a fuller version of it, why add it again in another section?
2. It was added anonymously, unreferenced, with no attept to integrate it with the existing content, with no edit comment explaining why it was added and with no discussion that I could see on the talkpage. It was a textbook example of what should ordinarily be reverted. No one objected to tmy removal of it or supported its inclusion at the time - what's changed now that we can't do without such poor quality content, and where is the "consensus" supporting its addition?

-- de Facto (talk). 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The history of Mercedes' previous effort was there well before November. It was there in November 2009 - the month the team (and article) were created [3]. I apologise for not seeing your removal of it earlier - if I had I would have questioned it. But anyway, you've made it plain clear how you want these car manufacturers with multiple entries are covered. But we need to decide whether we are all happy with these changes or not. Do we want them covered (proportionately) in the same article or in seperate articles? DeFacto's current solution of almost entirely ignoring the old teams isn't satisfactory to me. Either we give them proportional coverage in the existing articles (like they used to have) or give them their own articles? - mspete93

The section we are discussing is the one that, as you scornfully pointed out above, I deleted with this edit, was added in November (2011), as I said, by an anonymous editor in this edit sequence. -- de Facto (talk). 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to deny that fact. I believed you when you said that. I was simply trying to point out that that article had since its introduction been structured with a reasonable seaction on the old Mercedes team before moving onto the acquisition of Brawn. So when I had seen that you removed it I wrongly assumed you were removing something that had been there for ages. I was probably just getting annoyed with things when I decided to point that out. I would genuinely like to apologise for that.

Can we please now move back onto whether we want:

A) Renault, Mercedes and Honda's teams to be covered in a single article each with (as near as possible) proportional coverage given to each era.

B) Renault, Mercedes and Honda to have seperate articles for both their older and newer teams.

or C) Any other consistent solution to the problem.

- mspete93 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just make a point regarding B), that back in earlier times there were no doubt other manufacuturers that made entries on more than one occasion. Alfa Romeo is one that springs to mind. - mspete93 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

mspete, firstly fair play to you for the apology and clarification of that point.

Secondly, on the way team/constructor articles are structured... As I've stated before, my preferred option was one article per 'physical team' (for want of a better term) - through its various changes of ownership, team names and constructor names, documenting its entire lifecycle. For example a 'Whitney/Enstone F1 Team' (or whatever) article documenting the progress of that 'physical team' through its Toleman, Benetton, Renault and Lotus years. I believe that a "team" transcends the boundaries of ownership and names, and to artificially declare it to be a different team because of such changes is unfair to the members of the teams involved. However, I say "was" because after observing (and participating in, to some extent) the article turmoil caused by the renaming of a few teams recently, I have had second thoughts over that. The problem appears to me to be caused by the confusing and incompatible ideal of treating the 'team/team name' and the 'constructor' as synonymous. And there is (in my opinion) an obvious solution to this... However, as this thread has rambled on and got side-tracked a bit, I'll start a new one later to clear the decks for another attempt to resolve this ongoing and timewasting issue. -- de Facto (talk). 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold text in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions

An editor has questioned the use of bold text (to indocate current drivers, teams, etc) in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#bold_text. While you're there, you may care to comment on the separate discussion further down the page at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#Too_much_British_bias. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Team article names

I've been wondering this for a long time, why do we drop "Team" from team names when the team's name is something like "XYZ F1 Team"? I'd understand dropping the whole "F1 Team" part better, "F1 Team", not only "Team", is almost always an addition to team's common name, like in Sauber and Force India's case. That's also the case with Lotus, Caterham, and Marussia, but Wikipedia needs a disambiguator to separate those teams from car manufacturies. But, what's wrong with "F1 Team"? Williams seems to be the only team using "F1" commercially in their name without "Team", so Williams F1 is OK for me. But I don't understand why we couldn't use the "XYZ F1 Team" form in titles if a team uses mainly that form of their name. I don't think dropping one word from the title is a huge advantage, and I don't think a Wikipedia police should be more important than using real name. E.g. Caterham seems to refer to their team mainly as Caterham F1 Team. Anyway, I think hardly nobody speaks about Lotus F1, Caterham F1, Marussia F1, and HRT F1.

I suspect the more recent articles (e.g. Marussia F1, Lotus F1, Caterham F1, HRT F1) have been so-named "for consistency" with existing articles like Renault F1 and Williams F1. But I also note that "xxx F1" is also a little more "change-proof" than "xxx F1 Team" - consider that if our Caterham article was called "Caterham F1 Team" and next year Tony Fernandes decided to rename his team to "Caterham F1 Racing" (not that he would ever do such a thing :-) then we'd probably need to rename our article too. Whereas because our article is called "Caterham F1", then we probably wouldn't need to rename it. Finally, "xxx F1" is a somewhat more "flexible" name - it can be read as "xxx F1 Team" or "xxx the F1 team" or "xxx in F1", depending on the reader's particular point of view, whilst still disambiguating the article from another potential article named "xxx". DH85868993 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, should Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 articles be moved to "Renault in Formula One" and "Honda in Formula One" in style of Alfa Romeo in Formula One, as Renault F1 Team and Honda Racing F1 Team haven't been the only names of Renault and Honda F1 teams, and they've also been only engine suppliers at times. --August90 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On your second point, yes I agree that both articles should be moved. They contain information from what was essentially two separate organisations, as well as the engine operations during those times. Also, we have a Renault Sport F1 article, that personally I would support merging back into the engine section of the Renault article. It is just copying a great deal of information - and it's more poorly written, from the current Renault F1 page. It would also be best if the Renault in Formula One article was written chronologically, rather than a mish mash of information all over the place. QueenCake (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also support the renaming of Renault F1 to "Renault in Formula One", Honda Racing F1 to "Honda in Formula One", and the merging of Renault Sport F1 into the "Renault in Formula One" article. DH85868993 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of sorting Renault F1 out, including making it chronoglogical. We do have a seperate article for Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines though - I don't know if there's a way of making Renault Sport F1 worthwile without it being a copy of what will be on the standard Renault page. - mspete93 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done on doing Renault, that page really needs it! On the subject of Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines, perhaps that article too should be merged into Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? Or possibly a better idea, we also create a "Mercedes in Formula One" page, where we can put the current operation, the engine article, and of course the Silver Arrows of the 1950s. QueenCake (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, possible. But for current teams I think it is best to use their current common name. Mind you, our article is still called Mercedes GP, when the team is now just called Mercedes AMG Petronas (F1 Team). So perhaps Mercedes in Formula One would be best. Let's not do a Prisonermonkeys and do that without getting consensus first though! - mspete93 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of "making Renault F1 chronological", I'd still like to see a distinct "Renault as an engine supplier" section, since their history as an engine supplier overlaps and intersperses their involvement as a constructor/team. I'm in two minds about merging the various Mercedes-Benz-related F1 articles; I like the idea of a single "Mercedes-Benz in Formula One" article, but the existing articles are fairly stable and non-controversial, so it might be better to leave them as they are. Having said that, if there is consensus to merge them, the off-season would be the best time to do it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's "Renault in F1" or "Lotus in F1", or whatever, I'm seeing it doesn't actually solve anything, because it just becomes an umbrella for linkouts to the "main article" under another name...& we're right back here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, the Mercedes-Benz cars in the 1930s were entered by "Daimler-Benz" rather than Mercedes. So it's not altogether clear cut. Also, if the article was "Mercedes in Formula One", you'd have to remove the 1930s as it was pre-F1. Readro (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to a few points in one post here, mspete while I do agree for a current team it may make sense to have its current name, but given that there is basically an unlimited amount of ways to put all your sponsors and variations in the current name, it will always have Mercedes and Formula One in the name. Of course there we could just call it Mercedes F1 or keep the current name, but I do think that the engine article and information on the 50s team should be on the same page. You'll also notice that currently, any link for Mercedes from a 1950s article goes straight to Mercedes GP, despite the complete lack of information on that page.

Just on making it Renault chronological, since I brought it up my main intention was just to have the old team first on the page, followed by the Enstone one. I do support keeping a separate section for the engine supplier, as it has been distinct from the actual racing team.

Also Readro, the 1930s should of course stay distinct. That's covered on the Mercedes in Motorsport page, but if we do create a new page we could provide some history of the pre-war racing. QueenCake (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, Mercedes GP is another one of those pages that has been messed up by someone's obsession with previous incarnations of teams. This is what it used to be like [4]. - mspete93 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that looks close to what I had in mind, with some expansion needed on the early team. Perhaps it would be better for the European championship results not to be included on that page, they do seem out of place since they are not Formula One results. I would do the page myself if that's what we want. QueenCake (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the entrant may have been Daimler-Benz in the 1950s as well. Worth checking I think. Readro (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Giving it a quick look, both Daimler-Benz and Mercedes-Benz seems to have been used interchangeably. On here, the entrant name seems to be Daimler-Benz, but the cars are called Mercedes! I would say that it's a technicality anyway, at this point it is the same company, and the team is mainly referred to as Mercedes. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@DH85868993: As you said Caterham F1 Team could become e.g. Caterham F1 Racing, that's not possible, "F1" in team names must always be with "Team". Anyway, I still think e.g. Caterham F1 Team would be a better title than Caterham F1.

When it comes to Renault, Honda, and Merc, as well as to Toyota, I think the article about an active team of a car manufacturer should have its common name as its article's title. In Merc's case it's a bit difficult, as usually people talk about Mercedes, but that can mean Mercedes-Benz, too. And Mercedes GP has been a commonly used name of Merc team, but they don't have anymore GP in their name. "Mercedes Formula One team" with small t might be an option, as it means the F1 team of Mercedes. And, I'd understand also "Mercedes F1", as Merc have "Formula One Team" addition in their trading name. Yet I wouldn't like it, as "Formula One Team" seems to be only a clarification in their name, just like in Red Bull Racing's logo. At the moment people seem to consider AMG as a sponsor, but if Merc team will commonly be referred as Mercedes AMG, I don't see, why we couldn't use that as the page title.

But, if there have been many incarnations of a car manufacturer's F1 team, maybe the article about the active team should contain only information about that latest incarnation, and there could be information about previous incarnations in "XYZ in Formula One" articles. That could be the case with Merc, as well as maybe with Lotus (Original team, Fernandes's team, and Enstone team) and previously Renault and Honda. I mentioned Toyota before, as I think Toyota Racing is OK because it was the only F1 team of Toyota. And, I think there can be separate articles about car manufacturies active F1 engine plants, like Renault Sport F1. --August90 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would a team not be allowed to use the title F1 Racing? What basis do you have for this apparent fact? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FOM doesn't accept teams to use "F1" without "Team". Initially Tony Fernandes wanted to call Lotus Racing as "Lotus F1 Team". But he wasn't allowed to use "Team" with "Lotus", so he wanted then to use name "Lotus F1 Racing". But he had to drop "F1", because there should've been "Team" after "F1". --August90 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not telling me where you are getting that from. The only instance I can recall was USF1 temporarily changing their name to USGPE because they were not yet a Formula One team. That however does not address the use of the term Racing over Team. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave a brief look on Augusts behalf, but I couldn't find anything stating that you must use "F1 team". However I have most definitely read that multiple times, and you'll probably notice every current team either uses "XXXX XXXXX F1 team" or leaves it out.

I don't agree with having a separate article for an active manufacturer team, and one containing all the previous incarnations. That to me defeats the point in having a "XXX in Formula One", in that it is seen as one team, with multiple periods of participation. I'll argue that readers would be interested in the entire team history, not just the current period. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Midland F1 Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Williams F1. Pyrope 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. It was User:DeFacto who removed the 1954-55 history of Mercedes from the Mercedes GP article [5]. Does anyone agree with this change? I'm almost certain that when that page was created when Mercedes bought Brawn there was an agreement here that it should include the 1954-55 stuff. - mspete93 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that change in the slightest. Looking in the archives, there's a few discussions (like here), as well as the Mercedes GP talk page having several discussions that state the idea was to have one page for both the previous and current teams. If nothing else, that previous history should be restored. QueenCake (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I deleted it, and provided a full explanation. It has nothing to do with that article which documents a team which didn't exist in that guise until 2010. That content was added by an anonymous editor in November, and with no explanation at all. It rightly belongs in the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport article, which was already summarised further down in the article in question at Mercedes GP#Mercedes Benz anyway. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You did provide your full explanation, but that was completely against what the consensus was to have a page containing the 1954-55 history and the current team. Whoever added it is irrelevant now, the content is wanted on the Mercedes GP page. If we weren't currently discussing the pages I would revert it back. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read it or even see it?

1. A summary of that unrelated and irrelevant history is already in the article once, and a wlink given to the article which (correctly) contains a fuller version of it, why add it again in another section?
2. It was added anonymously, unreferenced, with no attept to integrate it with the existing content, with no edit comment explaining why it was added and with no discussion that I could see on the talkpage. It was a textbook example of what should ordinarily be reverted. No one objected to tmy removal of it or supported its inclusion at the time - what's changed now that we can't do without such poor quality content, and where is the "consensus" supporting its addition?

-- de Facto (talk). 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The history of Mercedes' previous effort was there well before November. It was there in November 2009 - the month the team (and article) were created [6]. I apologise for not seeing your removal of it earlier - if I had I would have questioned it. But anyway, you've made it plain clear how you want these car manufacturers with multiple entries are covered. But we need to decide whether we are all happy with these changes or not. Do we want them covered (proportionately) in the same article or in seperate articles? DeFacto's current solution of almost entirely ignoring the old teams isn't satisfactory to me. Either we give them proportional coverage in the existing articles (like they used to have) or give them their own articles? - mspete93

The section we are discussing is the one that, as you scornfully pointed out above, I deleted with this edit, was added in November (2011), as I said, by an anonymous editor in this edit sequence. -- de Facto (talk). 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to deny that fact. I believed you when you said that. I was simply trying to point out that that article had since its introduction been structured with a reasonable seaction on the old Mercedes team before moving onto the acquisition of Brawn. So when I had seen that you removed it I wrongly assumed you were removing something that had been there for ages. I was probably just getting annoyed with things when I decided to point that out. I would genuinely like to apologise for that.

Can we please now move back onto whether we want:

A) Renault, Mercedes and Honda's teams to be covered in a single article each with (as near as possible) proportional coverage given to each era.

B) Renault, Mercedes and Honda to have seperate articles for both their older and newer teams.

or C) Any other consistent solution to the problem.

- mspete93 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just make a point regarding B), that back in earlier times there were no doubt other manufacuturers that made entries on more than one occasion. Alfa Romeo is one that springs to mind. - mspete93 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

mspete, firstly fair play to you for the apology and clarification of that point.

