Talk:Lotus E20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name link with Enstone[edit]

[Discussion moved here from User talk:DeFacto] -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your [de Facto's] edits to the Lotus E20 page, the one where you quote Eric Boullier about the naming of the car. One line about the E20 being named for twenty years at Enstone is enough - the quote from Eric Boullier doesn't add anything (especially since it's pretty much Ronspeak). It might make for "interesting reading", and it might be from a reliable source, but that does not automatically make it notable enough for inclusion. It's a bit like including a car release schedule in the season articles - they don't affect the 2012 season. In the same way, Eric Boullier's comments do not affect the development of the E20. They add nothing that the existing line about the naming of the car does not already do. If people want to know more, they can follow the link to the appropriate article in the references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a review of the press coverage of the car, I've restored the section, and expanded it slightly, as the reason for the name choice features prominently is many international reliable sources. A fuller discussion of it is certainly due. -- de Facto (talk). 14:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important. It's already covered in the article, and all you've really added is a quote from Eric Boullier. Just because something has coverage from the media, that doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion. How, exactly, does a dedicated subsection a) do what the one line in the lead doesn't already do, and b) affect the actual car?
Look at Ferrari 150° Italia, which also had a significant name (commemorating 150 years of Italian unification). It doesn't have a dedicated subsection given over to the reasoning behind the name. It does have a subsection given over to the naming dispute with Ford, which could have forced the team to change the name. That was notable. Sound-bytes from Luca di Montezemolo or Stefano Domenicali were not important enough for inclusion - so why are Boullier's comments important enough for this page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted by interested editors that a discussion on this is also taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus E20. -- de Facto (talk). 10:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you edit details of the name choice back into the article? You direct editors' attention to the discussion over at the WikiProject, but that discussion is (so far) agreeing that a dedicated subsection to the choice of the name does not need to be included. Just look at some of the comments from that discussion:
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.
You can summarise something without giving a full account when a full account is not necessary. Why are Eric Boullier's comments about the name choice so critical to this article? And why are you ignoring these comments from other editors? You seem to be under the assumption that just because something is reported by a reliable source, it is notable enough for inclusion in the article. The article aready does exactly this by giving the reason for the name choice. Anything more is compeltely unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prisonermonkeys, why didn't you mention that there was some, guarded, support too? Given the amount of international media cover for the name choice, that info certainly has due weight, and belongs in the main body of the article with just a summary in the lead as per WP:LEAD. Articles don't have to be minimalist, leaving the reader to have to trawl through the references for background information. I'm not convinced of your view of the desired direction here. -- de Facto (talk). 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't see any "guarded support". I cited three examples of comments from that discussion in support of keeping the article in its current state (without the dedicated paragraph). The least you can do is point out some examples of this so-called "support", especially given that the conversation drifted away from the topic.
And just because something is mentioned in the lead, and just because it has a source to back it up, that doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough for inclusion. Your dedicated paragraph does not expand on the sentence in the lead in any way at all. It just repeats what was said in the lead - twice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cusory glance reveals:
I don't have a big problem with the quote, although I do have a problem with the last sentence..
and
But generally I think including the reasoning behind a chassis designation is a good thing.
Guarded support? Have you looked at any of the F1 media recently? That the new car's name is a tribute to the 20-year history of the team is big news. There is no doubt in my mind that the fact has due enough weight to justify its inclusion in the article body. Funnily enough, I don't see much, or even any cover for the ride height system that you've built a huge section to cover. -- de Facto (talk). 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is a special meaning behind the chassis designation indeed deserves to be covered. By a single sentence, nothing more. Because this is far from big news, and that won't change the car. On the other hand, the ban on the ride height system actually does affect the car, its performance and possibly design. And it has been heavily covered by media. Maimai009 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of background around the sentence too, perhaps? The name doesn't affect the car's performance, no, but it gives ahint about the culture within the team, and adds interest to what could be an otherwise slightly dull article. -- de Facto (talk). 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ride height system is all over the media, what sources are you reading, De facto? On second thoughts, I already know. Since you quoted me to suit your own argument, I'll clarify that the name deserves a mention. A mention in the article body, and not the lead. Not a paragraph with several sentences, nor any ridiculous implication that Lotus F1 is a team that started in the 80s and has won X number of races and championships. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet, perhaps you'll point us to some of the media references that the ride height system is all over then. You support my view that the name choice deserves a mention in the main body, at least - thanks. Can you remind us then when, and where, the team currently named Lotus F1 Team started (here's a hint from the official F1 website if you need it: [1])? -- de Facto (talk). 20:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read it at Autosport, I'm assuming you know where that is. But anyway, ESPN [2], BBC [3], GP.com [4] etc etc all carried the story. Yes, I think the name choice deserves a mention in the article body. Funny you should mention the crackhead official website, because here [5] they seem to think it began in 1977 with Equipe Renault. My understanding is that the current team/constructor currently known as Lotus F1 has yet to turn a wheel. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ride-height stuff wasn't mentioned in relation to the reveal of the E20 then? The name choice was in dozens, if not scores, of articles about the new car. Formula1.com appear to have renamed their Renault constructor page to Lotus - LOL. Should we update the Lotus F1 infobox based on that? ;-) The team has yet to turn a wheel using the constructor name Lotus, but has turned the wheels enough to compete in 495 GPs under its previous constructor names. -- de Facto (talk). 22:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was - don't you read any of that stuff? In any case, the ride height aspect doesn't need to be in the same sources as the launch, why would it? Are you really trying to say that the ride height system is less important to this article than the effing name? You have no support and no consensus for your ideas, it's about time you faced that. That's pretty much what it comes down to on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the name story was more widely reported than the ride height system. Either way, both have due weight for inclusion. One is of interest to those interested in the technological context of the car, the other to those interested in the pedigree and cultural or historical context of the car. Who is to say which is more important? -- de Facto (talk). 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on-topic — and please make sure it stays that way[edit]

