Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

'Team' article names and scope - time for a shake-down?

We have recently been distracted from the more interesting and fulfilling tasks of adding value to the F1 'team' articles by the turmoil caused by recent 'team' restructuring and reorganisations. I believe that this turmoil has resulted, not because some editors are stubborn beyond belief, or because of hidden agendas or editor malice of some description, but because our 'team' article "standards" (for want of a better word) have two fundamental flaws.

These flaws (in my humble opinion) are that, although our 'team' articles are nominally created on a constructor-centric basis (one article per "constructor" name):

1) That they tend to contain, not constructor-centric, but 'team'-centric content (lead, infobox, content emphasis etc., reflecting the current 'team' official name or owner name rather than the "constructor" name).

2) That if the current 'team' owner happens to a company with a previous history in F1 (generally when a major car producer) and they have changed the 'team' "constructor" name to match their own name (and possibly the "constructor" name that they historically used) that the articles are then being cluttered with content that may be relevant to the owner's history in F1, but is not associated with the current 'team' or is incompatible with the history of the current 'team'.

Because of these flaws, these articles cannot readily tolerate the scenario where the 'team' owner or official name changes and the "constructor" name does not, and thus disruption occurs as editors attempt to shoe-horn information in where it doesn't fit or even rename (move) the article.

Examples of current turmoil caused by "flaw 1" can be seen in the Virgin Racing and Team Lotus (2010-11) articles. Both of those 'teams' were renamed by their owners, whilst keeping the same "constructor" name but, because the articles were driven by the 'team' names and not by the constructor names, the new names have caused confusion and disruption (including numerous article moves) to the articles.

An example of "flaw 2" is the Renault F1 article. History and other information which is relevant to Renault (the big car company that had acquired the team) but is not relevant to the actual 'team' that had its "constructor" name changed to "Renault", is contained in that article. This meant that when an ownership change of the 'team' resulted in a change to the 'team's' official name - but "Renault" was retained as the "constructor" name (and thus a new article was not created for the new 'team') that the article continued to contain Renault history that was neither associated with the new owners nor associated with the 'team' (which had its own history independent of Renault's) - and thus confusion and turmoil resulted, even more-so since the new owners later changed the "constructor" name too (to "Lotus") - and thus a new article - Lotus F1 - has now been created - but the first year under new ownership has to stay in the old article because of the "constructor" name!

So what can be done about this? The solution (in my humble opinion) is to basically retain the de-facto policy of one-article-per-constructor, but to:

a) Keep the article names strictly in line with the "constructor" names that they are covering - with a disambiguation term in parentheses (Wiki common practice) if necessary. E.g. "Caterham (F1 constructor)", "Marussia (F1 constructor)", "McLaren", "Virgin (F1 constructor)", "Williams (F1 constructor)", etc.

b) Consider the use of a historic "constructor" name by a 'team' which has been acquired and which has previously operated under other "constructor" names, not as a natural continuation of the original "constructor", but as a new "constructor". E.g. Have two articles "Renault (F1 constructor 1977-1985)" and "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" to cover the Renault scenarion. Aggregation can occur in an umbrella article - E,g, in "Renault in F1" or in "Renault (F1 constructor)".

c) Keep the content of the articles as constructor-centric. E.g. the leads should follow a pattern similar to: "Virgin is a Formula One constructor..." (this will remain constant despite an owner, sponsor or 'team' name change). Official 'team' names used and dates could follow. The infobox should contain the current and previous official 'team' names and their logos and the current and previous licence nationalities (flags) with dates if appropriate. Try to minimise the amount of stuff that would have to be changed if there was an ownership or name or flag change.

d) Keep history and information associated, not with the present physical 'team' itself currently operating under that "constructor" name, but to the potentially transient current parent company of that 'team' out of the article altogether - a wlink could easily be provided to a more appropriate article for that sort of information. E.g. a "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" article could say that: "... [[Renault in F1|Renault]] had a controlling interest in the team from 2002 to 2010...", with Renault company specific history etc. in the "Renault in F1" article.

The adoption of a policy along these lines would inevitably involve some serious editing work, but I'm sure that some of the articles could do with a bit of TLC anyway, and it would be an investment from which we should reap benefits in terms of article stability in the future.