Secondly, on the way team/constructor articles are structured... As I've stated before, my preferred option was one article per 'physical team' (for want of a better term) - through its various changes of ownership, team names and constructor names, documenting its entire lifecycle. For example a 'Whitney/Enstone F1 Team' (or whatever) article documenting the progress of that 'physical team' through its Toleman, Benetton, Renault and Lotus years. I believe that a "team" transcends the boundaries of ownership and names, and to artificially declare it to be a different team because of such changes is unfair to the members of the teams involved. However, I say "was" because after observing (and participating in, to some extent) the article turmoil caused by the renaming of a few teams recently, I have had second thoughts over that. The problem appears to me to be caused by the confusing and incompatible ideal of treating the 'team/team name' and the 'constructor' as synonymous. And there is (in my opinion) an obvious solution to this... However, as this thread has rambled on and got side-tracked a bit, I'll start a new one later to clear the decks for another attempt to resolve this ongoing and timewasting issue. -- de Facto (talk). 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold text in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions

An editor has questioned the use of bold text (to indocate current drivers, teams, etc) in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#bold_text. While you're there, you may care to comment on the separate discussion further down the page at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#Too_much_British_bias. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding drivers to season pages

There needs to be a new way, in my opinion, of when to add drivers to the season pages because there has been a lot of debate and disagreement the past couple of years about when drivers should be added and over whether or not is is speculation. Therefore I propose this way of adding them to keep the articles up to date as well as being verifiable:

1. No drivers are added on the basis they have a contract (this is to weak a reason in my opinion). 2. Once a team confirms the driver in a press statement sometime through the year as many of the top teams do then they can be added. 3. If a team does not do this they should not be added until the official FIA list come out - the teams enter drivers into the next season and the FIA are just revealing which drivers have been entered by their teams. 4. At this stage the table should resemble the FIA list and then once teams announce a driver to be DRIVING the next year they can be added and the table will slowly fill up with drivers who are actually confirmed to be driving.

The avoids speculating by saying 'we think this driver will be driving because he has a contact' and only lists drivers who the team have confirmed to be driving with them. Colinmotox11 (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We aren't Wikinews, we deal, past-tense, with verifiable facts. We do not speculate about the future. If a driver has a contract then there will have been a press statement at some point confirming that they will drive for a team for the duration of that contract. Anything contrary to this has all the status of a bored/clueless hack/webmaster conjuring up pure speculation to fill a 500 word hole in their editorial. Look at how often Joe Saward has been wrong so far this year, and he's actually one of the more reliable of the rumour wranglers. Contracts are a definite, verifiable, legal obligation. Speculation by fans and journalists is, to put it politely, bunk. Pyrope 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Giving preference to FIA drivers lists over team announcements is fundamentally wrong. The FIA don't own and run the teams, they don't hire the drivers, they only regurgitate what information is given them by the teams concerned, they are simply not primary source. You are putting far too much emphasis on what is in the issue of driver hiring is a third party. The hiring of drivers by teams is an issue between the drivers and teams, NOT the FIA. The only time the FIA is involved is over licencing, and the table you are wishing to change makes no recognition of licences.

I had said elsewhere I might support you on this issue, but definately not on this line of reasoning. --Falcadore (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here we go ...

"1. No drivers are added on the basis they have a contract (this is to weak a reason in my opinion)."

All drivers are signed to teams with a contract. If drivers cannot be added to the table because their contract is considered invalid by the editors, then how can drivers be added to the table? The contract is proof that a driver will race for a team. If you take that away, there is no proof of them driving, and so they cannot be included.

"2. Once a team confirms the driver in a press statement sometime through the year as many of the top teams do then they can be added."

What the teams are confirming is that the driver has a contract with them - which, according to you, is insufficent to justify inclusion in the article. So what's it going to be? Either all contracts are valid or none of them are. You can't pick and choose.

"3. If a team does not do this they should not be added until the official FIA list come out - the teams enter drivers into the next season and the FIA are just revealing which drivers have been entered by their teams."

But, as has been demonstrated, the FIA entry list can be out-dated or wrong. Pedro de la Rosa was not included in the first entry list for 2012, despite the fact that he had signed a contract two weeks previously. The team were under no obligation to fill out the paperwork and register de la Rosa as one of their drivers for that preliminary entry list.

"4. At this stage the table should resemble the FIA list and then once teams announce a driver to be DRIVING the next year they can be added and the table will slowly fill up with drivers who are actually confirmed to be driving."

Consensus holds that the FIA entry list is not a viable source, simply because it is out of date. But you still haven't come up with an explanation as to why some contracts are valid and others are not.

"The avoids speculating by saying 'we think this driver will be driving because he has a contact' and only lists drivers who the team have confirmed to be driving with them."

But there is no speculation involved under the current system. A driver has a contract for a set period of time. If and when the terms of that contract change, we update the article. But we only update when that change is a certainty; if a driver is in a siuation where he may or may not drive, we cannot say one way or the other, because the situation is unclear. What we can do is prove that the driver has a contract that says he will race for that set amount of time, and that is the source we use.

It's fairly obvious what is happening here. You don't like the way the Vitaly Petrov episode was played out over at the 2012 page, and now you are trying to push through your ideas - but in doing so, you have effectively created a situation where the article contradicts itself, where some drivers can be included and others cannot be, with nothing to differentiate them except for a complicated set of rules that I still cannot understand. What you are arguing in favour of is a complicated, convoluted version of the system we already use. It offers nothing to the page whatsoever, except headaches for the editors.

I'm afraid this next bit needs to be said: this is precisely why you should not be editing Wikipedia. You clearly consider a verdict in favour of your changes to be a victory of some kind, as if you have won something, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Ever since your first edit a few weeks ago, you have created a lot of work and unnecessary arguing simply because you are trying to make changes to the page based on what your opinion of how the page should be, rather than based on the actual facts of the matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I want is for less weight to be put on driver contracts because these are the weakest source - numerous drivers have had contracts but were never going to be driving, Tonio Liuzzi, Rubens Barrichello, Kimi Raikkonen just to name some! I think, and this is agreed by many other editors is that we need the team to actually confirm them to be driving the next season as well as the contract. The teams normally put out a press release doing this but if not, the driver appearing on the FIA list is confirmation of this. Because we have seen in the past that contracts are not secure. There is absolutely no speculation in doing this. Petrov did had a contract but was not confirmed by the team to be actually driving and the team had not entered him into the preliminary drivers list.

"We do not speculate about the future" by having him in the table and him being displayed exactly the same as other drivers who have been confirmed is doing exactly this. You were basically saying 'he has a contract so we think he will be driving'. As everyone on Wikipedia says there is no rush to add information so hence it would have been better to wait until the announcement before adding anyone into the second renault seat.

Contracts mean they have a contract not that they will definitely be driving. All other drivers had a contract AND the team had said the driver would be driving, this didnt happen with Petrov. The teams release a statement saying the drivers will be actually driving and the fact they have a contract is obvious. Ok maybe we shouldnt place as much reliance on the FIA list as I had suggested but we should not be using contracts as definite proof they will be driving. History backs this up.

There is no speculation with the current system generally but with Petrov there was speculation saying he will be driving when it was not confirmed whether or not he was! There is no contradiction but Petrov was completely different to any other driver on the table. They had all been confirmed to be driving, he had not. I have said this numerous times but you seem to be misunderstanding that. My opinion of not adding drivers under the fact they have a contract is not a headache, it is actually beneficial because it stops all this arguing!

Prisonermonkeys i have to tell you that your attitude is pretty poor, you have been told a few times by other editors to not get personal and start saying things like "you shouldnt be editing on Wikipedia" this just makes you look stupid, i have never said anything like this and i was not the one starting to making a voting thing and then saying consensus in to take it out so it is going. Especially when there was not a consensus in your favour and you had placed words in peoples mouths. I have not made alot of work, that is utter rubbish, i have make edits 2 or 3 times, and apart from that all my activity has been on the talk page so please refrain from making up untruths. May I point out it was other editors who were continually taking him out and trying to start an edit war not me!

I have always tried to keep this as just a discussion about the best way to do it however you have been rude and personal because there are people trying to challenge the way it is done, this is what the talk pages are all about but you seemed to have gotten pissed off because you want it to be kept your way and resent ideas of making it better, more accurate and more verifiable whilst not speculating. Colinmotox11 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Contracts are the strongest source when talking about F1 drivers, because they're pretty much the only source. You want drivers to appear in season articles only when they are confirmed by a team, but you seem to miss something important: when a driver is confirmed by a team, it's because he has a contract. Petrov signed a contract with LRGP for both 2011 and 2012, thus belonged in the table of both the 2011 and 2012 articles. Contracts can be broken, so what ? Let's remove all the drivers until they actually race ? No. Maimai009 19:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Contracts are absolutely not the weakest source. Since Jackie Stewart quit at the end of 1973, have you ever known a driver drive without a contract? Contracts are the one single, reliable, verifiable source that we have for a professional relationship between a team and a driver. There may well have been rumours about Petrov, but that's all they were until the team made an official announcement contradicting all their previous official announcements. Boullier and Lopez both stated, on the record, during the course of the 2011 season that Petrov was their signed driver for 2012. Other drivers with contracts have failed to appear on FIA press releases yet still driven, while other drivers have appeared on FIA releases and then been dropped. As has been pointed out to you already at the 2012 season talk page, the section is titled "Signed teams and drivers", not "People we reckon might or might not be driving based on chatroom rumours and ill-informed journalistic speculation". The section is also not headed "People who will definitely be driving", so interpreting it as such isn't reasonable. With the amount of money swilling around in F1 contracts can be broken willy-nilly, it seems, yet nothing else has legal standing. The problem with your proposal is that it is self-contradictory. So we are not to add drivers even though the team made an official announcement a year ago, but we can add a driver if the team made an official announcement last week? So the table should look like the FIA list, yet you acknowledge that the FIA list has no real standing and you don't mind it being "updated" (i.e. contradicted) if a team makes an announcement? This is a complete mess. Drivers are added to the table when there is an official announcement of their contract; they are removed when there is an official announcement that the contract has been broken. Everything else is just, yes, speculation, and doesn't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia. Pyrope 19:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The FIA drivers list is just a compiled list provided without comment, justification or attribution. ?there are no quotes provided by any team personnnel and is thus significantly less notable than team announcements and only slightly more notable than if Autosport provided the list. --Falcadore (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

These guys above me have said it all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that settles it. The current system works. There is no need to change it.

Also, for the record, I am not "pissed off that I am not getting my way". I am simply pointing out that I get the distinct impression that you are treating a consensus in your favour as a victory of some kind, which is the wrong reason for editing Wikipedia. And despite your claims that you are not emotionally-invested in seeing your changed accepted, your actions speak differently. You did, after all, accuse several long-standing editors of violating WP:OWN when your first edits to the driver table were reverted. And it appears you have come here to WP:F1 to plead your case when you didn't like the outcome on the 2012 season page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair Prisonermonkeys, I invited Colinmotox to make the case the change how we went about this on the basis that some of what he said had some merit, but the moment he underpinned everything on the FIA drivers list any merit I thought he may have had went out the window. --Falcadore (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even get that far:

"1. No drivers are added on the basis they have a contract (this is to weak a reason in my opinion)."

"2. Once a team confirms the driver in a press statement sometime through the year as many of the top teams do then they can be added."

These two statements contradict one another. The first line says that contracts are not valid as a source. The second line says contracts are the only valid source. I still don't even understand why he wants to make the changes he is proposing. All I can trace it back to is the original disagreement over whether Vitaly Petrov should have been listed as a Renault driver. And looking at the changes that he made, they seemed to be based more on opinion than verifiable fact. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Falcadore what was it precisely that you thought had merit? There may have been some misunderstanding. My biggest problem is having drivers in the table that have not been confirmed to be DRIVING. The top teams confirm drivers on multi-year deals however every year confirm that they will be driving. In my opinion there is a difference between drivers who have a contract and drivers who have been confirmed to have a driving seat. Contracts are broken so in my opinion are not the best source. Prisonermonkeys - im surprised you have the audacity to say "you are treating a consensus in your favour as a victory of some kind" Who introduced tallying up opinions into a vote? You. Who then put words in other editors mouths and said they were on your side when at that stage they had not said anything on the matter? You. Who also listed editors as being for your changes when they had clearly stated further up the discussion they were for the note? You. So i dont think you can say anything on this! The only change i wanted was that drivers in the position of Petrov, where a team have announced they have yet to make a decision, are in solely because they have a contract. This is blatant speculation! Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A driver having a contract is a citable fact. Noting that a driver might or might not be actually behind the wheel of a car just because the team haven't made a formal announcement at some arbitrary point in time, and disregarding previous formal announcements on the subject, is speculation. Take a look at the word "might" in that last sentence, it's a pretty big clue that you are dealing with is speculation. The section is called "Signed teams and drivers" for a reason. Pyrope 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgin / Marussia

Any news on when this lot are officially changing their name? An editor wants to move the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well they haven't yet. And as it's still 2011, I'd say it can stay as it is for now. - mspete93 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The name change was made official at the December 7 meeting of the WMSC. Best to wait until 2012, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice we have now got Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 articles, which are both currently listed as active teams and contain the same 2012 season information. What exactly are we going to with this team? We could either rename the Virgin page to Marussia, and merge the new Marussia article back into the Virgin one, or have the Virgin Racing page for the team in 2010-11, and the Marussia page for 2012 onwards. Arguably this is a similar situation to the Midland/Spyker takeover, where the name was slightly changed with the new ownership ahead of the full rename the next season. On the other hand, the same owners do remain in place. Either way, one article needs to be the current active team, and I don't believe we ever made a decision on it. QueenCake (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was an agreement to just rename it. I'm confused. That's all we did with Caterham. Other than the constructor name the team is the same as it was in 2010, ownership and all, so I fail to understand Prisonermonkey's theory that the FIA will consider it a new team when it comes to results etc. - mspete93 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I too am missing where the FIA has specifically stated the team will be considered a new constructor. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've personally before said it should just be renamed, but I thought I would just point out some justification for having a new article. I do think it would be best to have one article - after all it's what we are doing for Caterham and that was an even more complicated situation. QueenCake (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for any misunderstanding, but I wasn't actually countering anything you said. Just what Prisonermonkeys has been up to. - mspete93 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries you did not misunderstand anything! I just gave Prisonermonkerys a note to ask about the new article, it would be best to hear his/her reasoning first before we do anything. QueenCake (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is this "just rename the page" coming from? When Honda became Brawn, and when Brawn became Mercedes, we started new pages for the both of them, even though very little about the team actually changes. It was the same with Jordan-Midland-Spyker-Force India. When a team changes their cosntructor name, all results that they score will be assigned to the new constructor. The name changes mean that Virgin no longer exists as a constructor. So I don't understand why we're simply renaming the page when we've always created a new page in the past. I know we're doing it for clarity on the Renault/Lotus and Lotus/Caterham pages, but this case is nowhere near as complicated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that a renaming automatically makes a new constructor. In which case Caterham are a new constructor and need a new article too. - mspete93 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Virgin/Marussia, Renault/Lotus and Lotus/Caterham would all be considered new constructors for the 2012 season. I have never heard of a team changing its constructor name, but retaining all of its original or previous results. I know companies like Marussia have gradually bought out teams in the past, but the reason for that is because of the Concorde Agreement, which prevents teams from (easily) changing their names and still retaining their claim to the end of year television rights pay-out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Caterham and Lotus should not be merged simply because it is easy. If we are going to be correct in renaming Renault to Lotus and Virgin to Marussia, we should do the same for Lotus and Caterham. It makes no sense to say "The FIA will not recognize these teams as the same constructor despite nothing else changing" for Marussia, while we do the exact opposite for Caterham. We need an article each for Team Lotus, Fernandes Lotus, and Renault Lotus, imho. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be terrifically dull and repeat myself yet again, but it isn't up to us to decide. We need to go by the precedent set by reliable secondary sources. If they decide to aggregate the teams' results and history then we do; if they don't, we don't. Pyrope 05:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me one historical example of the FIA aggregating a team's results and history, Pyrope. As far as I can tell, this has never happened before - not even when Spyker bought into Midland and they became known as Spyker MF1 for a few races. I don't see why they would start now, and I don't see why we should rest on our laurels because they "might" do it. In the absence of a secondary source deciding one way or the other, I think an historical precedent is more than enough to justify creating new pages. If we have to go back and merge them into others at a later date, then so be it. I created the Marussia F1 page because we have always made separate pages for separate constructors. I'm with the The359 when he says we should have one for Lotus F1 and Caterham F1, though I was hesitant to do it because I knew it might be contentious. If that means things start getting a little difficult to follow, then it falls to members of the WikiProject to make the pages clear and concise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That was precisely my point, Prisonermonkeys. You go off and find some external, secondary source that we can use as an exemplar. You do not punt your personal opinions and observations around as though they were fact, as you were doing. "I have never heard" is not a great basis for developing a convincing argument; citing precedent is. Broadly, I'm actually in agreement with you. The closest analogue I can find is how Benetton was treated. Its final two seasons, 2000 and 2001, were actually already under Renault ownership, but they are still listed with Benetton for most sources (see Autocorse GPA, for example]. Pyrope 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Marussia have a new logo - http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/273128/marussia-f1-reveals-2012-logo/ Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And what's that got to do with it? Anyway, I'm not entirely against a new page for Marussia. But as I say if we're going for a new page for Marussia, simply because they've changed their name, we need a new page for Caterham. Which again, I'm fine with. - mspete93 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong precedent here for new pages being created when the constructor name changes. I assume that trend arose because, at least in general, our sources restart the stats from zero when the constructor name changes. The Marussia and Caterham situations are fairly straightforward, but the Renault / Lotus issue might be problematic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The constructor names have changed, Breton. As of January 1st, all three teams became known by their usernames. I actually asked Keith Collantine from F1 Fanatic if he could clear the situation up, and this is what he said:

"Without wishing to get dragged into a dreary Wikipedia row, I think the FIA entry list makes it pretty clear (under the constructor column) that Virgin is now Marussia, etc…:

"http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2011/Pages/f1-entry-2012.aspx

And then of course’s there’s this:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2011/Pages/f1-names-2012.aspx

Which is also how we know that Force India will remain officially Force India and not Sahara Force India."