Alright, let's not get distracted here. The issue at hand is how much weight to we subsribe to the name of the chassis. Do we include a single sentence explaining the name of the chassis, or do we dedicate an entire subsection to the name?

I believe that the former is the best way forwards. These are my arguments:

1) We have never gone into any great detail to explain the name of a car's chassis before, even with names that have special significance, such as the Ferrari 150° Italia (which only has one sentence explaining the name).
2) The proposed changes do not add anything more to the article. They simply repeat what is already said in the lead twice in two sentences; taking one sentence away does not leave enough content to substantiate a dedicated subsection. And the quote from Eric Boullier is essentially Ronspeak.
3) The statement about the titles won by the team at Enstone is misleading, because the FIA recognises Lotus F1 as a new team.
4) The statement about the titles won by the team at Enstone is inappropriate, because it is better-suited to the team pages and not the car pages.
5) Details on the car name are dangerously close to trivia, which is to be avoided.
6) There is no consensus for a dedicated subsection, either on this Talk page or at WP:F1.

In short, I believe that the proposed changes are completely unnecessary. There is no need for added depth on the subject of the team name, and the proposed subsection offers no additional depth to begin with. Furthermore, the subsection does not do anything that the article does not already do. Just because something is reported in reliable sources, that does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in an article.

I am willing to listen to any argument for the inclusion of the subsection. However, until such time as those arguments are accepted and a new consensus is formed, then I suggest that the page remain in its current state. Given the ongoing and extensive discussions on the subject of Lotus F1 at the WikiProject, any attempts to change the page by adding this content may be regarded as POV pushing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, why ration the space we dedicate to the name story? It's not as if the article is overbloated now is it. If there is significant reliable-source coverage of a particular topic, why suppress it? Do it for the Ferrari 150° Italia too if the sources are there. The name story does add something to the article. It adds cultural and historical context to compliment the technical information. If you think that the statement about titles won previously by the same team (albeit under a different constructor name) is misleading then copy-edit it to make it less so, but don't try to suppress it. Whether the FIA recognise the team, under its new name, as a "new team" may be important in the context of FIA results, stats or whatever, but does not trump other reliably-sourced data or information about the team, and certainly doesn't render it untrue or inaccurate in the wider world outside of the jurisdiction of the FIA. If the team's history and culture are important enough to be mentioned by the team head and by the media in relation to the new car and its name, then who are we to then say, well actually, that shouldn't be mentioned in that context? The answer is that we are obliged to convey a due-weight NPOV version of what all the sources say about the subject. Some of it does belong on the team page too (see the, sometimes acrimonious, debate there too).
In short, I believe you are wrong to attempt to suppress the mainstream take on this, and I don't care too much for whether you are prepared, or not, to "listen to any argument for the inclusion of the subsection" or whether you think that the addition of the NPOV mainstream, reliably-sourced take on this is POV-pushing. I think you need to review your attitude to this, and take a fresh look at some of the Wiki policies on content.
-- de Facto (talk). 10:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant reliable-source coverage of a particular topic" does not automatically warrant its inclusion. Your proposed changes effectively repeat what is already said in the article. There is no more content to be included. The reason for the name is already in the article. The existing version already has due weight. If there was more to it, I would be more than willing to include it. But there isn't. This is what the article currently says:
"The E20 will be the twentieth Formula One car to be designed at Enstone since 1992, and is named in tribute to the contribution made by the facility and its personnel in their twenty-year history.