Sorry about the length of this, but please don't just dismiss it as just more rubbish to be ignored - I'm sure we all realise that something needs to be done about this - and this is an honest and sincere attempt to offer some ideas that might help to resolve this.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

First things first, I'll apologise for the brevity of my reply in response to something you have put a lot of thought and effort into, but my real life time is somewhat restricted right now.

But first and foremost, what we have to account for before anything else is just what do our sources say about these teams? I'm going to focus exclusively on manufacturers here, since that's the main focus, and by and large most sources, be they results archives or just a news report, consider each period of their participation in Formula One as parts of the same constructor. It is essentially the same as teams who used to skip races in the past - instead these teams are skipping decades, but they are still the same "team" and "constructor", even if the staff or location are now different. Checking a few pages for Renault, we see how places consider the old and newer teams the same (a history page here, team profile here stats page there and even the team itself)

The policy has been generally to have a new article for each new constructor - and if a constructor returns then we acknowledge that by continuing the old article. I say generally of course because that isn't always the case, the Lotus situation or the BMW/Sauber pages having the same information. The biggest issue in trying to establish firm guidelines is that the team changes are always unique situations - they do not always follow an immediate new owner/new name/new team formula.

Ultimately, we have to discuss where and when to make the split in cases like Renault, (did they finish in 2009/2010/2011?) but we still have to follow what everyone else considers to be a new team. I have read what your proposals are, but I don't find myself agreeing with having a new article for each "team" as you put it (say Equipe Renault and Renault F1) as well as having a summary "Renault in F1" page. My proposal is really similar to what we have now, but just with a few tweaks:

A) Each constructor gets its own page, as they do now.

B) When it is brought out, we make a new page depending on whether the constructor changes (as we do now).

C) If an entity - and though I am referring to car manufactures, they don't necessarily have to be - returns to Formula One, we carry on the old page as a current team. For car manufacturers we have a "XXX in Formula One" to cover both entrants and engine operations.

These are just my thoughts upon it. QueenCake (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

I think you may have misunderstood my position though, as you said you didn't agree 'with having a new article for each "team"...'. I wasn't actually advocating that, I was advocating a strict policy of a different article for each "constructor" (even if it transcends 'team' name or ownership changes), with it being completely constructor-centric (with team name changes, dates, etc. covered within it). That would mean the "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-2011)" article scope would be the Enstone team from the 2002 season to the 2011 season (the years its constructor name was "Renault"). That would mean that its scope didn't start until two years after Renault acquired the team (the constructor name remained as "Benetton" for taht period), but covered one year beyond the end of Renault's ownership of the team - so, of course, shouldn't hold information which wasn't directly related to the Enstone team (about other Renault history or other Renault activities, etc.).

You say the sources treat the various incarnations of the constructor name "Renault" as part of the same history - some may do, but we don't necessarily have to follow them. We could follow the sources that treat the 30-year Witney/Enstone team history as a notable single history - such as this one or this one or this one or this one and have a single "The Witney/Enstone F1 team" article documenting all of the team's history from Toleman, through Benetton and Renault to Lotus. Not that I'm advocating that, but just pointing out that we could legitimately choose that scope, rather than the "Renault in F1" scope, as there are sources which support that too.

I still think that "constructor" name should be the unit of measure, and should be strictly applied. That would remove the need to ever rename an article and would mean the lead sentence would not need to be changed with team name or ownership changes, and would allow umbrella articles for car company history, physical team history, aggregated constructor name articles (Renault 1977-85 and 2002-2011), etc. It's a win-win - the best of all worlds I think .

-- de Facto (talk). 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for a delayed reply here, I've still got little time for Wikipedia, but I am now rather unsure of what you are proposing. Keeping this brief, but you seem to be completely contradicting yourself now. On one hand, you are saying that we should have the constructor name as the basis for having a new page, but on the other you are arguing that we should have a separate article for Renault 1977-85 and another for 2002-2011. Why, when we should be having articles only for each constructor name? There is nothing different between the two periods, essentially Renault competed for eight years, withdrew for the next 16, then returned again as the same team. The fact that they changed base and took over a team (that they were originally competing against of course!) is irrelevant.