So I think that's enough to go by. There is no evidence that the FIA will treat the likes of Virgin and Marussia as the same constructor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see where on earth Bretonbanquet questioned whether the names have changed. They were questioning whether a change of name automatically qualifies a new article. - mspete93 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I wasn't born yesterday, Prisonermonkeys, take a look at the first post in this thread. Before Christmas, I asked when the name was changing, not if. Today I pointed out that we have a precedent for new articles for new constructors, not article moves. Hope that's a bit clearer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You just said "There is a strong precedent here for new pages being created when the constructor name changes", so I responded that the cosntructor names have changed. I don't doubt your knowledge; I was just qualifying your statement. The names have officially been changed, so new pages can be made. I was originally going to do it in December, when the WMSC approved the changes, but decided to wait until January so that there could be no doubt about when the right time to make new pages would be: the teams would be known by their new constructor names from 2012, and waiting until January means it is 2012. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I point out that your split of Caterham/Team Lotus was not done correctly. All the page history is at the 'new' article Caterham F1 yet all of the work is on the 'old' Team Lotus (2011) article. Caterham F1 should have been moved to Team Lotus (2011) and then the new article created at Caterham F1. Not sure that using (2011) is right for a team that competed in both 2010 and 2011. Perhaps using Lotus Racing would be the best disambiguator? - mspete93 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I've now fixed that, with the 2010-11 team article now found at Team Lotus (2010–11) with its rightful page history almost intact, and Caterham now having a new article at Caterham F1. - mspete93 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to miss most of the discussion after bringing it up here, but I take it then we have settled on having new articles for Lotus, Caterham and Marussia? Renault to Lotus certainly needed a new article (new owners, new team, new name) but I was perfectly fine with having Fernandes' team and Booth's kept on the same page (since it was only a name in their case). Still I can see the reasoning for a split, so if that's what we are settling with then I'm ok with it.

I do think in future Prisonermonkeys it would be far more constructive to bring a renaming matter up here first, at least so the relevant articles can all be properly updated and changed. QueenCake (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not "only the name" that changed. Marussia bought a controlling stake in Virgin, and we have sources to back it up. Besides, the FIA will credit Marussia's results to Marussia and Caterham's results to Caterham. I don't understand why this is suddenly up for debate - the FIA has never considered a one team to be a continuation of another. Not even when Spyker bought into Midland for the last few races of 2006. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, seeing as you keep referring to them. Where exactly do the FIA publish these results stats of theirs? - mspete93 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of each race. The final classification is shown. If the results were to be credited to Virgin, then the team would be listed as "Virgin-Cosworth" rather than "Marussia-Cosworth". Since you're questioning where I'm getting this from, allow me to post a question of my own what evidence is there that the FIA will consider each of these three teams as continuations of their old forms rather than entirely new ones? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when is the FIA responsible for the statistics of teams over various years? It's only Formula One and various publications that keep these stats. As far as the FIA is concerned, they simply deem the names utilized by the constructors, but they make no statement about their continuation in terms of statistics. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Then show me evidence of where we do it. Jordan, Midland, Spyker and Force India all have their own separate articles - despite being the same team competing under a different name four years in a row. Even when Spyker bought Midland for the 2006 Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Brazilian Grands Prix - not unlike Marussia buying a controlling stake in Virgin and renaming the team later - we still had separate articles for each. Honda, Brawn and Mercedes have separate articles, despite changing their name three times in as many years. So where is this idea that we should treat Virgin/Marussia, Renault/Lotus and Lotus/Caterham as needing collective articles coming from? The way I see it, if you group Virgin/Marussia, Renault/Lotus and Lotus/Caterham together, then you need to merge Jordan/Midland/Spyker/Force India and Honda/Brawn/Mercedes and even Stewart/Jaguar/Red Bull together. If we set this new standard, then we need to apply it to all teams. You said it yourself:

It makes no sense to say "The FIA will not recognize these teams as the same constructor despite nothing else changing" for Marussia, while we do the exact opposite for Caterham.

If we can't have differences between how we treat Virgin/Marussia and Lotus/Caterham, why can we have differences in how we treat Virgin/Marussia and Jordan/Midland/Spyker/Force India? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the FIA will treat them as the same. My point was that you keep referring to the FIA treating them separately when it comes to statistics, yet the FIA don't do statistics over time. Just the annual championship points. Which don't prove what the FIA thinks about it at all. So stop saying the FIA will do this or the FIA will do that. Because there is no proof of what the FIA thinks. - mspete93 11:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys over this, and would develp the argument one step further. I believe that the Renault F1 article should have the content covering Renault's ownership of the former Toleman/Benetton team split out into a separate article too. Because, although that team used the 'Renault' constructor name for a few years of its history, it had nothing else in common with the original 1977 Renault team and remained as a separate entity even when under the umbrella of the Renault organisation, and is indeed now independent of them again. Having the Enstone team content within the Renault F1 article, simply because the Renault constructor name was used by it for that period, is like merging the Team Lotus, Team Lotus (2010–11) and Lotus F1 articles together into one because they all used the same constructor name. -- de Facto (talk). 09:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. The two Renault teams were both Renault factory teams. (Just because it was at your seemingly beloved Enstone, and not Paris, it doesn't stop it from being Renault.) Lotus is a far more complex situation. - mspete93 11:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Renault had nothing more than temporary guardianship of the Enstone team. It never became an inherent part of Renault (physically, culturally or otherwise), and is now under the guardianship of another company. As its various reincarnations are apparently to be documented in different articles (and I'd possibly support putting them all into just one), then it makes no sense to tangle up one of its periods with the clutter of what should be the "Renault in F1" article. It could then be referred to as a 'main article' from the "Renault in F1" article and other possible future articles unrelated to the other activities of Renault. -- de Facto (talk). 12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is it makes no sense to have the 'Renault F1 Team' documented in the Renault in F1 article? Yeeaahh, ok. - mspete93 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pete, would you advocate documenting all of the activities of all of a company's subsidiaries in the parent company article? What about BMW's subsidiary, Rolls Royce, should its article be merged into the BMW article? After Renault acquired Benetton Formula Limited (and renamed it to Renault F1 Limited) it became a subsidiary (and not a division) of Renault (as RR is of BMW). What about the period when Renault no longer owned a majority stake in the team and it was renamed from "Renault F1" to "Lotus Renault GP" - which article should that be documented in? -- de Facto (talk). 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying merge Renault F1 into Renault though was I? I was saying have Renault F1 in Renault in F1, which makes complete sense surely? Have Renault's F1 team in the article about Renault's F1 involvement. - mspete93 13:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing to me. The Enstone team has no relationship with the 1977 Renault F1 team, or the engine team, so why document them in the same article? Just like RR has no relationship with, say, MINI, and so isn't documented alongside it in a clumbsy "BMW in Automobiles" article. -- de Facto (talk). 13:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just stupid to make a comparison like that. Now, I wouldn't actually be too against an article for Renault 77-85 and an article for Renault 02-11 (if that's what consensus wanted - it wouldn't be my preference for various reasons). But, that doesn't seem to be what you are suggesting? You're suggesting having an article about Renault's F1 involvement and then leaving its double world championship winning team out of it. And presumably you want the same done for Honda and Mercedes, which are also examples of car manufacturers returning to F1 by buying a British-based team? (This is starting to tie in with the discussion below.) - mspete93 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Where would you document the activities of "Lotus Renault GP", the 2011 team which had nothing to do with "Renault F1"? -- de Facto (talk). 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

With Renault F1. Which I'm sure is what almost all other sources would do too. - mspete93 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think it bizarre for a team which isn't called "Renault F1" and which isn't owned by Renault to be documented in the "Reanault F1" article? Would you advocate documenting the details of the Manchester City soccer team in the Manchester United article? -- de Facto (talk). 19:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really, given that the constructor was Renault. Your analogy is ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're going for stupid irrelevant football-related analogies, would you have separate articles for Manchester United under Glazer ownership and prior to Glazer ownership? No, that's right...it doesn't matter! - mspete93 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A new article for the same old team, but under new ownership would be plain silly. What would be even sillier would be to merge it into an article about another team run previously by the new owner... -- de Facto (talk). 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My proposal for this whole situation is to split Renault into Equipe Renault (the team from the 70s) and Renault in F1 (2002 team). With all of the splitting talk, the main issue here is that all the teams are under the same ownership. Formula 1 doesn't list the team as being completely new, and considering that we actually don't know what the FIA considers a new team. Also, Caterham and Marussia aren't counted as completely new constructors probably due to ownership. Take Coloni to Andrea Moda for example. Andrea Moda was considered a new team in 1991 because Sassetti didn't buy the entry itself from Enzo Coloni, just the cars. In all three of the instances, they are technically continuations of their previous teams, under the same ownership. Going from Midland to Spyker to Force India, the three teams had totally seperate owners, which warranted each iteration being a new team. These aren't counted as completely new teams.Gaeaman787 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When did Renault turn into Lotus?

There is a text Renault F1 about the former Renault works team and a text Lotus F1 about the new team this has been converted to starting in 2012. I wonder if it wouldn't be more correct to have the 'change' placed in time between the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

• Renault sold the team after the 2010 season, and just continued as a motor supplier, which it will still be in 2012.
• The team used the Lotus brand already in 2011, albeit more as a sponsor mark than as a car marque.
• The team changed its livery and nationality for the 2011 season, keeping this for 2012.
• Lotus Renault is a 'redirect' to Renault F1.

Would this be to much work for Wikipedia to change? Formion (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The team compted as 'Renault' in 2011, regardless of its sponsorship, colour scheme, nationality or anything else. Having 2011 in 'Lotus' and not 'Renault' is nothing short of confusing to those who don't have a full and proper knowledge of the whole confusing situation. - mspete93 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing enough as it is; we've already got a Lotus team in the 2011 season and it will be a source of great confusion to casual readers to imply that there were two Lotus teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna - races not attended

There is an debate going on here which I thought might interest the project. Britmax (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Haas/Lola

Currently, references to the Haas/Lola team link to Haas Lola, but all references to the "Lola" cars link to Lola Cars (often via the redirect Lola Racing Cars). This is consistent with the fact that the cars' results are listed in the table at Lola Cars, and the 1985-86 period is included in the Lola Cars row in List of Formula One constructors (and Haas Lola is not listed in that table). However, Haas Lola is listed in Template:Formula One constructors, which seems inconsistent. Would anyone object to me removing Haas Lola from Template:Formula One constructors? DH85868993 (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would object on the basis that it is a fallacy to suggest the 1985/86 F1 cars were built by Lola. They were built by FORCE. --Falcadore (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we actually get the link changed? To move from Lola Cars, who had next to no involvement, to the manufacturer who did? --Falcadore (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Brabham

An editor who has been involved in protracted legal proceedings against Jack Brabham has been trying to edit war those proceedings of his point of view into the article. Some assistance with this would be helpful. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Renault F1

In line with this discussion above and numerous other discussions over the past 12 months, it has been proposed that Renault F1 be moved to Renault in Formula One. Please add any views you have on the matter at Talk:Renault F1#Proposed move. DH85868993 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

On the same note, once that discussion has concluded and passed (I can't see much opposition), then we should also move Honda Racing F1 to Honda in Formula One as well. Rather than start a separate topic for an almost identical situation, we can assume if there's consensus for Renault it'll be the same for Honda. QueenCake (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I just noticed Queencake's comment for the first time (having just started a move discussion on the Honda Racing F1 talk page). Oh well, I suppose a separate discussion there won't hurt, and will possibly make it easier for anyone in the future trying to understand the rationale for the move. DH85868993 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I've added my support there anyway now :) QueenCake (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotus Renault

An editor has changed Lotus Renault to redirect to Lotus F1 instead of Renault F1. I think in light of the recent creation of Lotus F1 and Team Lotus (2010-11), Lotus Renault should be changed/revert to a disambiguation page, identifying all the different "Lotus Renault"s. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Lotus Renault#Redirect or disambiguation page?. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Tabulation of Driver Changes

I believe that driver changes should be tabulated, as looking at the 2012 article then it's hard to see what is happening without reading it all in detail. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be written as prose. So do Wikipedia's policies. --Falcadore (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually think this would be a good idea, it doesn't need to have too much information in it, but it serves the purpose to put all changes together in a format that would be easy to remember - especially useful early in a season. Allypap81 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting driver changes into table form has been done before. You can see it in action on the 2005 page. But once the 2012 season starts, we're already going to have five tables on the page: the team and driver chart, the calendar, the season summary and the drivers' and constructors' points. It's already table-dependent, but a sixth table would be taking things too far. The current system works. It's clear and concise - it lists the drivers alphabetically, the team they were previously with, they team they will join in 2012, and any more relevant information (ie Sutil's court case, Raikkonen talking with Williams, etc.). Furthermore, it's been deliberately written in such a way that it avoids repeated phrases (ie "after competing for (team) in 2011 ...") to make it clearer and prevent the reader from getting lost in a wall of text. I see no reason to change it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the opportunity to explain the circumstances is very important. Prose allows you to tell who what when where why. A table gives you who and what only. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Honda Racing F1

I have proposed that Honda Racing F1 be moved/renamed to Honda in Formula One. I think it's a no-brainer, but perhaps there are valid reasons not to make the move that I hadn't thought of. Please add any view you may have on the matter at Talk:Honda_Racing_F1#Proposed_move. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change calendar format