And this is what your proposed changes say:
"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'."
This expanded paragraph adds nothing. It just repeats what is already said in the lead. Twice. There is no extra depth here, no additional content that can be added. We have already covered everything that needs to be said with one sentence. Can you not see this? The article only needs to say things once. Not three times. And I don't understand why you seem to think this is such an imperative inclusion for the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prisonermonkeys, are you confusing this discussion with another, I haven't proposed any changes? The material that you are characterising as my proposal for a change was added to the article during its original creation, and before any, but the original (me), editor had worked on the article at all. You then, without discussion or consensus, removed the whole name section and replaced it with a single sentence in the lead and crowned it with a snide edit summary (here). -- de Facto (talk). 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So all of my arguments are completely invalidated because of the wording of one sentence, and because you attached undue weight to the name of the chassis in the first place, completely ignoring the RRH? I'm sorry, but that is a very poor argument. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't that that made them invalid, it was the flawed and irrational "logic" in them that made them invalid. I didn't attach undue weight to anything and I didn't ignore anything. Now, unless you come up with a sound reason for not expanding the name item back into a section of its own, I'll go ahead and do it. F1 car names aren't often as notable as this one has turned out be be, the only other one that got anywhere close recently was that of the Ferrari 150° Italia, and I notice you haven't expunged the dedicated section from that article, yet. -- de Facto (talk). 21:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ferrari is a different case - there was a legal dispute with Ford over the usage of the name, which is a far more notable circumstance than this ultimately unimportant issue. It simply needs a note in the lead explaining the name choice. QueenCake (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QueenCake, please explain your parameters, with reference to Wiki policies, for declaring the Ferrari name story "a far more notable circumstance than this ultimately unimportant issue". -- de Facto (talk). 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight is the main one that was already brought to your attention on the discussion over on the project. A legal challenge over Ferrari's usage of the name, which led to the cars renaming (twice!), was notable due to it's impact upon the subject. The new Lotus car being called E20 does not need a whole section - it barely warrants a mention really, but I can see how it could require clarification as it is starting a different naming convention.
You might also want to read the paragraph on the MOS about Relative emphasis: In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, and titles. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body. QueenCake (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QueenCake, thanks. In the first part you don't describe your reasoning for declaring one reason for a name as of due weight whilst the other wasn't. I'm intrigued. The E20 name reason is widely covered in the media, probably much more than the Ferrari case, so is eminently notable and of due weight.
Your second part more or less supports what I said at WP:F1, in defence of keeping the section in place. -- de Facto (talk). 23:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken in claiming E20 received more media attention. To my knowledge, it has been the subject of an article once on the motorsport news sites, while possibly receiving a mention in interviews or other articles across the wider press - if any non-motorsport sites are carrying this rather routine story. The Ferrari naming issue lasted a month and was widely reported across the mainstream media; look at the Telegraph or Guardian websites and you'll see articles about the F150 dispute, but nothing about the E20.
Secondly, no it does not support what you said. Please read the bolded part: "...not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as...titles". The title of the race car is a specific fact, and explaining the name does not need to be repeated as a section. QueenCake (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ride height system[edit]