This isn't the same as Lotus, where we have had three pages for the three organisations all using the same constructor name, because in that case each one was a separate entity. Renault is the same organisation that has entered one team, in two different periods, and in my opinion it is much better served to have one page detailing each one of their entries. QueenCake (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No contradictions - one article per constructor is my current view, because I'd say the two Renault eras should be in different articles as, although they use the same constructor name, they are actually two very different constructors indeed. That's not to say that an umbrella article couldn't be constructed to weave them, and Renault's F1 engine activities together. But, whether we treat Renault as one or as two, 'constructor' seems a more logical unit of measure than 'team' - would you agree? -- de Facto (talk). 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the team/constructor articles should be about teams, not constructors. For example information of Brabham's races with customer Lotuses belongs to the Brabham article (as it is), not to Team Lotus article, even though those cars were Lotuses. I general, I think all F1 operations (racing as a constuctor or as a customer team as well as engine manufacturing, and maybe sponsoring, too) that have been using the same identity, belong to same article. And by identity I mean that the team is considered to be representing certain organization, that may have, or have had, other F1 operations. Once the team is considered to be representing different organization (e.g. team is sold or just renamed), the team's identity changes, and in that case we need create a new article (unless there's an existing article under which that "new" team belongs).

But if we make Renault F1 article a Renault in Formula One article, I wonder whether Lotus Renault GP belongs to that article. 2010's BMW Sauber was similar case, team retained it's name but BMW Sauber section at BMW in Formula One doesn't include 2010 season. I think that should be the case with Renault in 2011, too. I don't think Malaysia '11 was Renault's last podium as a works team, last podium was Belgium '10. Malaysia '11 was the last time Renault-named car was on podium, but it wasn't representing Renault Société Anonyme, it was representing Lotus Renault GP Limited, and the team didn't have the Renault identity.

Anyway, most likely most statistics pages consider Lotus F1 Team as a new team, and consider LRGP as the same team as Renault's team, despite not representing Renault. So, I suggest we have statistics like numbers of GPs, podium finishes, etc. in Renault team's infobox both with and without Lotus Renault GP, as those are usually calculated for a constructor name, not for a team.

Also, even if Caterham is regarded as a separate constructor to Lotus of '10 & '11, I think we could include their '10 and '11 seasons in the Caterham article, if the team themselves publically show they think they're still the same team. --August90 (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry de Facto but I cannot agree that the two Renault eras are in any way separate. It is the same company entering the same team as the same constructor, and really I think we are just going to have to agree that things should remain as they are, with it all on one article, at least for now. I'm kind of confused when you say that constructor names should be used as base for a new article, because that is what I am seeing already - otherwise we wouldn't have new articles for Marussia or Caterham.

And August, as said below it is clear that despite ownership it was still the Renault team, which ultimately means they were still representing Renault SA - even if technically they were not! I do kind of hope the whole discussion has produced something useful in that we can should rename the Renault and Honda pages - at the very least not to have a Renault Sport F1 page. Unless I am missing something there was agreement to have articles named in the "XXX in Formula One" fashion, so I will eventually do that if there's no objection? QueenCake (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

QueenCake, although the owner and the constructor name they used was the same, the teams were two very different teams. The second team (as Toleman) had actually competed against the first team from 1981 to 1985. The articles may be nominally based on 'constructor', but the contents are definitely 'team' based. Even the infobox is for the team, not constructor. Look at what happens when team names change but the constructor name doesn't. If the articles were actually constructor based, they would start "xxx is a F1 constructor..." - and that wouldn't need to be changed (as I've now done with the Renault F1 article) and the infobox would just have to have another name added to a "used by" teams list. If the Caterham article was a constructor articles it would have a name like "Caterham (F1 constructor)" - that's the normal way of disambiguating article names - and start "Caterham is a F1 constructor...", not "Caterham F1 Team is a Malaysian-owned Formula One team..." as it is today (the same goes for the Marussia article). The "xxx F1" names reflect neither the team names nor the constructor names. -- de Facto (talk). 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is though that ultimately the differences you continue to bring up are plain irrelevant. It matters not that the "teams" as you put it (and I think we're getting mixed up over how we define a team) have changed, because every Grand Prix entry bearing the name of Renault has been under the authority of the Renault company, whether or not they were based at Enstone. I'm not one to throw policies around, but its arguably going into original research to declare them as separate constructors. The "Car company in Formula One" names perhaps may not be perfect, but remember their point is to have one page detailing both their periods of entering as a constructor and detailing their engine operations. Having a name like Caterham (F1 constructor) precludes this, as well as being against general naming conventions. They have worked fine for BMW, Lancia and Alfa Romeo. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We're covering a lot of different concepts here - let me try and clarify where I am with them...