Looking at the calendar formats on each season page, I can't help but feel that they're a little cramped, with a lot of information in a small-ish space. I was wondering what could be done about this, and I had the idea of changing the format a bit, giving each entry a bit of extra space. It took me a while to figure out how it could be done (and I broke my own table a few times) without making a table that was too large (ie kepping everything on the table within the confines of the screen), and I think I have an idea. This is the current format for the table, taken from the 2012 page:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	18 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysian GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	25 March
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix	Chinese GP	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	15 April
4	Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain GP	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	22 April
5	Gran Premio de España Santander	Spanish GP	Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona	13 May
6	Grand Prix de Monaco	Monaco GP	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	27 May
7	Grand Prix du Canada	Canadian GP	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	10 June
8	Grand Prix of Europe	European GP	Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia	24 June
9	Santander British Grand Prix	British GP	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	8 July
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland	German GP	Hockenheimring, Hockenheim	22 July
11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP	Hungaroring, Budapest	29 July
12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix	Belgian GP	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa	2 September
13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia	Italian GP	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	9 September
14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix	Singapore GP	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay	23 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Japanese GP	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	7 October
16	Korean Grand Prix	Korean GP	Korean International Circuit, Yeongam	14 October
17	Airtel Indian Grand Prix	Indian GP	Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida	28 October
18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Abu Dhabi GP	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	4 November
19	United States Grand Prix	United States GP	Circuit of the Americas, Austin	18 November
20	Grande Prêmio do Brasil	Brazilian GP	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	25 November

And this is my proposed idea:

Round	Race Title (Circuit)	Grand Prix	Date		Round	Race Title (Circuit)	Grand Prix	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix (Albert Park, Melbourne)	Australian GP	18 March		11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj (Hungaroring, Budapest)	Hungarian GP	29 July
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix (Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur)	Malaysian GP	25 March		12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix (Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa)	Belgian GP	2 September
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix (Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai)	Chinese GP	15 April		13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia (Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza)	Italian GP	9 September
4	Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix (Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir)	Bahrain GP	22 April		14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix (Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay)	Singapore GP	23 September
5	Gran Premio de España Santander (Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona)	Spanish GP	13 May		15	Japanese Grand Prix (Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka)	Japanese GP	7 October
6	Grand Prix de Monaco (Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo)	Monaco GP	27 May		16	Korean Grand Prix (Korean International Circuit, Yeongam)	Korean GP	14 October
7	Grand Prix du Canada (Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal)	Canadian GP	10 June		17	Airtel Indian Grand Prix (Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida)	Indian GP	28 October
8	Grand Prix of Europe (Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia)	European GP	24 June		18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix (Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi)	Abu Dhabi GP	4 November
9	Santander British Grand Prix (Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone)	British GP	8 July		19	United States Grand Prix (Circuit of the Americas, Austin)	United States GP	18 November
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland (Hockenheimring, Hockenheim)	German GP	22 July		20	Grande Prêmio do Brasil (Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo)	Brazilian GP	25 November

It goes without saying that this is a purely aesthetic change. The idea behind it is to space evetything out a little. I think this is a little bit more readable, a little easier on the eye. I'm not expecting anything to come out of this - I wasn't even going to post it here until I sorted out the draft version and saw how it looked - but I thought that it might be something we could discuss if people saw it any liked the idea. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I do quite like the concept, it is a lot more readable than the narrow table we normally have, and making it wider should take up more of the wasted white space on the right. A couple of suggestions though:

A) Do we need two columns on the race name? A problem I have with the original table too, but as the circuit is fairly important I would prefer to see it in its own column, instead of the Grand Prix one. If necessary, we could put it in parenthesis underneath the race title.

B) Is there a need to place separate references in for some races in the table? Surely a better solution would be to simply have one reference from the FIA's calendar in an additional row at the bottom?

Like I said, it is a good idea, just a couple of my thoughts QueenCake (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the old table, but if it's to be changed, I don't see the point in having two columns with the race name, as QueenCake has said. They provide the same information. There are no links to that season's races - is that something that was decided before? I agree about the references as well, and I think the flags should be adjacent to the circuit name, not the race name, as I think that's what we decided to do in the big flag discussion we had a while ago. Maybe the separate column for the circuit, with the flag in that column, is the way to go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting the circuit in a dedicated column will make each of the fields smaller. Smaller fields makes the table less readable. The entire point of changing the calendar table was to make it more readable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I much prefer the single column. I find it much easier just to scroll down (or look down) than follow the double columns. I do rather like putting the place & circuit together, tho.

Round	Race Title and Circuit	Grand Prix	Date
1	Australian GP Albert Park, Melbourne	Australian Grand Prix	18 March

This would probably be my ideal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily...

Round	Race Title (Grand Prix)	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix (Australian GP)	Albert Park, Melbourne	18 March

Just swapping two fields around keeps the same size, and I incorporated Bretonbanquet's points about flags and linking to the particular season's races - the Race Title links to the race while the Grand Prix links to the GP page. May not have to look like this, but just may implementation of your idea. QueenCake (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I saved this at exactly the same time as Trek, without triggering an edit conflict QueenCake (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion:

Round	Date	Grand Prix	Circuit
1	18 March	Australian Grand Prix Report	Albert Park, Melbourne
2	25 March	Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix Report	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur
3	15 April	UBS Chinese Grand Prix Report	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai

This format could use either a single or double column, and I think it's best to have the titles giving a good indication of the destination link behind it, hence the "report" concept. Maybe some combination of ideas can be used. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another:

Round	Race Title	Circuit	Date
1	2012 Australian Grand Prix	Albert Park, Melbourne	18 March

We shouldn't put a flag - the circuit isn't competing for its country. We don't need 2 links to the GP - until the GP has taken place, the wlink can be to the generic article, afterwards to the GP report page - which itself will wlink to the generic GP. Also we don't need to wlink to the city, the circuit page can do that. No bold in table body either. -- de Facto (talk). 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We do need a link to the generic race article and the report. If we're relying on other articles to direct us to where we want to go, then we might as well dispense with the circuit names and the dates because they'll be in the race articles. The idea is to provide links here that people will reasonably want to use. Why no bold in the table? Any particular reason? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The calendar refers to the specific race (the one in the given country on the given date), not the generic one; so the wlink should do no more. Bold doesn't add anything if almost all entries are bold. The F1 articles tend to be grossly overlinked, we could take this opportunity to rationalise a bit. The calendar table needs to give no more than the date and a wlink to the specific race article. Readers will find the track address, wlinks to the generic race in that country, etc in that generic race article. I don't suppose we really need the track details in the calendar table either actually. -- de Facto (talk). 12:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When I came up with the idea of reconfiguring the calendar, I had two things in mind: first, it had to be more readable. I did that by adding more space into the fields by having two lines. I found it was much easier on the eye. But secondly, it could not be a wall of text - the entire calendar had to be visible within my screen, so it has it be two columns.

Personally, I still like my original proposal the best. I think all of the subsequent proposals have taken too much information out, like the country flags, which I think break up the table and make it a little easier to read. Streamlining the table doesn't necesarily make it better.

And de Facto, those are just the same arguments you brought up in October. Consensus disagreed with you then, and it hasn't changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to say that my suggestion actually has everything you've got in yours, plus the link to this year's race. It can be two columns if that's what people want. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And mine was exactly the same just with two bits of data swapped around. I do prefer your idea Breton with the dates as the first column - for a calender table that does indeed make sense. Perhaps though from a usability point of view, keeping the race report in brackets underneath the Grand Prix will help to identify it as a different link; it would be easy to think that Australian Grand Prix Report was one link on two lines.

Round	Date	Grand Prix	Circuit
1	18 March	Australian Grand Prix (Race report)	Albert Park, Melbourne
2	25 March	Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix (Race report)	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur
3	15 April	UBS Chinese Grand Prix (Race report)	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai

I also changed it to Race Report, I think that's a little more descriptive, and attempted to centre the text, from a purely stylistic point of view. I'm no expert with these tables though, so if there's a better way to do that (without that grey background) please go ahead. But it's certainly not major anyway. QueenCake (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to include links to the race report in the table, perhaps we should take things a step further and merge the calendar with the results summar table, kind of like the way the WRC season pages show their results. It would look something like this:

Round	Rally name	Podium finishers				Statistics
		Rank	Driver	Car	Time	Stages	Length	Starters	Finishers
1	59th Rally Sweden (February 10–13) — Results and report	1	Mikko Hirvonen	Ford Fiesta RS WRC	3:23:56.6	22	351.00 km	44	34

Of course, it would be adapted to fit Formula 1. Instead of podium finishers, would could include the usual Formula 1 statistics - fastest lap, pole position and race winner. I'm jsut having a bit of trouble tweaking the table to fit it, but I'm sure you can visualise it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, no statistics please. It's a calendar, not a season guide. The statistics will be covered multiple times ad nauseum further down in the article. --Falcadore (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason why the statistics column is there is because I couldn't reformat it to fit Formula 1 without breaking the table. I'll have another go at it, but I promise nothing.

Round	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Race report
		Results	Driver
1	Australian Grand Prix — 18 March (Albert Park, Melbourne)	Pole position	Jenson Button
		Fastest lap	Jean-Eric Vergne
		Race winner	Vitaly Petrov

If we were to include pole position/fastest lap/race winner in the table, we would no longer need separate tables for the race results and the calendar - instead, we can have it all in the one place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the add of the report link. I sense there's a good reason, but I dislike the repitition of "Foo GP" & "GP of Foo". Would anybody oppose deleting one link? Looking at it, adding fastest lap &c is overkill for the season tables. I also kind of like having the date first. I think place, date, race/report makes most sense most often, tho. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I still like my original idea the best. I think we can easily work the report into it, and possibly the results:

Round	Race Title (Circuit)	Grand Prix	Date		Round	Race Title (Circuit)	Grand Prix	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix — Report (Albert Park, Melbourne)	Australian GP	18 March		11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj — Report (Hungaroring, Budapest)	Hungarian GP	29 July

But maybe working the winner of the race into this table would be too much information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Prisonermonkey's original proposal the best (although what to do when we have an odd number of races?), but I am of the opinion that if it isn't broken, why fix it? The³5₉ (Talk) 08:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it's not broken? The current calendar table works well - but that doesn't mean it can't work better. Right now, it's kind of a wall of text. I think that by introducing a bit of space into the actual table fields and expanding it out to two blocks of ten instead of one block of twenty, it becomes easier to read, easier for readers to find information.

As for what to do when we have an odd number of races, the teams seem to think that 20 is the maximum possible, and Bernie has been working towards 20 races for years now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of redesigning the calendar if we're just going to have to change the status quo every year when the calendar isn't 20.

I find nothing in particular broken with the current format. What is there that needs fixing, exactly? You have to remember we have to present information to casual readers, complicating the chat doesn't exactly aid that. A simple and concise chart laying out the information allows people to find what they want. Simply making it physically smaller does not make it easier. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be smaller vertically, but it is wider horizontally. I think the extra space within each field makes the calendar a little bit more readable that it currently is. Certainly enough to justify a discussion about changing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Prisonermonkeys' proposal is a good idea. As he said, the table would be more readable and indeed clearer. Although it is also a matter of style, I agree that it should be made. However I think the blank column between the two sets of GPs should mark the separation better. Maybe should it be darker ? Also, I don't think the Race title column should have a link to List of Formula One circuits. It doesn't bring anything to the article, as do the city name for each track. Track names looks sufficient to me in that scope, and readers can find the exact location of each track in their related articles.

So I would go with that:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Date		Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix (Albert Park)	Australian GP	18 March		4	Eni Magyar Nagydíj (Hungaroring)	Hungarian GP	29 July
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix (Sepang International Circuit)	Malaysian GP	25 March		5	Shell Belgian Grand Prix (Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps)	Belgian GP	2 September
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix (Shanghai International Circuit)	Chinese GP	15 April

It also works with an odd number of races, I don't see what's the problem with that. Maimai009 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over these ideas, I am standing by my last opinion of preferring the idea first put forward by BretonBanquet. The problem I have with yours Prisonermonkeys is the repetition of Race Title and Grand Prix columns, which to me seems pointless when we have the more important location information sharing a cell. Of course we don't actually have to change anything, but there's nothing wrong with discussing when we could possibly make this table better. QueenCake (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Maimai, perhaps the circuit could go under the GP rather than the race title, like this:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date		Round	Race Title	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP (Albert Park, Melbourne)	18 March		11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP (Hungaroring, Budapest)	29 July

But I do think a dark strip down the middle is definately needed if we split the calendar into two blocks of ten. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you have the title of the race twice (why?) and no link to the report. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a proposed change to the calendar table, not the results. I toyed with the idea of merging the calendar and the results together, but it got a bit messy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question of why the calendar has to have the title of the race twice - it seems to make sense to replace one of them with a link to the report. Either have the title once, liked to the generic GP article; or have it twice, one linked to the generic GP article and one to the report. There's no point at all in having the formal race title, not linked to anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I raised the question myself a while ago because I felt that the title sponsor of a race was not really notable for inclusion in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the full race title - I just have a problem with the name of the race being used twice, for no apparent purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could go like this:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date		Round	Race Title	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date
1	26th Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP (Albert Park, Melbourne)	18 March		11	28th Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP (Hungaroring, Budapest)	29 July

The problem with this is the race results table, the one that shows the pole-sitter, fastest lap, race winner and winning constructor for each Grand Prix. That's where we usually put a link to the race report, and if we include a link in the calendar table, it's kind of redundant having it in the results table (which is an equally-good place to put it). If we start working the pole-sitter and race winner into the calendar to have a kind of hybrid calendar-results table, there is going to be too much information in the one table. So I suppoer the other alternative is this:

Round	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date		Round	Grand Prix (Circuit)	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix (Albert Park, Melbourne)	18 March		11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj (Hungaroring, Budapest)	29 July

But that just raises the question of what to do about foreign-language race titles, especially since they're treated as a formal race name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Prisonermonkeys' first idea. Two columns for GP's sponsored and common name are needed, maybe not everybody understands the foreign sponsored names, like Magyar Nagydíj. I think the flags and venues should be in the column of the sponsored name, because venues as well as title sponsors change from time to time, and in European GP's case, even the country can change. That would highlight those were the venues of that GP that year. Furthermore I think that besides the circuit, the city should also be mentioned. Marina Bay doesn't tell too clearly where the race is, I think there are Marinas at bays also in other countries than Singapore. And, if you haven't followed F1, you may not know Hungaroring is close to Budapest. --August90 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, should we include a double-column table like the one I suggested? You know, just to see how it looks and see how it is received? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Double-column table is my preferred option. Yet, if we decide to have the single-column table, then I'd say it's the GP's common name that should be included, because e.g. Hungarian Grand Prix is much more informative than (sponsor) Magyar Nagydíj. But I think it's still good to have the sponsored names too, like we've had so far. -August90 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm asking if we should actually go ahead and edit this into the 2012 season page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit what in? I have no idea which table you're talking about now, and I don't see a consensus to add anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus not to do it, either. It seems to be split down the middle. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia debate rules really. If there's no consensus at the end of a discussion, we keep things as they were. QueenCake (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User causing trouble

Hey everyone, just a quick heads-up. There's a user who has been a little disruptive over at the 2012 season page. He feels that car release dates should be included in the season pages, and he's not happy that they aren't. It's been explained to him several times that consensus holds that we do not include release dates on the season page, and more importantly, why this consensus is in place. So far, I've managed to keep his outburst confined to my talk page, but I get the feeling that this could get out of hand very quickly, because he's started to become very frustrated that I keep referring him back to the consensus. This is a transcript of everything he has posted so far (just beware - he does like to swear, especially when he doesn't get his own way):

Just because you have consensus to do something stupid doesn't make it any less stupid. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a piece of free advice for you: when you're proposing changes to an article, your attitude goes a LONG way. It has been an established practice on the Formula 1 pages to leave car release dates out of season articles. They don't influence the season in any way, shape or form, and so are better left to the individual car articles. If you wish to discuss this further, then we're all very willing to discuss it further with you. But when you go posting stuff like this:

You people are the worst, honestly. Car launch dates are a useful piece of information, period, and should be included in the article. Nothing else matters other than that. Ask yourself: are there people out there who might want that information? If the answer is "yes," it belongs in the article. Wikipedia is going downhill fast. All you people do these days is create arbitrary standards of what is and isn't "notable" when in reality you should just include everything, because it's a fucking website and not a physical book.