I felt it necessary to remove the "Design" section from the article (in this edit), pending agreement over an acceptable text. The problems, I felt, with it were manyfold:

  1. The assertion "The Lotus E20 was developed with a "reactive ride-height" system." in the first sentence was unsupported.
  2. The second sentence "It was first proposed..." was an unsupported interpretation of second-hand speculation in the unreliable (as per WP:RS) reference supplied.
  3. The third sentence was an WP:OR synthesis, combining speculatiuon of what "the system" comprised of and the FIA decrees.
  4. The fourth sentence "The FIA later confirmed..." was predicated on speculation about what "the system" was.

Perhaps we can cooperate to work up something which is verifiable to replace it. -- de Facto (talk). 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this would cover it:


-- de Facto (talk). 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted an adminsitrator and put in a request for page protection until the ongoing issues with this page can be resolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't an ongoing issue (unlike the one about the name, which isn't causing any edit-war-like trouble at the moment), although your reluctance to discuss now may result in it being one. You'd be better advised to start attempting to excuse it from WP:VER, or alternatively cooperating in the discussion above, and attempting to arrive at an acceptable, supported and verifiable wording.
Answer my points above which hilight each and every issue, as I see it, if you think I am mistaken, but don't just revert with no explanation, and with talk of "I have contacted an adminsitrator" thrown in too, please. -- de Facto (talk). 07:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, why are you removing points about the RRH from this page and not other pages that they appear on? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read every other page in Wikipedia yet; tell me which other pages it is on, and if I get time, I'll check them over for you. But as each article stands alone, that the information may exist elsewhere is not a valid excuse for it being re-included here without satisfying the normal inclusion criteria.
In the meantime, as I'm not planning entering an edit war with you - despite your persistent provocation, I suggest you perform a self-revert, as I think you risk being blocked from editing the article otherwise. Alternatively, you could try providing a satisfactory explanations against the points I raise above as to why it should be exempt from the specified Wiki polices, or otherwise explaining how you think I am mistaken in my interpretation of them please. -- de Facto (talk). 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal that you are suggesting implies that Lotus did not develop the RRH, and so when it was banned, it suggests they did not do anything wrong. A lot of your edits, both here and on other pages, depict Lotus F1 in a highly-positive light. As I have said elsewhere, when you created this page, you dedicated an entire subsection to the naming of the chassis, emphasising the team's success - but you did not mention the design of the RRH, despite the way it had received extensive media coverage just four days before. And when I pointed this out, you played dumb and acted as if the information on the RRH was not recent enough to be included.

Furthermore, despite the serious WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL breaches that you claim the section has, you have not alerted anyone else to it. Every source in that section is reliable, and the summary simply recounts events and rewrites highly-technical articles into layman's terms so that readers can understand it. And despite this, you still claim that the section is not appropriate for this page, even though your argument for the inclusion of the naming of the chassis was that "if it appears in enough sources, it should be included". Even though the RRH got ten times the coverage that the name of the chassis did, you never bothered to include it. Even now, you are downplaying the importance of the part and Lotus' role in developing it, once again demonstrating your habit of portraying Lotus in a very positive light. If the section is really so flawed, how come you are the only one who can see it that way? Surely somebody else would have noticed it by now.

