Talk:Team Lotus (2010–11)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Formula One (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Motorsport  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page redundant[edit]

It is not necessary to make this separate from Team Lotus - see discussion there.--Amedeofelix (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion at WT:F1. - mspete93 [talk] 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You point? I said what I said specifically so that people know to look at Team Lotus, and so see the discussion there too.--Amedeofelix (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was continued at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus F1 Team - mspete93 [talk] 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Is it known that the team will race under Malaysian licence? I believe nothing to this direction has been announced yet, however the article is showing colour already pretty clearly. - (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Formula One website stated in its news article yesterday that the team is from Malaysia. In the same way that Force India are Indian and Red Bull are Austrian - mspete93 [talk] 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the team named "1Malaysia F1 Team"?[edit]

As far as I know the team should be known as "1Malaysia F1 Team". Then why in the world was this article entitled "Lotus F1 Team"? The 1Malaysia F1 Team takes its name from the “1Malaysia — People First, Performance Now” policy mooted by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak earlier this year. [1]. Or at least it was what the PM wanted the people of Malaysia to believe. If not, then PM Najib is lying and should be sued. (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the sources in the article. 1Malaysia F1 Team is a company, formed by the consortium of investors, that owns the racing team known as Lotus F1 Team. So no, the team name is not 1Malaysia F1 Team. IIIVIX (Talk) 01:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It may be the name of a company, but it may also be the name of the team. In the article that was previously raised [2], there's no mentioning that the team is named "Lotus F1 Team" at all. Instead, it was known as 1Malaysia F1 Team in the whole article. Again, the article emphasised that "The 1Malaysia F1 Team project takes its name from the "1Malaysia - People First, Performance Now" policy mooted by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak earlier this year.". (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As stated, read the references in our article. They clearly state what the team name is as submitted to the FIA. IIIVIX (Talk) 06:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would they have bought the rights to the Lotus name if they were then going to call it something as pointless as "1Malaysia F1 Team"? Whatever they were going to call it earlier this year, that all changed when Proton-Lotus got involved. A PM lied or was just wrong? Shock! Whatever next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, Proton had never planned to use the Lotus name in F1 in the first place when they had bought the car company in 1994 from Bugatti - they just wanted Lotus's technology to be used in building their cars. It is only recently when the Malaysian government (who owns Proton) had announced that they'll be participating in the F1 race only the Lotus name resurfaced. But that's not the point. Pointless and ridiculous as it may be, "1Malaysia F1 Team" is the name that was used repeatedly in Malaysian media by those involved in setting up the team. Even if it isn't the official name of the team, I still think it should be given a special mention in the article as it is the name known to Malaysians - which I believe most of the team's first supporters are. As for The359, I think something like this would be nice: "Lotus F1 Team, or also known as 1Malaysia F1 Team, is a Formula One team granted entry to the 2010 Formula One season." Is that acceptable? (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The Malaysian government only bought the rights to use the Lotus name in F1 in the last couple of months, after the Litespeed application was refused. The Lotus F1 name has never had anything to do with Lotus Cars, whoever owned Lotus Cars. No doubt the group that owns the team did not want to present the team as "Lotus" until they owend the right to use that name in F1. Regardless of what the team may have once been known as, it's now known as the Lotus F1 Team. Anything else is misinformation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the name is NOT "1Malaysia F1 Team", so to claim that they are also known as that is untrue. "Lotus F1 Team" is the team. Think of this as Ferrari and Scuderia Ferrari. Ferrari is the owner, but Scuderia Ferrari is the race team. 1Malaysia F1 is the owner, Lotus F1 is the team. The owner is mentioned in the article exactly as they should be, as the owner, not the team. IIIVIX (Talk) 17:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading that, you might all be interested in this discussion, which I brought up for this very reason. - mspete93 [talk] 17:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Live Chat on 1MF1 with Datuk Seri Tony Fernandes[edit]

Editors of this article might be interested in this for more information: [3]

Here are a few facts that I can gather from the interview:

  • The name of the team, until its main sponsors are confirmed, will be Lotus F1 (Racing) Team.
  • Six drivers are shorted-listed for the team, one of them is Fairuz Fauzy.
  • The objective of the 1MF1 Project is to monetize some the investments into F1 already by the government such as the Sepang Track, CTRM (composites) and universities such as Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Universiti Petronas. (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Team referred to as 1Malaysia F1 Team in the Malaysian Parliament[edit]

I have added that the team was referred to as 1Malaysia F1 Team in the Malaysian Parliament. Whether it was erroneous or not, the MP of Segambut is referring to the Lotus F1 Team with Sauber Petronas and Honda as comparison, and is not referring to the company 1Malaysia Sdn Bhd. (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the team is being referred to as 1Malaysia F1 Team in Malaysia, to generate some interest in the country. It is Lotus everywhere else. - mspete93 [talk] 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Team name[edit]

It seems the name is Lotus F1 Racing, and not Lotus F1 Team.