Then you are not going to win any good will. Looking over some of the other comments on your talk page, your overly-aggressive attitude, sheer arrogance when posting and your tendency to insult everyone who does not edit things in that you think should be included is something of a problem with you. Lose the attitue, or else you'll probably lose your editing rights. Neither will be missed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been explained to you that the car release schedule does not affect the overall season, and that the launch dates would be better-suited to individual car pages. If you think you have a valid argument for their inclusion - something more thn "it's stupid" - then raise it at the talk page, and if we agree with you, they will be added in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, because maybe, JUST MAYBE, someone might want to view all the car launch dates at one time? Did you really never think of that? Wicka wicka (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And they can find that information on any news site. Wikipedia is not a news service - it's an encyclopaedia. When we write the season articles, we include things that will affect the sport over the course of a season. The car release schedule does not affect the season at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Wikipedia can and should catalog all available information. Nothing is off limits so long as at makes an article more useful. Anyone who argues otherwise is wholly without merit. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that Wikipedia should catalog all available information. However, it should catalog all available information in the appropriate place. The 2012 season page is about the 2012 season. The information contained within the 2012 is directly relevant to the 2012 season. It affects the overall season in some way, shape or form. A list of car release dates has no bearing on the outcome of the season. For instance, Caterham is launching on the 26th of January. How would it affect the season if they instead decided to launch the car on the 26th of February? It wouldn't affect the season at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It's an article about the 2012 season. Caterham is launching their 2012 car on February 26th, 2012. How in the world is that NOT relevant to the 2012 season? People come to Wikipedia for everything these days, let them find it. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not relevant because it doesn't affect the season. It's not like a driver change that will see someone new join the team. And it's not like a rule change that will affect car development. Nor is it like a calendar change that will see a new race join the calendar or an old one depart. It doesn't influence the whole season in any way, which is why the best place for details of car launches is on the individual car pages, because that does affect the car. Just look at the Red Bull RB8, Caterham CT01 and Marussia MR01 pages (the only ones that have been made for individual cars so far). All of them have their launch dates included in their pages because it affects them more than it affects the season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are insane. It's a piece of information about the 2012 season. It belongs in the 2012 article, full stop. There's nothing else to it, especially not your bullshit assertions of what does and doesn't count as relevant to the season. You're making all this shit up. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not "making this shit up". This is the consensus that members of the F1 WikiProject came to - that the release dates for the cars do not affect the season, and so do not need to be included. If you wish to debate this further, then you're welcome to bring it up at the 2012 talk page or the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am yet to hear back from him, but the conversation is now at the point where it is going around in circles, and he is starting to get frustrated. Looking at his talk page, he's got a documented history of causing trouble, so keep your eyes peeled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Team Lotus (current)

Now that "Team Lotus" (of the 2011 variety) has become "Caterham F1 Team" and "Lotus Renault GP" has become "Lotus F1 Team", I'm wondering whether Team Lotus (current) should be changed to redirect to Lotus F1 (i.e. the "current Lotus team") instead of Team Lotus (2010–11). (Or whether the redirect should perhaps just be deleted altogether, to avoid any potential confusion). Note that I have already changed all the article-space links to Team Lotus (current) to link to Team Lotus (2010–11) instead. There are still about 60 links to Team Lotus (current) from (mostly user) talk pages - mainly as a result of the links being included in a couple of WP:F1 newsletters. If we decide to change Team Lotus (current) (i.e. either change the redirect target, or delete it), we would need to consider what to do about those talk page links. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should be redirected to Lotus F1, as that isn't 'Team Lotus'. I don't know whether we would like some kind of disambiguation page for F1 teams called Lotus, with a very brief outline of each team. Given we're (rightly) keeping all Renault teams together, all Mercedes teams together, Honda, Alfa Romeo etc, I wondered if it would be a good idea to have an article that clearly justifies why teams called Lotus have their own articles. Just a suggestion. If we do that, we could just link Team Lotus (current) to there if that's better than deleting it all together. - mspete93 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that as there is no current "Team Lotus" as such, delete it. -- de Facto (talk). 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with de Facto, there is no current team so including that redirect would be misleading. As for talk page links, well generally they just get left be unless it happens to be an important discussion - say something that gets regularly linked to. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think "Team Lotus (2010–11)" is the best article name, it wasn't Team Lotus in 2010. Lotus Racing would've maybe been better, unless Group Lotus had adopted that name for their motorsport programme. I think Lotus (2010-11 Formula One constructor) would be least ambigous, their constructor name was Lotus in both years. Anyway, back to the main question, once links to "Team Lotus (current)" have been fixed, just delete it as outdated. Currently there are no Team Lotus, except for the Chapmans' Classic Team Lotus. --August90 (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Team Lotus (2010–11) name works for me.

It looks like consensus is leaning towards deleting the redirect. Any friendly admins listening who would be willing to "do the deed"? Or do I need to list it at WP:RfD? I'm still in two minds about the user talk page links. On one hand I feel bad about knowingly creating red links when the article they currently point to still exists; on the other hand, I feel awkward about mass-editing other users' talk pages (and especially their archives). DH85868993 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now raised it at RfD. Just looking at the current links, since most of the user talk ones are as the result of the newsletter can we not just edit the newsletter page (they are transcluded right?)? Anything else in archives should just be let be, it's fairly common for links in old discussions to be redlinked as time goes by, though I don't really like creating them either. QueenCake (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am so stupid. Of course (most of) the user talk page links are as a result of the newsletters being transcluded there. I've replaced the links in the relevant newsletters (I never had a problem with doing that) and most of the user talk page links have disappeared. I feel much better now. Thanks, Queencake. (And thanks for raising the RfD too). DH85868993 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Another team naming issue - disambiguations

I'm somewhat wary of bringing up this again, given the amount of discussion we've had in recent weeks, but I've noticed we don't have any sort of standard for team names needing disambiguation. For example, we currently have Apollon (Formula One), LDS (automobile), Martini (cars), Token (racing team) and Scarab (constructor) (as well as formerly Amon (Formula One team) before I moved the page). We have a fair amount of generally pre-90s and often small teams which require a disambiguator currently using one of those, and while probably not the most pressing issue, it would be nice to have a common standard. It's likely that some of the pages could be moved to use their full names (i.e Amon (Formula One team)to Chris Amon Racing) as we do for more modern teams, but the rest will still need to disambiguated.

Personally, I would prefer XXXX (racing team) as the standard. Using "constructor" isn't clear (it's a constructor of what?), while "automobile" and "car" tends to imply it builds road cars. Also, using Formula One will not always be accurate for teams that started out in lower Formula. Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of having consistency. One issue I see is that "racing team" is itself a somewhat ambiguous term, i.e. is it an auto racing team, a bicycle racing team, a yacht racing team, etc. Perhaps "XXXX (auto racing team)" might be better? DH85868993 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We use (racing driver) for drivers, so we surely we should use (racing team) for consistency's sake? I realise though that 'driver' implies it is with cars whereas team is somewhat less specific. But it has been said before that auto racing is not actually a widely-used term. - mspete93 01:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think Amon highlights the issue that the disambiguator should not be needed for a team name. Teams will have a longer, more complicated name (with some variation of terms like racing, motorsport, team, F1) which would remove the need for (racing team) disambiguators. We just need to do a little research, find the actual team name instead of a disambuated version of the constructors identity, and move the articles. Job done.

That having been said there isn't a good name for Apollon. Perhaps a merger of Doug Serrurier and LDS as they are not really independantly notable. Martini (cars) very obviously should be moved to Martini Cars. Token (racing team) should be moved to Token Racing. Scarab (constructor) could be moved to Reventlow Automobiles. --Falcadore (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A standard dab is a good idea, but "racing team" won't work, because "team name" & "constructor" aren't always the same. Which is, I believe, how this whole debate started? I tend to agree, too, the team name will dab itself from the factory anyhow. To be blindingly obvious: Scuderia Ferrari & Ferrari. No dab needed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I do agree with Falcadore that moving pages to their full name is preferable if we know it, but in my look yesterday there were a few like Apollon that I couldn't see another name for. That's not to say there wasn't one, just that it isn't included on Wikipedia. And yes it is a good point Trek about the whole team/constructor nomenclature making an issue with using "racing team" as a dab, so I would amend my opinion in moving any pages that don't have a better name to something like "Apollon Racing" or "Apollon F1". QueenCake (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We should try and avoid a disambiguator at all costs, as people have said or implied. With regard to Apollon, I can't (yet) find any evidence that it was a team as such, and it was barely a constructor, since the correct term for the constructor was "Apollon-Williams". As far as I can see the whole sorry outfit was Kessel and a few mechanics. Merge to Loris Kessel? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, think we have done that for another private "constructor" as well. I'd also say we do the same for McGuire (Formula One), and merge it to Brian McGuire - it was apparently just another modified Williams renamed for his own benefit. QueenCake (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few of these remaining that haven't been moved yet, I'll list them below for anyone's interest:

• Apollon (Formula One) (possible merge to Loris Kessel)
• Boro (Formula One)
• LDS (automobile)
• McGuire (Formula One) (possible merge to Brian McGuire)
• Modena (racing team) (bit confused over this one, considering the Lamborghini links and "Lambo" identity)
• RE (automobile)
• Scarab (constructor) (possible move to Reventlow Automobiles)

I'll see if I find any better names if I can, and thanks for other page moves QueenCake (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One Constructors Priviteers

Should it not be better if we put all priviteers teams into a separate list on the list of Formula One Constructors. I will try to create more articles of Priviteer teams , and improve some. We also need to add more priviteer teams to complete te table. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Teams are not necessarily constructors. If a team does not build their own car then they are not a constructor and as such do not belong on the list. Readro (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said we could put all priviteer teams on a separate list. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jahn1234567890 is suggesting that List_of_Formula_One_constructors#Privateer_teams should be transferred to a separate article (and expanded). DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jahn1234567890 is Kevin. I don't see the point in a separate article for privateer teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I get that sense too. Anyway, as for the "priviteer" teams I'm not sure what the implications would be. What would you be recording? They didn't score Championship points, they didn't win prizes, and their identities were most often simply self-aggrandisement on the part of owners. In many cases it was a crude attempt by an independent owner to scratch a bit more starting money out of race organisers. Harry Schell entered cars that he owned under his own name, Horschell Racing, and Ecurie Bleue, sometimes all in the same season. No difference in personnel, ownership or vehicle, but all different names. At the other extreme, Scuderia Plate was only ever a figleaf used by various associates of Enrico to enter cars. A constantly changing array of drivers, cars and car owners, but all the same name, only Enrico as chief mechanic was the constant. Of course there are entities such as Rob Walker's outfit, or Scuderia Centro Sud, for example, that did operate much more like proper, professional teams, but for each of them there was a Team Gunston or Bernard White Racing. I suppose my main concern would be that this is far too complex an issue to be handled as a crude list. Pyrope 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some people think I am one or other Kevin. I think that's very curious. Would anyone like to explain me why you guys think that. Of course it is very unfortunately and I hope we can solve this problem.Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing the tense in 2011 car articles

As we're now in 2012, and specifically as the new cars have begun to be revealed, I figured the articles for 2011's cars should be moved from the present to the past tense. I noticed this while looking at Lotus_T128, so I've changed that one first, given also that its successor has been revealed. Could you guys just check everything is in order there, and I'll go ahead and change the rest of the 2011 cars (unless we should wait until each respective successor is announced?) Thanks. Allypap81 (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, some of them have been done already, or half-done in some cases. I'll wait for some sort of go-ahead though, just in case Allypap81 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotus E20

Would somebody mind heading over to Lotus E20 and taking a look at the content of the page? Another user and I are are loggerheads over how much of the article should be given over to the name of the chassis (which was dedcated to twenty years at Enstone).

This is what I think the article should include, as a line in the article lead:

The E20 will be the twentieth Formula One car to be designed by the team since they moved to the Enstone site in 1992, and is named in tribute to the team members and their twenty-year history at the Enstone factory.

And this is what the other user in question thinks should be included, as a dedicated sub-section:

The car is named the "E20" as a tribute to the team members and their twenty-year history and achievements at their Enstone facility. When explaining the reasoning behind the name choice, the team's principal, Éric Boullier, is quoted by Autosport.com as stating: "Our naming of the chassis to recognise Enstone's importance to the team's evolution highlights our recognition of the contribution of the facility and the personnel who work tirelessly every year to produce the very best car possible". Since relocating to Enstone in 1992, the team has won four drivers' championships and three constructors' championships.

I think that's entirely too much. If we look at the articles for other cars with meaningful names - like the Ferrari 150° Italia - we don't have long and detailed sections dedicated to explaining the name and taking quotes from team personnel about it. And the line about the number of titles the team has won is misleading, because it implies that Lotus won those titles, not Benetton and Renault. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the quote, although I do have a problem with the last sentence which, as you rightly point out, is thoroughly misleading. I'm not keen at all on this current wave of POV-pushing concerning the Enstone facility. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I just think the quote is unnecessary for two reasons. Firstly, we've never gone out of our way to quote team personnel on the reasons behind a name. And secondly, it's very repetitive:

The car is named the "E20" as a tribute to the team members and their twenty-year history and achievements at their Enstone facility.

This is a fine sentence, in and of itself. But the very next sentence says exactly the same thing:

When explaining the reasoning behind the name choice, the team's principal, Éric Boullier, is quoted by Autosport.com as stating: "Our naming of the chassis to recognise Enstone's importance to the team's evolution highlights our recognition of the contribution of the facility and the personnel who work tirelessly every year to produce the very best car possible".