I suggest that you stop throwing the rule book at others as soon as consensus goes against you. Despite the section on the car's design being present for several days, you did not see fit to remove it until someone else joined the debate on the status of the name and the consensus moved away from you. I believe you are holding the page hostage, trying to force through changes that you want. Your edits are disruptive, to say the least. If anybody is in danger of being blocked from Wikipedia, it's you. You have violated consensus, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and half a dozen other policies to try and keep only the content that you deem appropriate to be kept in the article.

You are biased, and so you have no palce editing this article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ride height system 2[edit]

The content about the ride height system had two major problems.

  1. The asserted relationship of such a system to the E20 is unverifiable from the supplied source. The cited source (from James Allen of F1) is speculation by its author, based on speculation by an F1 photographer (so second-hand speculation), that Lotus Renault GP were developing such a system last year, but there is no confirmation that the E20 design ever included it. This speculation, attributed as speculation, belongs not in the E20 article, but in the Lotus Renault GP and Lotus F1 Team articles, if anywhere.
  2. The content about the regulations is worded to imply that it is only the Lotus development that is implicated, when it is actually the generic system - and applies to all teams, rather than just to one specific implementation. That content belongs in the 2012 Formula One season article. It is thus OR.

For those reasons I have replaced it with something more accurate, verifiable, and similar to the content in the Ferrari F2012 article. -- de Facto (talk). 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read this, then. It makes it quite clear that Lotus developed the system and intended to use it in 2012. I've rewritten the section to actually reflect what happened.
Also, your current edits still insinuate that Lotus never developed the RRH at all, and thus did nothing wrong when the FIA banned it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read that section, as I left it, you would have seen that it already stated "which they [Lotus] hoped to use in their 2012 car" - and it was verifiable from the source I cited. Your tweak to that sentence has left it grammatically broken (you lost the subject of the last clause), so difficult to comprehend.
Secondly, my edit did not "insinuate" anything - it merely gave an NPOV account of the situation based on the sources available. However, your remarks above do insinuate that Lotus did something wrong when the FIA banned it - what do you believe that they did wrong? -- de Facto (talk). 10:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they did anything wrong at all - I just think you're trying to make out that if there was anything done wrong by anyone, then Lotus did not do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is a verifiable and NPOV account. Please expand upon your allegation. -- de Facto (talk). 09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not verifiable and anything but NPOV? Did you even read the reference? Eric Boullier clearly states that he was disappointed the system was banned after they had spent two years developing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What I wrote (the current content) is verifiable, that's what I'm saying. It was your original, OR based on second-hand speculation that was not verifiable. What we have now, despite your replacement of the word "expected" with "planned", is, I believe, reasonably NPOV and is verifiable. Do you disagree? -- de Facto (talk). 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're basically using weasel words here. We have a reference where Eric Boullier clearly says that he is disappointed by the ban on the device after the team had spent so long developing it. However, by making edits with phrases like "it was reported that" and "it was expected to feature", you're creating a tiny little opening whereby readers of the article can think "well, it was reported like that, but does that mean it actually happened like that?". It's effectively building a trap door into its own sentence structure, so if it were ever proven that Lotus had never developed the RRH at all, Wikipedia can say "well we never had an article that said they did develop it, only that people claimed they had". Boullier's comments confirm Lotus developed the RRH. Your edits create a scenario whereby that is contradicted because Boullier said it to someone other than Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Prisonermonkeys, I'll assume you are addressing me here. If you think there are weasel words in my latest edit, please quote them. When we only had one speculative source it was reasonable to attribute speculation as speculation. With the more robust references that we cite now, we can be more assertive, as I was with my recent edits. The press made it clear that the system was expected to appear on a Lotus car sometime in 2012, that's why I wrote: 'The Lotus E20 was expected to feature a "reactive ride height" suspension system...'. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept that, and instead have created the imprecise, less definite and woolly phrase: 'The Lotus E20 was planned to feature a "reactive ride height" suspension system...'. As for the rest of your comments, I'll give them as much attention as they deserve: none. -- de Facto (talk). 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi guys, Prisonermonkeys asked me to take a look at this page, but I'm not really clear about the exact text that's being disputed here. Could you give me a diff or two so that I can be sure? Thanks in advance. Also, I think it would really help to defuse this situation if you could both start using language that focuses exclusively on content. To take Prisonermonkey's statement above as an example, instead of saying "your current edits still insinuate that Lotus never developed the RRH at all", you could say "I still think we could improve the wording of the RRH passage. I think the sources say that Lotus developed the RRH, but readers of the current version might think they didn't develop it at all. Would you be willing to change the wording to X?" Just to be fair, I will also take an example from De Facto: instead of saying "However, your remarks above do insinuate that Lotus did something wrong when the FIA banned it - what do you believe that they did wrong?", you could say "I think the current version reads like Lotus did something wrong when the FIA banned the RRH, but I don't think the sources treat it in this way. How about changing the wording to something that makes it clear the FIA was not punishing Lotus, for example, Y?" Sure, they are both a little longer than the originals, but I think that if you can use this kind of language then it will be a lot easier to collaborate with each other. As always, let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I'm not sure that there is a content dispute anymore. I reworked the, now, 'Ride height system' section, to be verifiable and NPOV, based on robust references that have now been sourced and Prisonermonkeys seems to have left it intact, all but for one word. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear. Well, I've watchlisted this page, so if anything else comes up, then I'll be around to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we have a reference that clearly states that Lotus developed the RRH system for the E20. Why do you insist on writing the article in such a way that does not support this? You keep saying "it was reported that", but we have a senior team member - Boullier - stating that the system was designed and intended for use on the E20. And yet, as soon as I edit the page to reflect this, you change it back and claim that the source needs to be verified and the article written in NPOV. I find this incredibly confusing because when we were disagreeing over the name of the chassis, you were putting forward edits from the same publication as this reference that directly quoted Boullier. So why is it okay for the name issue to quote him verbatim, but the RRH section disregards his comments in favour of claiming that it was simply reported? This is not NPOV. This is you attempting to put distance between the Wikipedia article and Boullier's comments, when Boullier's comments satisfy every condition needed to be included in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, your comments make no sense; the content you are complaining about does not exist and the content you seem to want already exists. Are you sure that your page cache doesn't need purging?
If you think I'm wrong:
  1. Please quote the content you object to - and describe what you think is wrong with it
  2. If you have a suggestion for a wording improvement, please propose it here for us to consider.
What I understand from Boullier's reported comments is that he was disappointed that after the team had spent time, energy and money developing the suspension system, with FIA approval, that the FIA then re-interpreted the rules and outlawed it, meaning that the team would no longer be able to use it in the new car. The article already says all of that that. What more do you want it to say? -- de Facto (talk). 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus nose[edit]

The official F1 site shows a car with the nose like the McLaren's not a platypus like all the others, so what is the official car? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind, Just found out they changed the nose. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Lotus E20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lotus E20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saadi Woman Drives E20 to celebrate Emancipation in Saudi Arabia[edit]

QUOTE - Aseel Al Hamad made a further breakthrough for Saudi Arabian women by driving a Formula One car ahead of the French Grand Prix. The lap of the Le Castellet circuit came on the day a ban ended on women driving on the Gulf kingdom’s roads. Hamad drove a 2012 Renault car as part of a parade of the French manufacturer’s vehicles to mark the return of the race after a 10-year absence. The same Lotus Renault E20 car took Finland’s 2007 world champion, Kimi Raikkonen, to victory in Abu Dhabi in 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/24/saudi-arabia-aseel-al-hamad-formula-one-car-le-castellet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.50.151 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotus_E20&oldid=1203762991"