  • Their website is at [4], it states Lotus F1 Racing on their homepage
  • Their CEO press release at [5] states Lotus F1 Racing
  • The article at [6] quotes Fernandes as saying the official name is Lotus F1 Racing

What are your opinions? - oahiyeel talk 06:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the season starts or we get another definitive entry list. US F1 is having the same problem as their website now says Team US F1 instead of vice versa. The359 (Talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw the note to editors bit at the bottom of this, but it does not really make it clear. Racing or Team it doesn't really make much difference at the moment so let's not worry until the new year. It's not like Campos GP and Campos Meta is it? - mspete93 [talk] 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
359, you meant that US F1's website says US F1 Team now instead of Team US F1, right? Eightball (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So now it's confirmed: the team's official name as of 2011 will be Team Lotus. I'd like to see you now argue that it isn't the same team. It is, even though the owners have changed, it's still the same parent company.SchumiChamp (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Lotus Cars is not the owner of Lotus Racing, and has never been (and still isn't) the owner of Team Lotus. How wrong can you be? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony Fernandes now owns the rights to the Team Lotus name, which means his team is the official continuation of the defunct 1994 team.SchumiChamp (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Official according to whom? Tony Fernandes? He is the official arbiter of nothing. Besides, this has to be dragged through the courts before he's even allowed to use the name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at WT:F1 about this subject. To sum up, we do not yet have consensus to merge the articles, and will not do anything until reliable sources (e.g. F1, FIA) suggest they are the same team. - mspete93 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony Fernandes get not only the ownership of the name but also it´s historical heritage. It´s not only the license he has bought. David Hunt also wants the malaysian Lotus Racing to be named Team Lotus 2011. Also, when Proton bought Lotus cars, they didn´t get the historical Team Lotus with it. Team Lotus was an own company. "Lotus Racing announced that they had acquired Team Lotus Ventures Ltd, the company led by David Hunt since 1994 when Team Lotus had stopped competing in Formula One, and with it full ownership of the rights of the Team Lotus brand and heritage". Mårty-F1

Team has now officially been branded 'Team Lotus', and that means not only the name but also all logos (using the old Team Lotus logo both in factory and on cars). Time to merge the articles.SchumiChamp (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There has already been consensus on the project not to merge the pages - there is a new discussion going on here about what to name this page. - mspete93 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


While officially the entity "Lotus F1 Team/Racing" is different from "Team Lotus", the actual constructor "Lotus", statistically speaking, is the same one as represented by Team Lotus. This week's Autosport magazine (December 3rd 2009) states that if this team was to win a race (I know, not likely in the short term), it would be considered as Lotus's 80th, not the first win for a new team/constructor. Surely the team's stats (first Race, last Race, number of wins etc) should take Team Lotus's record into account?

There are historical precedents for this - such as Bruce McLaren Motor Racing (pre-Ron Dennis/Project 4 merger) vs. McLaren International (post-Dennis). Admittedly there wasn't a 15 year gap between the two though.

Autosport's statement notwithstanding, I think we need to wait to see what reliable sources (, FORIX, ChicaneF1, etc) do after the first race of the season, and follow their lead. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The McLaren-Project 4 merger was a case of Project 4 being merged into McLaren. There wasn't a fundamental change - merely McLaren absorbing another company. Readro (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd keep them separate. Team Lotus was retained by the Chapman family when the rest of Lotus was floated on the Stock Exchange and subsequently passed to Peter Collins / Peter Wright and then David Hunt before it was finally wound up. The new team has as much to do with Team Lotus as Spyker F1 had to do with the outfit who built the 4WD 60hp racer in 1903. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If u go on the Formula One page at this link: it says:

Lotus Base: Norfolk, UK Team Principal: Tony Fernandes Technical Chief: Mike Gascoyne Drivers: J Trulli H Kovalainen

Test Drivers: F Fauzy

Engine: Cosworth Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza First Season: 2010 World Championships: 0 Highest race finish: 0 (x0) Pole Positions: 0 Fastest Laps: 0 VincentG (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but here Tony Fernandez said that should Lotus win it'd be Lotus' 80th win as opposed to the first win for Lotus Racing: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob500 (talkcontribs) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fernandes is hardly unbiased though. Definitely not a reliable source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every major website continues the statistics of the Lotus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchumiChamp (talkcontribs) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples? The359 (Talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have one! The Game F1 2010 continous the statistics from the old team. FIA does it. I could bring more examples but I really hope that you get the point. [Mårty-F1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And now that the team will be reincarnated as Caterham, the statistics will also be nullified. Statistically, Team Lotus is still a continuation of the original team (as stated by FIA), as will be the Lotus-Renault team next year. I know it's a mess, but it needs to sorted out.SchumiChamp (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


This article - - contains the team's new logo. I'd included, but I don't know the fair use policy and how it applies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lotus employee box at the bottom of the page[edit]

On The Lotus' official website there are a few more notable employees added. Should we add it to the little employee box at the bottom of the page. (Wiki id2 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

Page Name change[edit]

Since Lotus Racing are now called Team Lotus I propose we change the page name to Lotus Racing\Team Lotus (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks - mspete93 11:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the Team Lotus redirect page and move Lotus Racing to Team Lotus[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus and there's a page in the way. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lotus RacingTeam Lotus — That's the official name now, the original Team Lotus page has been moved to Classic Team Lotus mschumacher69 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. What? Move Team Lotus back to its old name. Team Lotus was never known throughout its history as Classic Team Lotus. It's not Coke you know. The new team can have a different name. --Falcadore (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. No way. The Lotus team was not known as "Classic Team Lotus" at any point in its entire existence. You made a controversial, hopelessly inaccurate move with no discussion whatsoever, and we'll now need an admin to undo it. Very poor editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. What they said. DH85868993 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. As above. Cs-wolves(talk) 13:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. What's been going on here then. No just no. Everyone calls classic Lotus, Team Lotus. KnowIG (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: In light of Classic Team Lotus' restoration to Team Lotus, perhaps this move discussion should be closed. --Falcadore (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decision on name tomorrow...[edit]

I see that the court will rule on the name tomorrow. See here. Maybe a semi-protection might be in order? Bjmullan (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We semi-protect when there is an existing problem, not when we predict there will be one. Which I doubt there will be. A court case doesn't end the whole deal anyway. The359 (Talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that the decision has been done, maybe we can incorporate Lotus Racing on Team Lotus page ; after all there is only one page for the Renault F1 Team or for Alfa Romeo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to Team Lotus[edit]