And when you cut one of those sentences out, what is left is not enough to sustain a dedicated subsection - particularly since it already repeats what is written in the lead of the article about the name change. It's redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - I'd say either have the quote or the original sentence (referenced). But generally I think including the reasoning behind a chassis designation is a good thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

An explanation of the chassis designation is in the lead of the article. That, I feel, is the msot-appropriate place for it to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote is more than it needs, & even allowing it isn't, the last line, about results, is OTT. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, as discussed below, the lead should summarise the article - so if it's summarised in the lead the fuller account should be in the main body. -- de Facto (talk). 10:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you appear to be confusing and conflating two separate issues here. The first is whether Lotus's decision to honour Enstone and the team members has enough weight to deserve a place in the article. The second is the quality of the prose used to express it. On the former; I'd say that you only need to read the reliable sources to see that it certainly has due weight, some even mention it in their title or headline. On the latter; I'd say you know very well that the prose are open to amendment by all-comers, so if you feel there's room for improvement please feel free to do so. -- de Facto (talk). 10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, can you clarify for the rest of us the POV you believe is being "pushed", and who you believe is pushing it please. -- de Facto (talk). 10:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:LEAD; the lead should be an introduction and summary of the important aspects of the subject. It is also explicit: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The question therefore is this: is the fact that Lotus chose to honour Enstone and the team members by naming the car after them significant, or not. If it asn't, it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. If it is, it should be in the main body of the article and in the lead. -- de Facto (talk). 10:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD also says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points. Going on about 20 years at Enstone explains the name E20, but first and foremost the Lotus E20 is a racing car. It's name has no effect whatsover on what the Lotus E20 is for or what the Lotus E20 does. The story behind the name is very much a side-issue, bordering on trivia. The E20 is a racing car, not a monument to 20 years of F1 racing. Don't lose sight of that. --Falcadore (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

De Facto, you know full well what I'm talking about. We've discussed this ad infinitum, yet you alone are still maintaining both at Lotus E20 and at Enstone that all the teams based at that facility are the same team and should be treated as the same team. You've reverted me at the Enstone article in order to imply that one team has won three constructors championships and four drivers championships, when every source in the book establishes that Benetton and Renault are treated as different teams. If you don't want to call it pov-pushing, then call it what you like, but it's not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I see we now have the word "Enstone" mentioned four times in the first three sentences at Lotus E20. It also says that it's the 20th car built at Enstone before any mention of the fact that it's the first car built by the Lotus team. Which fact do we consider more important here? It's just Enstone Enstone Enstone - are we acting as some kind of Enstone publicity department? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, is this in reply to the comment it's under, or one further up? -- de Facto (talk). 15:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could desist from moving or splitting up my comments, I'd appreciate it. My above comment is designed to be taken as one whole, that's why I edited it in that way and I'd like to keep it that way, rather than have you split it up (twice) for whatever reason. I'm aiming the comment partly at you and partly at the discussion as a whole. I'm not solely addressing you, you see - I am also following on from Falcadore's point. I don't even know why I'm trying to explain this to you. If you have a further comment to make, make it under here without jigging my edits around. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Twice? You addressed it to me (de Facto) and seemed to be replying to a point I made further up, so I, err... sorry if I was mistaken, but these threads are difficult enough to keep up with as it is, without them being all over the place too. -- de Facto (talk). 16:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of POV pushing - I hope not? It's not my view I'm recording, did you read the references cited? It's the NPOV view of the sources. Here's a cross-section of comments:

• "Throughout those various guises, the Enstone team has established itself as a winning team. When Benetton took over in 1986, the team had become a race winner by the year’s end. And less than a decade later, the team had won three world titles with Michael Schumacher taking back-to-back drivers’ title in 1994 and 1995, while the team took the constructors’ title in 1995."F1Pulse
• "The team, who have changed their name from Renault ahead of the new season, used the Oxfordshire base throughout their title-winning years of 2005-06 and also when they were known as Benetton."Sky Sports
• "Enstone has been the headquarters since Benetton, who started as Toleman and won titles with the young Michael Schumacher before becoming Renault and winning again with Fernando Alonso, moved there in 1992. Renault still provide the engines but no longer have a stake in the team which changed its name after last season."IBN Live
• "The team, previously known as Renault and racing under the Lotus name this year, will unveil the new car on February 5 on its website."Autosport.com

All use the word "team" in the singular. Your view may be different of course, but personal POV stands for noting without RS support. -- de Facto (talk). 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, you probably won't enjoy reading this reference either. Motorsport.com point out that Lotus F1 Team will contest its 500th Grand Prix this season, as it has already competed in 495 - 57 of them were as Toleman, 260 as Benetton, 159 as Renault F1 Team and 19 as Lotus Renault GP. -- de Facto (talk). 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, twice. If you have difficulty following a discussion, ask for clarification before deciding to move people's comments around. How you construed my comment as "all over the place" when I explicitly put in one place, I don't know. So anyway, this isn't your view? Regardless of the sources you have provided, the Benetton and Renault teams are regarded unequivocally as separate teams, for example the official F1 website shows 1995 winners Benetton [7] and 2005 winners Renault [8] clearly as separate teams. Every statistics website on the web shows them as separate teams (GP.com) [9] [10] and FORIX/Autosport etc, because that is how they are treated in Formula One terms. There is no getting around that fact (not opinion, POV, or anything else), and to imply that these are the same team is nothing short of misleading and confusing. Efforts should be made to clarify this everywhere, over and above any talk of those teams being based in the same place, with some of the same staff. Nobody pretends that Minardi and Toro Rosso are the same team, despite having the factory and staff in common. Likewise Brawn and Mercedes. So why is this any different?

Your first source F1pulse (is that a reliable source?) clearly separates Benetton and Renault in its statistics tables [11], thereby contradicting itself. Your other sources are talking about the Enstone base being used by a string of teams with different names - they are not pretending that this is one and the same team, otherwise they would merge the stats, and they don't. Your last source clearly makes the utterly bizarre claim that Lotus has contested 500 GPs when it hasn't even turned a wheel yet, but makes the caveat of including those contested through its previous incarnations. So you go ahead and change the Lotus article to say that it's participated in 500 GPs already. You don't want to, why not? You can't separate the stats from the facts. This is a classic case of Trigger's broom. He's had the same broom for 20 years - it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, but oh yes, it's the same broom alright. Nonsense. The other thing you need to do is stop with the pathetic "more bad news for Bretonbanquet" crap in your edit summaries. The bad news for you is that nobody agrees with you. Do you really think that I'm going to sit here worrying that maybe I'm wrong? I've never been so right. Go ahead and refute the official statistics, if you really think you should. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, the F1 "official" stats are against nominal "constructor" or "team" names, not against the physical teams themselves. Motorsport have documented a physical team's life stats, under all its name changes - good for them. You seem to have missed the crucial point that all those other references I gave referred to the life of the Enstone team using the singular "team" word too, and not the plural as your POV seems to prefer. -- de Facto (talk). 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are they? Do you have a source for that? What is the "physical team"? Do you have any sources explaining that concept, or anything whatsoever to suggest that it might be notable, or might override the notability of the actual teams, you know, the ones we all see listed on the statistics? Motorsport.com, a fringe F1 website of which there are dozens, has concocted a trivial set of statistics, merging the stats of several teams into one. "Good for them"? You said up there that this wasn't your view. Which is it? You believe, and are suggesting that "the Enstone team" is one team, are you not? Clarify that for me, please, if you will. Why have you not edited the Lotus F1 article to say that they have entered 500 GPs? Oh, and have you found anyone, anyone at all, who agrees with you? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries define a team as "a group of players forming one side in a competitive game or sport", not as the current name of that team. I used the term "physical team" to distinguish the team of people from their registered team "name". What I add to articles may, or may not, correspond with my views. If it happens to correspond, it isn't because it's my view that I add it, it's because it's reliably sourced that I add it - so I'm not adding "my view", as such. Do you see the distinction and can you identify with that position? Why do you say I haven't edited the Lotus F1 article "yet"? Have you edited it today? There are obviously many who agree with me, and they count, being authors of reliable sources. Here's another for you: The New York Times. -- de Facto (talk). 18:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh and, can you give the urls of the 2 (as in the "twice") edits where you say I "split it up" please. -- de Facto (talk). 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a general definition of "team", I'm talking about the meaning of your phrase "physical team" in a Formula One sense, and why it might be notable, or why distinguishing between a so-called "physical team" and an actual team might be notable for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Yes, I can identify with your position, and I'm going to assume you're not suggesting I only edit according to my point of view. I'm asking you why you haven't edited the Lotus article to say it's taken part in 500 GPs. You've gone to the trouble of finding a reference for it, so I would naturally assume, according to your "position", that you will edit the article accordingly. I haven't edited it today because I haven't noticed anything about it that seems wrong. You have, so that's why I thought you might be editing it. And I'm clearly not talking about random folks outside this discussion, I'm talking about people here on Wikipedia who might agree with you, so that you might possibly form a consensus for your edits.

You really want both urls? You have a short memory. Here's one [12], and here's the other [13]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Second thing first: that second one isn't splitting up an edit, it's placing a comment after one edit and before the second. I assumed your sig marked the end of the first one. I'm sorry if you don't follow the normal convention, put place sigs randomly mid-edit. -- de Facto (talk). 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I made those comments at slightly different times, but put them togther for a reason. I've explained that to you now, so let's hope that's the end of it. I did not put signatures "randomly mid-edit", as is painfully, painfully clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Secondly, the first thing: do you follow me now, when I say "physical team"? It's notable because so many reliable sources mention it, but more importantly for the existing articles it also has due weight, for the same reason, to be included. I'm still not sure why you're saying I haven't added it to the Lotus F1 article. Reliable source writers aren't random folk, they're the ones who provide our inspiration. Are you suggesting that other Wiki editors will disagree, not because my points are flawed, but because it conflicts with their ownpersonal POVs of how the articles should read? -- de Facto (talk). 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am asking you is about the distinction between your "physical team" and the actual team, which I assume you hold to be somehow not physical. Why is this distinction notable, given that any distinction creates a total contradiction in terms of "team" in Formula One? For example, your addition to the Lotus article, which I had not previously noticed. Your edit, which someone had already challenged once and you reverted, leaves the article text saying that the team has taken part in 500 GPs, but the infobox states none. Which is it? It cannot say both because that is utterly contradictory. I am sure you will accept the glaring contradiction there. I have removed it until this discussion reaches a consensus, and I hope you will not start an edit war by re-adding it. The writers of sources have zero bearing on any consensus reached here, obviously, unless they care to join in. I am not making any assumption of why other editors would disagree with you, particularly not one that assumes bad faith on the level that you suggest, only that they have already disagreed with you, in fairly large numbers, and I am yet to see any editor who holds the same view as you do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And then you reverted anyway. You know what an edit war is, right? Wait for a consensus. Read WP:BRD. You also claim that the infobox stats are not sourced and are therefore unreliable, are you serious? I ask you again, do you believe that Benetton, Renault and Lotus F1 are the same team? A straight answer would be very beneficial to this discussion. This comment is attached to my above comment and is not to be split from it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [In response to Bretonbanquet's 19:29, 29 January 2012 comment and not to the one weirdly added later, but with orders not to separate it from the earlier one!] There is no distinction between the actual team and the "physical team". I used the phrase to refer to the real team, the group of people that develop the cars, the "thing" that is bought and sold, renamed and re-branded. You seem to be confusing the team's registered name with the team itself. Don't allow the fact that the FIA, or whoever, choose to aggregate their stats under entrant names (or whatever they call them), rather than the teams themselves, confuse the issue. A team is a team, regardles of name. The addition to the Lotus F1 Team reflects the reliably sourced reality, that "someone else" reverted it without explanation carries no weight. If the infobox numbers were reliably sourced, perhaps we could begin to understand the discrepancy. Let's leave it as it's reliably sourced (and the infobox numbers aren't) until we can explain the differences in the article. Let the others make their own comments. -- de Facto (talk). 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What did you not understand by my comment "This comment is attached to my above comment and is not to be split from it."? What exactly was hard to understand about that? So we ignore the FIA and their stupid little ideas, what you say is more important? I am not going to waste any more time discussing your farcical, and I reiterate, farcical ideas. If you want to render the whole F1 wiki a total joke by pretending that Toleman and the current Lotus team are the same team, then go ahead. Please merge the articles into one, merge the stats, along with all the other teams that you feel might be the same entity. After all, it's only your point of view that matters in the world. Not a soul agrees with you? No matter, eh? Don't ignore that 3RR warning either, because you've had two and another one makes three and a trip to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed your bizarre posting style elsewhere, so I won't go into that again here. Why would we ignore the FIA? They aggregate the results one way, their way, they don't necessarily reflect the lifetime results of the real team though. Assuming there are reliable sources for that system, we can tolerate it too. But that is not reason enough to discard the lifetime results documented in other reliable sources - is it? Try telling the team staff, especially those who joined the team when it was Toleman that they aren't part of the same team now, and especially as they celebrated the team's 30th anniversary in F1 (e.g. see this article). (P.S. it sounds like you need to read WP:3RR again) -- de Facto (talk). 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My bizarre posting style? Why have you put this up here, above your older comments? It makes responding to your comments nigh on impossible without making the whole conversation unreadable. Since nobody will read this anyway because it's too long, it hardly matters. You talk about the "real team" - you're talking in riddles. So you want both systems? You like the idea of contradictory systems everywhere creating an unfathomable mess for the casual reader? The lifeitme results documented in one source - the one you found. That's undue weight. I don't need to tell the Lotus staff anything, I'm sure they don't give a shit what we do. I wouldn't if I were them. No, I don't need to read 3RR again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your bizarre style. Have you read WP:INDENT? The usual structure results in an easy to follow family-tree-like structure, with consecutive replies added as consecutive children to the post that they are replies too. It's logical that way, and it's always possible to insert a reply in the correct place in the tree. Do you follow that logic now? -- de Facto (talk). 22:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I no longer care, to be honest. I've never had any trouble on any other talk pages during the last six years. If you think your part in this conversation looks logical, then that's cosmic. Let's not drag it out, let's just see if Falcadore or someone else responds to your eye-watering comment, oohh.. way down ↓ thataway somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[In response to Bretonbanquet's 19:40, 29 January 2012 comment, but which can't be placed there because that's the only place he'll allow the reply to his previous comment to go.] The infobox stats are not sourced, not that I can see. However, I do realise that there is not the place for the "physical team" stats, but for the stats using the aggregation method that the FIA use (by "constructor" name, or whatever) so I don't plan putting the team's lifetime stats there. In answer to your question: I (along with the authors of many reliable sources, and many editors here I suspect) know that the team now named "Lotus F1 Team" was previously named "Lotus Renault GP" and "Renault F1 Team" before that, and "Benetton Formula" before that, and started life as "Toleman Motorsport" - that is all very clear from the article contents and from the sources. Do you disagree? -- de Facto (talk). 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You can put your comments wherever you like, just not in between parts of my comment. So we're talking about separate stats? Why? If you must include in the text some kind of combined stats concerning all the teams ever based at Enstone, using that wobbly source as a reference, then it must make painfully clear that they are the combined stats of several constructors. Personally I think it's undue weight in an article about Lotus F1. Keep it at Enstone, but others can have their say on that. To answer your question, it is clear that there is a link between all the teams based at Enstone over the years, but to say that these are the same F1 team is misleading. What I believe is that in F1 terms, they are all different teams that used the same facility and some staff. Separating teams and constructors is unhelpful. A casual reader sees that the Lotus team's infobox stats say zero, and yet in the text it says that they have 500 GPs under their belt. He naturally gets confused. A most clear distinction must be made here as to the exact nature of those combined 500 GPs. I do not think that Motorsport.com source outweighs Autosport, for example, which states that Toleman, Benetton and Renault (apparently it hasn't started 2012 stats yet) are different teams. Note that F1.com seems to claim that Lotus F1 is an extension of the original 1977 Renault team, and not an extension of Toleman / Benetton, which is another heavyweight source that contradicts your own. Personally, I disagree with that too, but that's what they say. I would also note here that the "article contents" reflect your point of view because, largely, you edited them that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What if we'd have something like this:

The name E20 is to celebrate the 20-year-long history of the Enstone based F1 team, currently known as Lotus F1 Team.

And there would be a reference to an article. That wouldn't be long, neither it would mislead people to think Lotus F1 Team won Enstone team's championships. --August90 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer teams (plural). Would not want to set a precedent that Red Bull Racing and Paul Stewart Racing Formula 3000 team were the same team. eg ...long history of Formula One teams based in Enstone... it is bothaccurate and does not place any emphasis on combining three or four separate Formula One identities together in what is only a nod to history. We do not want to get into any WP:OR territory here. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I think as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, plural would imply that there has been more than one Enstone team, rather than the reality of one team renamed many times. It would fail WP:VER too and possibly WP:OR. We need to explain the weird way the FIA tots up the scores rather than attempt to deny that the team is, and always has been, one team. -- de Facto (talk). 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, plural would imply that there has been more than one Enstone team. Yes, exactly it would. Entirely my correct intent. I very firmly believe the alternative would fail OR. Just because they did not exist concurrently does not mean there was not more than one. I refer you to the PSR:RBR comparison. --Falcadore (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, I don't know the history of RBR in relation to PSR, so cannot relate to that. However, I do know some of the history of the Enstone team, so would be interested to understand your definition (as opposed to that of Oxford Dictionaries) of "team". This is getting a little cluttered here, so let's move to the new section below. -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the same as everyone in Formula One who is not you. Dictionary defition's do not have any effect that your opinion is utterly unsupported by those within and without Formula One. Taking the 'E20', which is just a nice little nod to the past, and turning it into a policy or a mission statement is pretty much POV pushing as Wikipedia defines it. I'm not the first to suggest this to you. Nor the second. Hint? --Falcadore (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly all I see necessary is a note in the lead saying something similar to Prisonermonkeys or August's. A quick explanation is necessary, as it doesn't follow any previous conventions, but a whole section is most certainly superfluous. QueenCake (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read through all this - all of this - I have come to the conclusion that the consensus is that a dedicated paragraph describing the naming of the Lotus E20 is too much for the article. I am aware that consensus is not a vote, but I can see at least five people who support this belief. I can only see one who thinks that a subsection with quotes from Eric Boullier is necessary. In light of this, I have to ask: deFacto, why do you persist in editing that subsection into the E20 article when consensus does not support it? It is unnecessary detail that only repeats what the article already states. It does not make the article any better, and it does not impact upon the actual subject of the article - the car - in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, the lines about how many titles the team has won have nothing to do with the actual car, and are already covered in the team articles. This is beginning to feel like POV pushing to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As there was dispute over whether there was one or multiple Enstone teams, maybe we should refer to it as factory. That also avoids the fact that the history of the Enstone team/teams includes also the factory of Witney. I change my previous proposal.

The name E20 is to celebrate the 20-year-long history of the Enstone factory, currently used by Lotus F1 Team.

--August90 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I don't see any such consensus. The discussion has veered away from the original subject and on to whether the team is actually more than one team. Please restore the Lotus E20 content until agreement to expunge it has been reached. -- de Facto (talk). 10:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found three comments in support of expunging said content:

The story behind the name is very much a side-issue, bordering on trivia

The quote is more than it needs, & even allowing it isn't, the last line, about results, is OTT.

Frankly all I see necessary is a note in the lead saying something similar to Prisonermonkeys or August's. A quick explanation is necessary, as it doesn't follow any previous conventions, but a whole section is most certainly superfluous.

That, plus myself, makes four. I can only see you in support of keeping the paragraph in place. That, to me, is a consensus that says the paragraph should not be included.

So no, I won't change it. I don't see a consensus for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's get this right

Result aggregation

With respect to the life of the Witney/Enstone-based F1 team:

1. The results for the team now it is Genii-owned and named Lotus F1 Team must be added to the results of all previous Lotus-related teams.
2. The results for the team when it was Genii-owned and named Lotus Renault GP must be added to the results of all previous Renault-owned teams.
3. The results for the team when it was Renault-owned and named Renault F1 team must be added to the results of all previous Renault-owned teams.
4. The results for the team when it was Renault-owned and named Benetton Formula must be added to the results of all previous Benetton-owned teams.
5. The results for the team when it was Benetton-owned and named Benetton Formula must be added just to the results of the Benetton-owned team.
6. The results for the team when it was Toleman-owned and named Toleman Motorsport must be added just to the results of the Toleman-owned team.

All other methods of aggregating its results, or even giving just a grand-total for the team's life are banned. Is that the way we want it to be? -- de Facto (talk). 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except for #1. No other sources are doing that. A few combine the Chapman Lotus and the Fernandes Lotus, but we haven't done that here through consensus, and nobody seems (yet at least) to be adding the Lotus F1 team results to any other Lotus results. And I wouldn't say "banned" - nothing is banned in that way - I'd just say that any combinations of results of different constructors must be very clearly flagged as such, and justifed as notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Team or teams?

Another point that needs clarifying is: have there been more than one F1 team that was/is Witney/Enstone based, or has the one team had several different owners and several different names? As I understand it, there has been one team from start to finish, with the following details:

From season	Nominal "owner"	Team name	Main base
1981	Toleman	Toleman Motorsport	Witney
1986	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Witney
1993	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Enstone
2000	Renault	Benetton Formula	Enstone
2002	Renault	Renault F1 Team	Enstone
2011	Genii	Lotus Renault GP	Enstone
2012	Genii	Lotus F1 Team	Enstone

If you believe that there was more than one team (as opposed to more than one team name), can you give their details (dates, owners, names, main base, etc.) please. -- de Facto (talk). 08:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are quotes from some recent media coverage (with references) that support the position that's it's one team (with my emphasis):

• "The team [Lotus F1 Team], previously known as Benetton and Renault, moved to Enstone back in 1992 and has taken F1 world titles with both Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso."Crash
• "Last year, when the team was known as Lotus Renault GP,"AutoWeek
• "Lotus Formula One team, formerly known as Renault,"IBN Live
• "Last year's car was called the R31, in accordance with Renault's numbering tradition, but with the name-change to Lotus for 2012, the team has decided..."ESPN F1
• "Enstone has been a Formula 1 team base since 1992, with the team then known as Benetton moving to the facility from its previous Witney, Oxfordshire, base."Motorsport.com

It's one team with many names I think. -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But for the FIA's purposes, they are all recognised as individual constructors. The results achieved by Renault were awarded to Renault, not Benetton, just as the results achieved by Lotus will be credited to Lotus and not Renault ot Benetton. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have another level of name, the "constructor name". Let's try and tabulate that too then:

From season	Nominal "owner"	Team name	Main base	Constructor name
1981	Toleman	Toleman Motorsport	Witney	Toleman
1986	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Witney	Benetton
1993	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Enstone	Benetton
2000	Renault	Benetton Formula	Enstone	Benetton
2002	Renault	Renault F1 Team	Enstone	Renault
2011	Genii	Lotus Renault GP	Enstone	Renault
2012	Genii	Lotus F1 Team	Enstone	Lotus

If I've got it right, we see that even results achieved under Renault ownership were credited to the Benetton constructor name for 2 years, and under Genii credited to the Renault constructor name for 2011. What we have now is one team which has had 4 different owners, at least 5 different team names and 4 constructor names. -- de Facto (talk). 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove or propose here, but the FIA only recognises constructors. All results are credited to the constrcutor, regardless of the actual owner or formal team name. Because of that, we have an individual page for each constructor. And before you point to there ebing three pages for three different stages of Lotus, bear in mind that the FIA did not credit Fernandes-Lotus' results to Chapman-Lotus. Nor will they credit Enstone-Lotus' results to Fernandes-Lotus or Chapman-Lotus. Because the FIA is the authority on the sport, out pages reflect their decisions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The question I'm trying to find the answer to is: have there been more than one F1 team that was/is Witney/Enstone based, or has there been just one team which has had several different owners, several different names and used several different constructor names?". It's nothing to do with how the FIA aggregate their stats. The table shows what I think the known details are. Recent media coverage strongly supports the latter option - that it's been just the one team under various names. What's your view? -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the answer is pretty straightforward, considering that Witney/Enstone is not a team and that Toleman, Benetton, Renault, Lotus are different teams. Otherwise, that would imply that Stewart, Jaguar and Red Bull are one single team (Milton Keynes), that Jordan, Midland, Spyker and Force India are one single team (Silverstone), that BAR, Honda, Brawn and Mercedes are one single team (Brackley), that Minardi and Toro Rosso are one single team (Faenza), and there are probably numerous other examples. That would be just ridiculous. Maimai009 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Maimai009, how do you explain the implication in all the external references mentioned above, that it is a team (singular) that has been renamed several times? After all, at any given transition, the only thing that has changed is the name over the door. Employment contracts remain unchanged, facilities remain unchanged and cars in development are simply re-badged. -- de Facto (talk). 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Different name = different team, even if it's the only difference. Hence Marussia is a different team than Virgin for example. We could also say that (current) Lotus is a team that previously competed as Renault, that wouldn't change the fact that they are distinct from each other. The change of name itself is sufficient to create a frontier between two teams, thus between statistics too. To be clear when I say team name or simply name I refer to the constructor name (which is the same to me), not what you have written under team name in your table, which often incorporates sponsor names. Maimai009 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Maimai009, you've thrown some pretty bright light onto the issue for me. You seem to be assuming that the word "team" is synonomous with "constructor name", the team's "badge" if you like. That is even though each team also has a team name. So, from the table above, you'd say that rows 2, 3 and 4 are all the same "team", that is "Benetton". Whereas rows 5 and 6 are another "team", "Renault". This is despite the fact that in row 4 "Benetton" was used under Renault ownership, and despite the fact that by row 6 Renault had sold the team to Genii. When I (and all the media links above) use the word "team" we mean the collection of human beings and facilities that design and build the cars! You'd hope that we could stick to a different word for the contents of each colum of the table! So this is how the table looks now:

From season	Nominal "owner"	Team name	Main base	Constructor name	"Team"
1981	Toleman	Toleman Motorsport	Witney	Toleman	Toleman
1986	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Witney	Benetton	Benetton
1993	Benetton	Benetton Formula	Enstone	Benetton	Benetton
2000	Renault	Benetton Formula	Enstone	Benetton	Benetton
2002	Renault	Renault F1 Team	Enstone	Renault	Renault
2011	Genii	Lotus Renault GP	Enstone	Renault	Renault
2012	Genii	Lotus F1 Team	Enstone	Lotus	Lotus