Should this page be moved to 'Team Lotus'. We must remember that Lotus Racing changed their name, because they aren't anymore allowed to use the name 'Lotus Racing'. Yet, I think this article should be kept separate from the article of 'original' Team Lotus. So, maybe we could have articles like 'Team Lotus (current)' and 'Team Lotus (original)' --August90 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read further up this page you will see this has been discussed many times before and you may find some of the answers you seek. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
But the team is no longer called Lotus Racing, and hardly nobody uses that name, so I think this article should now be renamed, especially as the court process is now over. --August90 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You have not explained as to why you think this is different to the three or four times this has been debated previously. --Falcadore (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any particular reason not to change the article to some form of Team Lotus. Just because we cannot come up with a reasonable way to differentiate the old and new Team Lotus should not force us to continue to use an outdated title. Further, the use of 2010 instead of 2011 should not be problematic as the transfer from Lotus Racing to Team Lotus is not the creation of a new team, rather a simple alteration of an existing team's name. This team was created in 2010, no matter what title they may have used at some point, and the fact that they raced as Lotus Racing for their inaugural year can easily be explained in prose. To continue to use the Lotus Racing title will only serve to confuse casual readers. The359 (Talk) 18:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Using Lotus Racing is factually incorrect as the team does not have the legal right to use it. I think in previous disucussions we were simply waiting for the outcome of the court battle. It is now clear they are sticking with Team Lotus so we need to change the name. It does appear silly at the moment to people that have not seen our discussions. I saw this tweet on Twitter recently, which reminded me that this needed dealing with. - mspete93 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with using "Team Lotus (2010)" is the same as using "Lotus Racing" now. It's slightly misleading, and the team did not have the right to use the Team Lotus name in 2010. In fact they were explicitly forbidden to use that name then. I still think "Team Lotus (Malaysia)" is an accurate title that will no doubt remain accurate in years to come, and we won't have to move it again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see how it is as misleading as using the Lotus Racing title now. The team WAS founded in 2010, the parenthesis is not meant to reflect anything about what name or names the team may have used. Just because they used the name Lotus Racing in 2010 does not negate the fact that they are Team Lotus now.
Certainly it is possible that the team could change nationality at some point. If we can have a British Renault team, it's certainly possible for Lotus to change to something else, most likely British, and then we're back at square one. The359 (Talk) 19:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer 2010 - I don't feel that using Malaysia is entirely accurate, even if it is the nationality of their license. I will again bring up my idea of something like 'Current' or something similar. After all, that is a pretty big difference between the two! - mspete93 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
How about using "Team Lotus (2010s)" to resolve the 2010/2011 issue. If we proceed down this path, I would also recommend renaming the existing Team Lotus article as "Team Lotus (1950s-1990s)" and making Team Lotus into a disambiguation page. DH85868993 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Team Lotus (current) would be a good name, there would be no 2010/2011/2010s issue. The old Team Lotus's page could IMO still be 'Team Lotus', and there could be also 'Team Lotus (disambiguation page)'. --August90 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion would also be to, as DH85868993 suggests, move the existing Team Lotus page as well. My reason for that is because I feel that a current F1 team is likely to be more popular traffic-wise than an old team, however successful. Not sure many would agree with that though. - mspete93 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There are only one page for Mercedes GP or Renault F1 Team or Alfa Romeo, why it will don't be the same for the Team Lotus ? Because the proprietary is different ? That's a non sense as theses three team got only one page but had several proprietary and even nationality for the Renault F1 Team ! So in my opinion Fernandes's Team Lotus should be include in Team Lotus : that is a new chapter for the name... Like the current Mercedes GP Team (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Except that isn't quite the case. The old Team Lotus always had a strong connection to Lotus Cars especially as to the source of the name. The new team had to have a court case to sort out the problems with Lotus Cars who have no connection to the Fernandez team. Mercedes, Alfa Romeo and Renault all had connections to car manufacturers, here there is very specifically not a connection to one. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At the moment the use of (2010) still makes the most sense to me, with (current) being a strong second. I also support Team Lotus becoming a disambignation, with the old team Lotus being something akin to Team Lotus (1954). The359 (Talk) 06:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about something like Team Lotus (independent) (for this one) and Team Lotus (works) - with Team Lotus as a disambiguation page? -- de Facto (talk). 06:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That will only confuse the casual reader. The359 (Talk) 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Either way, this issue needs to be resolved. It's wrong that searching for Team Lotus doesn't currently direct to the modern-day team page, because that is what most people will be searching for. Ideally, of course, the pages should be merged, because statistically (according to most websites at least) they are the same, not to mention the brand and logo.SchumiChamp (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's wrong that Team Lotus would not direct you to one of the famous motor racing organisations in history, especially to a team no matter how current (refer WP:RECENTISM) has yet to achieve anything. There is a reason WP:RECENTISM exists. --Falcadore (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly why Team Lotus should be a disambiguation page, we cannot know what every user will be searching for. The359 (Talk) 20:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If names for both team articles can be settled on then sure, but all I'm seeing at the moment are objections to every possibility yet thrown up. Until we have two destination article names, then turning Team Lotus into a dab page is premature. --Falcadore (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying now, I'm simply saying that is what should be done, rather than Schumi's suggestion that one page should be the main article, especially with immediate importance.
I think the only hurdle with using (2010) is that people seem to think it is misleading, which I can understand that but at the same time it is easily explained. The team was formed in 2010, the (2010) does not inherently imply that Team Lotus has always been the team's name. It is something that can easily be explained in the introduction of the article in one sentence, while at the same time still giving casual readers an ability to discern between the two Team Lotuses. The359 (Talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree in general with there being a dab page, but it would throw up a hell of a lot of redirects to fix. It'd be less work to leave the proper Team Lotus as the primary subject and put a hatnote at the top directing to the new team. The new team has basically been a failure so far, achieving the sum total of nothing, and it's pure recentism to suggest it should carry greater importance, as Falcadore says. I'd be much happier with DH's suggestion of Team Lotus (2010s) rather than simply 2010 - much more descriptive and less misleading. It'll be called something else soon enough anyway, no doubt. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Just in terms of article traffic - all the current F1 team articles, bar Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Renault, get similar figures of between 10,000 (HRT) and 15-16,000 (Sauber & Mercedes). Both Lotus articles also fit into that bracket with the old team on roughly 13,000 and the new one on 12,000. We don't know, though, how many people go the old Team Lotus looking for the new one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not really our business to determine what is or is not proper, or to use the success or failure of a team to determine which one gets preferential treatment. If they get roughly the same traffic, they should both be on parenthetical pages with Team Lotus as a disambiguation. Needing to take the time to fix links should not be a factor in this. The359 (Talk) 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favour of leaving the original Team Lotus's page called Team Lotus, for the same reasons as Bretonbanquet. -August90 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
One way to circumvent the problem of '10/'11 name change might be to rename this page as Lotus (2010- Formula One constructor). Even if they aren't allowed to use the sole word Lotus in team name, only Team Lotus, still for FIA/FOM the constructor is Lotus, in both '10 and '11. Yet I prefer renaming as Team Lotus (2010-), as the team started competing in '10, although with Lotus Racing name. But now they're called Team Lotus. --August90 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
How would that make the article even remotely easy to find and/or understand for the common reader? The359 (Talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with the original decision to start a new article for this "Lotus" team, but I think now that they are Team Lotus it's time for a rethink. Having read the court judgement I would conclude that Fernandes' team is now a continuation of Chapman's. I accept that others might disagree but don't accept that it shouldn't be up for discussion. --kingboyk (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


So...any progress here? I think it will be difficult for us to have a true consensus on this, it might simply be best if someone went WP:BOLD and simply made a move based on one of the more reasonable options put forward that is succinct and easy to identify for new users. But before there, any more opinions to put forward? How is everyone leaning on these options? The359 (Talk) 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, should we maybe look for some outside opinions from outside motorsport editors? Should this be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves or some other discussion location? The359 (Talk) 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Has there been any suggestion that the name of the team will change again for 2012? If so, then given that we have already survived more than half the season with the existing article names, I would recommend waiting until we know the new team name before doing any renaming (I'd hate to see us rename one or both articles and update hundreds of links, only to then have to do it again in a few months time). However, if there's been no suggestion that the team name will change (and I'm not aware of any), then my preferred options are:
  1. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (2010s); rename Team Lotus to Team Lotus (1950s-1990s); make Team Lotus a disambiguation page,
  2. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (2010); rename Team Lotus to Team Lotus (1954-1994); make Team Lotus a disambiguation page
  3. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (Malaysia); rename Team Lotus to Team Lotus (UK); make Team Lotus a disambiguation page
  4. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (current); rename Team Lotus to Team Lotus (historical); make Team Lotus a disambiguation page
I'm not in favour of merging this article into Team Lotus. Listing at WP:Requested moves might be a good way to gain some external insight, but of course it also adds more delay. DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not heard any suggestion of Fernandes changing the team name again or selling the team, I think that was only mentioned in passing to explain why (2010) made sense even though the team had run under the Lotus Racing banner that year. The359 (Talk) 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
My two preferred options are
  1. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (2010); keep Team Lotus as it is; make Team Lotus (disambiguation page).
  2. Rename Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (2010); rename Team Lotus to Team Lotus (1954-1994); make Team Lotus a disambiguation page
Those are my preferred options because this team Lotus started competing in 2010, and had already then Lotus chassis. Also, I wouldn't rename Team Lotus article until this team has been many years in F1 and become a significant team. And definitely these articles shouldn't be merged, these are two separate teams also at
Also, there's a chance for a small name change. This article hints that Caterham would be mentioned in the team name.
"When Fernandes was asked to explain artwork in the Caterham business plan that contained “Caterham Team Lotus” graphics and logo designs, with the word “Team” minimized, he responded, “I’m not sure about this. It must have been some art guy who hadn’t been informed. I haven’t seen these before…”"
I guess that there will then be some discussion about whether or not to include Caterham in the article's name. Is it just a aponsor? I think it should be included, as Fernandes ownership makes a close connection between these two companies. Also, I'm not sure whether Team Lotus's chassis will be Lotus next year until I see it. In case it weren't be Lotus, it would probably be Caterham. In that case Caterham must be added to the official name, and probably someone is then saying the article should be called Caterham (Formula One), Team Lotus is just a 'sponsor'. But I think this article should now be renamed as Team Lotus (something), and later possibly rename again. The possible renaming yet makes it possible to separate this from the original Team Lotus, so for that reason I'd keep Team Lotus article intact, at least so far. --August90 (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should move it all until Fernandes is out of the courts for good. I'm not convinced the team will even be called any variation of Lotus in 2012. I don't even know why he'd want it to; it doesn't make any sense promoting someone else's cars in F1 and not your own. JonChappleTalk 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The use of Caterham is likely akin to sponsorship, just as with Lotus Renault (with Tata!). As for promoting Lotus Cars, he's not after promoting the cars, and never was, he just wants the race team name. Having the race team name does still help promote himself. The359 (Talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Even though they wouldn't use Lotus name at all next year, they're currently known as Team Lotus, so that's why I think the article should be renamed. If they were next year Team Caterham, then the article would be renamed again. Or, does somebody think that the potential Team Caterham should have an own article because it would be a new constructor for FIA/FOM? --August90 (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
What the hell? There's no plan to change the team name, there's absolutely no evidence of any plan to introduce Caterham to Formula One. This is completely distracting from the naming of the two articles as they stand now. The359 (Talk) 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, I don't think whether or not there is a slim possibility of the name changing next year or in five years time is relevant. I think we should refrain from moving the old Team Lotus page for that reason, but that doesn't stop us from moving the current team. I don't agree with the use of a year in the name, either 2010 or 2011, as I think both could be misleading. Someone may see (2011) at the top of the page and just assume the team was formed in 2011. Or they may see (2010) at the top of the page and think they were called Team Lotus that year. My personal preference, as ever, is Team Lotus (current). Does anyone have a good reason why that is a bad name? If not I will be bold and do it anyway. - mspete93 10:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If anyone does boldly rename Lotus Racing, may I suggest leaving all the existing links as they are, noting that they will still work, via the redirect and per WP:NOTBROKEN. DH85868993 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I speculated with changing the name to Caterham, but only speculated. One thing that seems to be quite likely is that Caterham will be taken to the official name next year in style of Caterham Team Lotus, which may require a renaming next year. But let's now concentrate on getting a title that suits best to current situation. Mspete already suggested Team Lotus (current), that's really the best option. We may later change this to use years in the name if the same is done with [Team Lotus] article. --August90 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There's absolutely no indication that Caterham will be added to the name, and even if it were, it would only be in a sponsorship scheme. No different from Lotus Renault, while we keep the page on Renault F1. The359 (Talk) 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally didn't mean thru sponsorship; I reckon Fernandes will drop the Lotus pretense altogether at the end of 2011. Of course, just speculation on my part and I'm not suggesting it affects the naming of the article. If there is consensus to move, I'd support Team Lotus (current), but I think the status quo is better for the time being. JonChappleTalk 19:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really keen on a move, but Team Lotus (current) will do if there has to be a move. I too think that Fernandes will drop the Lotus name soon enough. He's just promoting someone else's cars, and he now has cars of his own to promote. We obviously can't acknowledge that unless it actually happens, but a merger with the old TL article is a bad idea for that reason, and a number of other reasons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I can live with Team Lotus (current), it's better than what we have now. The359 (Talk) 19:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems that Team Lotus (current) is OK for most people. Anyway, I still say about Caterham. To my understand the team is going to use Team Lotus name in the future, so that they can keep thir chassis as Lotus, and not to lose the FOM money. But if they'll be Caterham Team Lotus, I wouldn't say Caterham is their title sponsor, it's their own road car company that they want to promote. And that's why I think the page will possible have to be renamed again to Caterham Team Lotus. But now they're Team Lotus and the page should be renamed to reflect the current name. --August90 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Renault F1 is owned by Lotus, and they have their own road car company that they want to promote, and thus the team was named Lotus Renault GP. The article is still Renault F1. Team Lotus adding the name Caterham to their title should not automatically require a further renaming of this article. WP:COMMONNAME will still suffice. The359 (Talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm moving Lotus Racing to Team Lotus (current) now as it seems there is enough consensus for this as a reasonable middle ground. The359 (Talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In fact LRGP is owned by Genii, Group Lotus have only an option to become a shareholder. Of course, the article's name should follow the common name, so we'll see then how people call then (Caterham) Team Lotus. But it's not yet time to predict that. (Yet, I think Virgin Racing should be Marussia Virgin Racing, as Marussia is a shareholder.) --August90 (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't use title sponsors as part of an article's name, or we'd have to keep moving them all the time as these things change. There'll be no Marussia Virgin Racing until there's a AT&T Williams, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro or, of course, Lotus Renault GP, etc. JonChappleTalk 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Use of Lotus name" section in the article[edit]