The team (physical) has competed as 4 different teams (constructor names). Is it any wonder that there is confusion! It looks as though we need to disambiguate the use of the word "team" each time we use it. -- de Facto (talk). 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you correct the "Tolemenan" thing in line 2 as it's distracting? Thanks. Britmax (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. -- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies your problem. "Team" is indeed an ambiguous term in F1, and one many here try to avoid using for that very reason. From the available information at Companies House, Lotus F1 Team Limited is a brand new company. Therefore it cannot have any contract continuity with previous occupiers of the Enstone site, and has merely bought the assets of the now-defunct Lotus Renault GP Limited. The problem you are facing here is that this isn't just a case of an independent racing company operating as an apparently different entrant, while all along keeping the same corporate structure (which does happen often, see RML, Triple Eight, or Prodrive, for example). This is a case where the company has been bought lock, stock, barrel, factory, rolling chassis, the lot, by one entity from another entity. Yes, a large number of people stay on, taking new contracts with the new company (having been with Woolwich plc when it was bought out by Barclays I can tell you that most often the only thing the grunts see are new contracts thrust under their noses and which they are told to sign, but it is still a new contract), but it is under new ownership and a different operating name. Think of it in another context: by your logic, the Minis currently rolling off the production line in Cowley are actually Cowley cars, not MINI or BMW, and in our discussion of them on Wikipedia we should be mentioning the factory's glory days of bashing out Minors, Marinas and Montegos, and tracing a direct heritage link back to those vehicles. Same facility, same people operating the spanners, some degree of corporate continuity, ergo same "team". By "team" most of your sources seem to simply be referring to "a bunch of people". Entrant and constructor rights (distinct from the definition of a team in most F1 contexts, see the Sporting Regs. 13.2) are not owned by that bunch of people but by the entity whose name is on the ownership documents and on the FIA entry forms. This is clearly how the different identities are handled by the FIA, FOM (or whatever they are called these days) and a majority of media sources, and the fact that you have a handful that take a minority position doesn't mean that we need to completely realign the presentation of Formula One teams on Wikipedia. The fact that Boullier and Lopez seem to be trying to generate some heritage for their new toy could be due to a lot of factors (my money is on pending Concorde Agreement negotiations...) but we don't have to do more than give it due weight. Pyrope 15:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyrope, yes, by the definition in the English language, and as used in the references, including the one from formula1.com, "team" is the "bunch of people" - and not any of the registration names given to them by whoever. I don't know if there is a direct line of succession between the setup at Cowley now and the setup that was there in its heyday as a PSF factory, but that isn't an analogy with what we're discussing here. Here we have the complete company of people required to develop, build and race an F1 car (including the drivers), not just a small part of one of their workshops as in the Cowley example, being passed from one owner to another and branded with a new name. They are essentially the same "bunch of people" each side of a given transition. F1, or perhaps some sloppy editors here, may have hi-jacked the term "team" to mean "entrant" or "constructor" or whatever, but that doesn't alter the essential fact: a constructor name (or entrant name) isn't a team, although the team may use the constructor name (or entrant name). -- de Facto (talk). 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we are arguing over what constitutes a team. As Pyrope rightly says, team is an ambigious term in F1 circles. At Wikipedia all we need to be discussing is what constitutes a seperate article. This was determined by consensus some weeks ago. I'm not sure why we're still discussing anything here. If you have a query over results, the results shown on an article will be those that fall within the boundaries of the article. It's pretty bloody simple if you ask me. - mspete93 16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a different discussion now, not about article scope for a change. It's whether a "team" (singular) can be described, for example, as having won a certain number of champioships, even though they were under different constructor names. Some have argued that they are "teams" (plural). It's come up several times in the last day or two in relation to stuff I've added (with full RS support) to various Enstone related articles. It was also a problem in the context of Lotus's 500th GP (you've contributed to the related discussion at Talk:Lotus F1) -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A "bunch of people" have no standing in F1. The people are employed by an entrant who enters cars for the championship, and that entrant identifies the constructor and team names. Sometimes entrants choose to maintain continuity with a previous entity, sometimes they don't. The vast majority of F1 official and media references make the "team" breaks where the name breaks occur. You have found a few recent references that are once again using the term "team" in a sloppy and ambiguous way. You are now attempting to tie that sloppy usage to a misplaced, semi-formal usage that has grown up in recent years and claim that they essentially mean the same thing. If my competitor buys my old factory and hires my old workforce I don't then expect them to start claiming my history as theirs. That is what Lopez et al. seem to be trying to do, by claiming that wins made by Benetton and Renault cars somehow now belong to Lotus's history. They don't. There has been a Formula One facility on the Enstone site for 20 years. It has been owned and operated by a number of different companies, but so what? Can Red Bull claim Williams's and McLaren's World Championships just because they currently employ Adrian Newey? How is a factory site any different? As for the "bunch of people", how many of them worked for Tom Walkinshaw's operation? How many would there have to be before they counted as the same "team"? Does it matter what role they perform? All the top folks from the 1994/95 seasons are gone now, so just because the teaboy and some composite lay-up specialists are still working in close proximity are we to believe that it is the same "team"? Sure, there may be quite a few people who are still there having moved with Benetton from Witney, but again, so what? Enstone is not Prodrive, it is not one integral corporate entity that happens to work for different people at different times; it is a facility that has been directly owned and operated by at least three distinct corporate bodies in the last 20 years. For a while it was the Formula One facility of Luciano Benetton's empire, then it was the Formula One division of the Regie, then it became a commercial tool of the Genii group. You claim your additions are made "with full RS support", but that depends on whether it is agreed that the sources are reliable, and also whether the sources represent the majority view. As far as I can see they do not. Pyrope 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyrope, it's the "bunch of people" who make the cars. The owner of the entity that employs the "bunch of people" decides what name they will use. If the owner sells the entity to another owner, then the new owner gets to decide the name. It's not rocket science. A factory is useless without the "bunch of people", and it isn't the factory we're talking about. The "bunch of people" can be moved to another factory and remain esentially the same "bunch of people", as we saw when Benetton moved their "bunch of people" from Witney to Enstone. The "bunch of people" personnel isn't going to necessarily change drastically from one day to the next just because their entity ownership has changed. Equally, the personnel turnover of a "bunch of people" is no more likely to be greater if their entity has had 2 or 3 owners than if it has had just one, so those still there after 30 years would be the same either way. It is the cohesion of the "bunch of people" that makes them what they are, not their entity name or owner. "Enstone" as we seem to have settled into calling the Witney/Enstone entity, has had 4 owners, yes. Whether a source is reliable, or not, is independent of the content of specific articles, it's based on the nature of the source. NPOV dictates that we balance the views represented by the reliable sources. If most refer to the "bunch of people" as a "team" across multiple owners, then "team" it is. -- de Facto (talk). 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I think I maybe actually sit somewhere in the middle here. I don't think that in any way the 2005 and 2006 world championships can be attributed to Lotus F1 Team, as Pyrope says. But at the same time, the truth is that under previous incarnations the team did win those titles. But that can be, and is, detailed under the team's background in the relevant articles. - mspete93 19:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. That bunch of people at Enstone may have won those titles as a different company, but "that bunch of people at Enstone" have no identity of their own in Formula One terms, i.e. no notable Formula One identity. Their identity is solely that of the name on the cars, which often changes when the company is sold. Any titles won by a constructor that occupied the Enstone site are not in any sense passed on to subsequent owners / constructors. That is paramount. Because the Enstone "team" (which is a very unhelpful word to use to describe them) have no F1 identity of their own, their previous incarnations deserve only very brief mention in an article about the current constructor, i.e. Lotus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, different company, different owner, whatever - but still the same team under the covers. They assume the identity that their current owners choose to give them. No, I agree, the FIA's or whoever's, rules aggregate the stats by abstract constructor name or entrant name, I'm not exactly sure which, and not by the actual identity of the entity itself. If exactly the same group of people built an identical car two consecutive years and won the championship both times, the rules are daft enough that if the owner of the team registered the same name for both years the record would be different from if two different names were registered. Luckily the reliable sources won't let that wash, and can reflect the reality. The pedigree of a team is important in an article, even moreso if their name has changed and their history risks being obfuscated. -- de Facto (talk). 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You see, part of the problem here is that you think that the term "constructor" is an abstract. What makes you think that? The FIA is the official arbiter of what is and what isn't the case in F1, and what they say goes. They trump any two-bit media source you can find. No, those rules aren't daft. It's about business and money, and who pays for their name to be put on the cars. It is not about who wields the spanners. Sad in a way, but true, and that's the official line. Your "reality" does not exist, only in a rose-tinted rainbow world where the "pedigree" of a team might mean something. In F1, it's a footnote, and way, way behind the notability of constructors and carefully-constructed team identities. If I pay 100 million for an F1 team and that team wins the championship with my name on it, it's my team and my championship, and there's no claim on it (legal or otherwise) from the previous owner, or some ethereal "real team" carried over from years ago. That's how F1 works, and we reflect it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, the "constructor name" is hardly a concrete concept. It is a paper name, it doesn't impact, and isn't impacted by, the team make-up, the car technology, the factory facilities, the factory location, the team ownership,... All that it actually impacts is the officially recognised model for the aggregation of race results and miscellaneous statistics. Now that's fine, so long as we understand it, and make it clear in the articles, but to suggest that it has a wider impact or that we need to restrain what we write, or exclude certain pertinant bits of information, on the pretext that it doesn't align with the FIA contructor name mapping is, frankly, ridiculous. -- de Facto (talk). 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Constructor is not just a paper name. It is the recognised chassis make used by a team, which you seem to think is just a technicality but was extremely important in the years of customer teams before the 80s. Nowadays each team must be a constructor, but it doesn't change the fact the the constructor name is still important. QueenCake (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) mspete, the 1994, 1995, 2005 and 2006 championships were won by exactly the same team that is now called Lotus F1 Team, yes. That doesn't mean that all the same personnel stil work for it, or that no others have joined it. As with Manchester United and its, say, 1977 FA cup win - it's the same team now as then (admittedly easier to follow in that example as the convention in that sport is to keep the same team name, regardles of owner etc.). -- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying is that those championships were won by Lotus. You see the problem here? The football analogy is helpful. If the football club had changed its name and its identity, no, the history does not transfer to the new team, as per Milton Keynes Dons F.C., even though they're a legal continuation of Wimbledon F.C. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, neither I nor anyone else, as far as I know, are saying those championships were won by Lotus. We're saying that they were won by the team that's now called Lotus F1 Team. If,say, you won the world darts championship in 2005 as Bretonbanquet, then in 2012 changed your name by deed poll to Fred Bloggs, would you cease to be able to claim the 2005 victory as yours? -- de Facto (talk). 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Those championships weren't won by Lotus, but they were won by "exactly the same team that is now called Lotus". Yeah, that really makes a bundle of sense. The "team" you're talking about does not exist in the sense you think it does. Your last analogy is beyond ridiculous. I see you abandoned the football analogy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they weren't won under the Lotus constructor name - they haven't turned a wheel under that yet - or is the current F1.com take on that going to prevail do you think? The "team" does exist, its now called Lotus F1 Team. The Fred Bloggs analogy is a perfect match. Another good one is when a woman takes her husband's name when she gets married. The football analogy holds quite well, as I understand it, MK only dropped their claim to WFC's history to placate some fan organisation, not because they don't consider it to be part of their history. -- de Facto (talk). 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Something which seems to have been ignored in all this is that Toleman did not die when it sold its Formula One team to Benetton. They just went on to do other things. Toleman Motorsport still exists and does stuff these days like racing category management. How can it be merged into anything when it is still operating? By merging part of a companies history with others it is being rather selective as to what you consider Toleman is. --Falcadore (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, it's been ignored because it's irrelevant. They sold the F1 team, that's all we're interested in here. It then evolved into Benetton and was moved to Enstone. The rest is history. -- de Facto (talk). 21:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It illustrates that you're being selective about which facts you want to use to make your case. Wikipedia is not supposed to be selective. --Falcadore (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore, you'll need to expand on your reasoning there, I don't follow you. As I understand it, the scope here is F1 teams. -- de Facto (talk). 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Convenience break

At what point do we draw a line under this? This discussion has all the hallmarks of a never-ending argument, it's going on at other talk pages too, and the consensus is only heading one way. It's not like we haven't discussed it before, with the same result, and we should not let this disrupt the other stuff we have to do. Is this horse dead or are there a number of people who want to keep breathing life into it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the horse is long since dead. I've read over this entire argument and I still have no idea what DeFacto is trying to prove or even propose. When a team's constructor name changes, the FIA treats them as an entirely new outfit, regardless of who is actually owning or running the team, and that is what we use as a guide for creating and managing pages. No matter what argument is made, it does not invalidate, discredit, disprove, overlook, explain away, undermine - or any other adjective you want to use - the FIA's practice. If Lotus F1 is exactly the same team as Renault F1 with the exception of the constrcutor name, that doesn't matter. It doesn't mean anything. The FIA still treats them as entirely different entities, and so should we. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I'm not "trying" prove or propose anything. I'm attempting to to clear-up the misunderstandings and confusion, that seems to pervade these corridors, over the use of the word "team". -- de Facto (talk). 13:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, as I seet it, it boils down an issue of neutrality - the NPOV. We are labouring here under the illusion that we have to map everything we write to the model that the FIA use for their collation of official statistics for the sport (or even to our distorted picture, or misrepresentation, of it!). We do not, there are other reliably supported models. This is Wikipedia, not the newsletter of the FIA appreciation society. -- de Facto (talk). 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with neutrality. There is only one official source for statistics, and that is the FIA. They are the ones who regulate the sport and decide the rules for teams and collecting statistics - what anyone else decides to do does not matter. We could have a source that does what you want and lump in all the results from that Enstone place as one entity, but no matter if it was a reliable source it contradicts the proper way of the sport and should not be used. QueenCake (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also a number of reliable sources, who, at the time purely for fun purposes, recaclualted all previous World Championships according to the current pointscores. That does not make those recalcualtions anything other than what they were. little trivia what-if pieces. However viewed in a certain light and in isolation of the rest of the accompaning articles can suggest something completely different than what actual happened. It is not Wikipedia role to reproduce their original research. There are enough Formula One publications, respectable and otherwise, that you can make a case that Stirling Moss is a three time world champion. You could cite it from reliable sources provide graphs, quotes etc.

And it would still be fantasy.

It is not Wikipedias role to give those fantasies legitimacy.

There is more than one model for many many methods of sports calculations. --Falcadore (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Falcadore:

1. If there are a weighty number of reliable sources reporting exactly the same information, and that information is on-topic, and relevent in the context of a particular article, then why not add it? The data we are discussing here though isn't "what if", it is simple factual data with no theoretical or hypothetical assumptions involved. The team has competed in xxx gands prix, or won xxx championships is exactly what it says on the tin.
2. Information recorded in multiple reliable sources is NOT original research, in the Wikipedia sense. Wiki OR is explicitly an unsourced synthesis.
3. Reliably sourced and due weight fantasies are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia if they are correctly attributed.

-- de Facto (talk). 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

De Facto:

1. What weighty sources? So far you have provided throwaway one-liners mentioning "the team". I see no good, reliable, secondary sources discussing the identity and history of "The Enstone Team".

2. Compiling small snippets from multiple sources and synthesizing them together to produce an argument is original research. You need to find a number of articles, secondary articles (i.e. not merely regurgitating or providing commentary on recent press releases), that discuss "The Enstone Team", and that have done the synthesis themselves.

3. No, really, they aren't. Go read WP:DUE. Fringe views, held by a tiny minority, are not included here.

4. (below) The "big deal" is that you are trying to impose an extreme minority viewpoint, supported by only the flimsiest of evidence, and pretend that it is a valid interpretation of the structure and history of Formula One. You have yet to provide a decent source that discusses the issue. You have yet to show how a nebulous, ill-defined, ever-changing "bunch of people" have a corporeal identity that can be tracked through time. You have ignored all of my and Bretonbnquet's requests to explain how you overcome the Trigger's Broom/Lincoln's Axe paradoxes, you haven't made any comment referring to my point about the paucity of people remaining in Enstone that were there in 1994-95, and you have ignored perfectly justified points regarding the status of employees within an organisation. We aren't brain washed. If you can find one single stats compilation site on the internet that treats "The Enstone Team" with the same weight and regard as every other team throughout the history of the World Championship I'llnot just concede your point, I'll send you a cake.

Pyrope 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyrope:

1a. The ones that Falcadore was referring to that he says have "recaclualted all previous World Championships according to the current pointscores".

1b. You want more sources referring to the Enstone "team", or even the "Enstone team"? Here's a few, available online: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] Do you need more?

2a. Yes, that's OR, more or less, if none of them support that argument separately. Unlike my point, where they all support the same "argument".

2b. See 1b.

3. We weren't talking about fringe views though, we were talking about Falcadore's fantasy facts, supported by multiple reliable sources.

4. I'm not offering a "viewpoint", I'm writing about facts. Did you read my reply to your epistle, up above somewhere, about staff turnover, etc. The name, even the worship-worthy "constructor name", isn't necessarily a significant attribute of a "team". Staff will leave, and staff will join - regardless of ownership. I don't know how many of the 1994-5 staff are still with the, at least, 500-strong team, do you? I wonder how many of the 1952 Ferrari team are still with them. We are not talking about "the compilation of stats", the FIA model is generally used for that, we are talking about how many races the Enstone team have participated in and how many championships they (including their drivers) have won.

A Battenberg please. -- de Facto (talk). 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Between you and Pyrope you've now crystalised the argument down to the essentials. Where is the statistics database which calculates the "Enstone" team? Where is it? If it exists beyond a rash of mentions in articles mostly connected to the Lotus wrangle and the E20 name where is the stats which calculate "Enstone" into a table.

Because any such table would presumably also list such other similar Meta-teams like "Brawn" (Tyrrell+BAR+Honda+Brawn GP+Mercedes GP-Honda (1960s)-Mercedes-Benz) and Austrian Racing Tartan Big Cats (Stewart+Jaguar+Red Bull) and Dutch Force Ireland SSR (Jordan+Midland+Spyker+Force Inda) and Italian Energy Drink Racing (Minardi+Toro Rosso) and yet also splits Afla Romeo into Alfa Romeo (1950s) and Auto Delta as well as the Honda/mercedes splits.

Where is this factory based statistics tables? Where? --Falcadore (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What statistics database are you referring to Falcadore? We've been talking about the meaning of the word "team" in the context of the Witney/Enstone team. Yes, some sources have totted up the total number of races, championships, etc. that that team has accumulated under its various "constructor names" over the years, is it links to them you want? I don't know if similar analyses exist for the Brackley team or the Silverstone team, or whoever. -- de Facto (talk). 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The stats database that was the condition of the cake dispatch... Something that indicates that the "Enstone" entity that you claim has some sort of greater existance than simply "the people who work for whomsoever owns the Enstone facility". Some sources casually totting up stats for various teams that have occupied the Enstone site hardly suggests that "Enstone" is a name to be bandied about in the same sentence as "Ferrari" and the rest. You keep falling back on this idea that a bunch of people constitute a Team (caps for distinction) in F1, but they don't. This is where use of the term is deeply unhelpful; you want team and Team to be synonymous, but they aren't and never have been treated as such. Pyrope 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyrope, you are labouring under a misapprehension here. I've never claimed, or suggested, that the Witney/Enstone team (through its various constructor name changes) should be treated as though it had always been the same constructor. All I've ever argued it that it is fair enough to talk about its lifetime achievements as a team, and it has been a team for 30 years, and it and its drivers have won championships. That you, and some others here, refuse to accept that fact, a fact which is self-evident from reading the articles concerned, and which appears in various external publications and which, to be frank, is basic common-sense, is incredible and defies logic in my book! -- de Facto (talk). 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

QueenCake:

1. The FIA is the official source of "official" statistics, yes. That isn't the issue here, and I have no problem with us sourcing the FIA for the official statistics that we record and attribute to them.
2. My point is that the official stats have their place, yes - but they do not stop us recording other intersting and pertinent "statistics" as reported in various reliable sources. That the FIA treat the team currently using the Lotus constructor name as a new entity is not the issue. The issue is our haste to condemn and even suppress the accurate historical data and statistics about other, non-FIA controlled, aspects of a team's life work. I do not understand what the big deal is over this - it seems like everyone has been brain-washed to worship the one, true, FIA truth!

-- de Facto (talk). 14:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)