Surely this section is way too long? Tubefurnace (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe slightly, but it was a pretty complicated affair and needs to be explained properly. After all, gaining use of the Lotus name is pretty much their main achievement so far. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lotus to Caterham?[edit]

Lotus has officially announced it will be re-named Caterham in 2012. See this: F1fans (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in 2012. Which means nothing needs to be done just yet. There is a discussion about the whole renaming situation at WT:F1#Name changes confirmed. - mspete93 15:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Current" (change names)[edit]

I think the name of this article should be renamed Team Lotus (2011). A new article should be created for the Caterham team of next year. Formion (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article has already been discussed. The use of 2011 is misleading as the team started in 2010. As for Caterham, the current article will be renamed, there is no reason to create a seperate article for what is the same team. The359 (Talk) 02:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't called Team Lotus in 2011. As it changes names, it will most certainly be considered a new team in lists and record books, just like other teams which have changed names over the years. If something has been discussed once, does that mean other people's opinions are not allowed to be heard if they weren't around at the time (i.e. should I erase my opinion from this page)? Formion (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't have a seperate article for Lotus Racing, the 2010 season of Lotus Racing is part of the current article on Team Lotus. Therefore to use the title (2011) is misleading, as the article covers several years. Further, history books have not yet been written, and the "history" of Fernandes' Lotus team and their addition to the standing records the original Team Lotus have not yet been determined. The359 (Talk) 04:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, so let's integrate Jordan with Midland if "history books have not yet been written". "Nice" argument. Name of constructor in 2010-2011 was Lotus and in 2012 there will be Caterham which means Caterham is new team and constructor. This is reason why new article should be created. Yurek88 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Midland was an entirely different owner, sold from Eddie Jordan to Alex Schnaider. Lotus Racing/Team Lotus/Caterham F1 Team have not changed owners, still being the team of Tony Fernandes and are simply being renamed based on sponsoring and naming rights. Take for instance March Engineering which ran under the Leyton House Racing title as sponsors for several years. We only have a seperate article on Leyton House Racing because the team was later sold off to a new owenr for two years, only to eventually be sold back to March.
Further, your arguement that the constructor changing from Lotus to Caterham makes them a new team is a bit moot as Frank Williams Racing Cars went from Politoys, to Iso-Marlboro, to Williams without ever changing teams or being considered a "new team". The same applies for privateer teams such as BMS Scuderia Italia which were entered as Dallara then Lola, and Larrousse who went from Lola to Venturi to Larrousse. The359 (Talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ownership is no argument. Larrousse and Italia are also no argument, as there was one team (Larrousse, Italia) which used the client cars (Lola and Dallara). Argument with Leyton House/March (also Arrows/Footwork) is great argument to create new article if they (I mean e.g. Leyton House and March) exists separately on Wikipedia. FWRC is something different but I can see reasons why we could think WilliamsF1 debuted in 1975 and not 1978. Yurek88 (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Larrouse used Lola customer cars but were factory entrants under the chassis titles of "Venturi" (1992) and then the "Larrousse" (1993-1994). This is a single team changing chassis constructors twice in a span of a few years, and perfectly matches the Lotus/Caterham situation. A team sponsored by one car company (Venturi) then changing their sponsors and becoming another constructor, yet still having the same article. This therefore makes the situation a reverse of March/Leyton House and Arrows/Footwork. Leyton House bought out March and renamed the team, and Footwork bought out Arrows and renamed the team. Tony Fernandes however bought out Caterham and renamed his existing team after their new aquisition. Just as Fernandes simply renamed his team, so should we rename their article.
The history of Formula One is likely to merge the results of Lotus Racing/Team Lotus with Caterham F1 anyway, as the link between classic Team Lotus and this current attempt is still questionable. The359 (Talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can continue this here. --August90 (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That discussion is over Renault F1, not Lotus/Caterham. The359 (Talk) 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Caterham change[edit]

User:Vvipkho attempted to move this page today but was reverted and has had warnings placed on his talk page. The reason given by User:The359 was that the team has not changed its name yet. But as of today that is not true, as the team has now rebranded itself. Its Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr accounts have all been changed today, as has ots signage at its Hingham HQ. The same goes for the GP2 team, which has become Caterham Racing. I feel there is no reason why these pages cannot be moved accordingly. There's no need to wait for January 1 when the team haven't done so themselves. - mspete93 13:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No attempt at sourcing was given, as was usual for Vvipkho, and several malicious page blankings were given. At the same time, the website for Caterham F1 did exist but simply said the site would not be available until February, while at the same time I reverted Vvipkho's edits, the Team Lotus website was also still functioning. There was at the time no sign nor sourcing stating the team had officially changed. The359 (Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Further, the way in which Vvipkho has moved this article and Caterham Team AirAsia have been nearly as destructive as they have been helpful. He's completely invented the title of Caterham Racing GP2 and has, as usual, uploaded the new logos without any concept of copyright and fair use. Just because someone is obsessed with whatever Tony Fernandes invents doesn't mean his edits are good. The359 (Talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was a bit of a useless move, honestly, given the amount of moves made to this page already. Either name would have easily worked, so I see no reason to have moved something that wasnt wrong to begin with. The359 (Talk) 21:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether a Wikipedia policy is more important than the name the team uses of themselves. I know Team has been dropped off e.g. from Renault and Williams, but Williams used name WilliamsF1 at some point, and Renault also quite often used only name Renault F1, like in the logo at this page. (maybe the rule that in team names "F1" must be with "Team" wasn't introduced then) But because Caterhame F1 Team has "Team" also in their official logo, I don't see why Wikipedia should drop it, just because of an old practise. --August90 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Importance Scale[edit]

This page is currently "Mid" importance on the WikiProject F1 page; this is despite the fact that Current Constructors (which Caterham is) rank at High importance. I am therefore increasing the importance on this page to fit alongside HRT and Virgin, both of which are High importance. If I am wrong, feel free to revert the change. Bpool1994 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) EDIT: No longer required for this page, will do so with Caterham F1. Bpool1994 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose Team Lotus (2010–11) is merged with Caterham F1. It's essentially the same team (same owners, engineers and, at least for the 2012 season, drivers) just with a different name. Also, having the "Team Lotus" results here would do away with a need to disambiguate it from the actual Team Lotus. In additon, does not recognise the old and current(/less old) Team Lotus as having any continuity and rather considers Team Lotus and Caterham as the same team. And just for one more example, the Finnish Wikipedia also does the same thing. -- (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I am unsure of the specificities of these, but surely, under the first half of the argument, then Toleman–Benetton–Renault–Lotus F1, Tyrrell–BAR–Honda–Brawn–Mercedes and (to a lesser extent) Virgin–Marussia would all have to be merged as well, which won't work. They are technically a different team. GyaroMaguus 01:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The decision to have a separate article for Caterham F1 is in line with the consensus which has emerged over the past couple of years to start a new article whenever the constructor name changes. DH85868993 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal. The FIA recognise Team Lotus (2010–11) and Caterham F1 as separate constructors, even if they are essentially the same team. The results acheived by Team Lotus are not credited to Caterham, and nor are the results of Caterham credited to Team Lotus. For all intents and purposes, they are entirely different teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Team Lotus and Caterham are separate constructors. --Laln93 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree for all the above reasons. Finnish Wikipedia ought to fix their problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See ALSO section - Dec. 2013[edit]

Hi guys. I created a "See Also" section today, placing it under references, above external links, w/ following wikilinks in it:

==See Also==

Can't imagine anyone objecting, but if so, please discuss here w/ me on the Talk Page. Thanks! Cheers! joepaT 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I also added a talk page header and the wikiproject banner shell here on the talk page. joepaT 00:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)