• I certainly now think we need one article per 'constructor' and one 'constructor' (and nothing else to do with the business of the parent company such as engine division activity) per such article. That article may well cover different team names and different owners, but it shouldn't need to be renamed - ever. The ideal name would be the constructor name: "Renault", "Caterham", "Marussia", "Lotus", etc. They would need disambiguating though (for obvious reasons) and the Wiki convention is to put the disambiguator in parentheses (e.g. Tree (data structure), Tree (graph theory), Tree (set theory), Tree (descriptive set theory) and Tree (Unix)).
• We need a separate article for each company (usually car manufacturers) that has a complex F1 history - with names like 'Renault in F1". That should summarise the various related F1 activities of the company, constuctor actity, engine activity, etc.
• We could have an article per 'physical' team - e.g. "The Enstone Team", charting their history, changes of ownership, changes of 'constructor' name, etc.

There's probably more too - I'll add it if I remember it - but I've had a long day... -- de Facto (talk).

I categorically disagree on having an article on a physical location, because that really isn't useful, although I do respect that was just an idea. I just do not see any point in having a Renault in F1 article if it is not the main page, the whole purpose of it in my view is to provide the complete information of Renault's involvement in Formula One. Also, naming convention is to only have the disambiguation in parentheses if it is required, which in the majority of cases it is not. QueenCake (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How about ownership and team name. Lumping all of Renault by name wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would make for a huge article. If we made a "Renault in F1" article detailing only the team's non-constructor history, then have an article for Equipe Renault and Renault F1. Since McLaren changed its name from McLaren-Mercedes, does that make it a completely new constructor? Team name changes in the past have had to do with either investors coming onto a team or someone else buying the assets of a team. March to Leyton House, which became March again is where a investor bought into the team and changed the name. For some reason the FIA did not declare them a completely new team. When Andrea Sassetti bought out Coloni, he only bought the cars themselves and not the entries, which made Andrea Moda a new team. Marussia bought out Virgin's stake in the team, similar-ish to that of the previously mentioned March to Leyton House transition, and the Lotus ownership changed the name of the team from LRGP to just Lotus F1. I'm guessing that if someone buys an entry completely from a team, then it is completely new. But how does Formula 1 determine what qualifies as a new team, given that I don't think there's been a situation where a team has changed its name without a major investor comign on.Gaeaman787 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@QueenCake: You said LRGP were still representing Renault SA - even if technically they were not, but I'd say it was exactly the opposite way. They weren't representing Renault SA, people just associated it with Renault SA because of earlier ownership and chassis name. Had there not been a Renault-powered team called Team Lotus, thus having Lotus-Renault cars, I think more people would've talked about Lotus Renault instead of Renault. I'd say Renault SA's involvement with LRGP was somewhere between Group Lotus's involvement in Lotus Racing and GL's involvement with Lotus Renault GP/Lotus F1 Team. GL's involvement in Lotus Racing was just being a licensor plus GL's parent, Proton had one model with Lotus Racing branding. In Enstone team, GL's involvement is larger, the team has significant Lotus Cars branding that Lotus Racing really didn't have. But they're still only a sponsor, Lotus F1 Team can't really be said to be Group Lotus's team, it's just Group Lotus supported team. By the way, why does Lotus F1 Team article says GL own 25 % of the team, to my understand they're just sponsors. Actually, I added "citation needed" there. Anyway, I think Renault SA's involvement in the team was somewhere between those examples of GL's involvement, LRGP had more Renault SA branding than Lotus Racing had GL/Proton branding, yet LRGP was mainly representing GL. So, considering that LRGP continued as Lotus F1 Team, my personal opinion is that already LRGP would belong to Lotus F1 article. But, statistics probably consider new Lotus team's first season to be 2012, so 2011 statistics are probably included in Renault article. So, as a compromise, I could accept including '11 season to Renault article, but that article should mention LRGP wasn't anymore Renault's works team, it was rather representing Group Lotus. And, despite not including 2011 to Lotus F1 Team article, that article should clearly mention that GL's involvement started in 2011 despite Renault chassises. Anyway, QueenCake, I support your idea about moving Renault F1 to Renault in Formula One.

@Gaeaman787: You said McLaren and McLaren Mercedes aren't considered to be separate teams. I think that's because McLaren Mercedes always kept the McLaren identity. In comparision, LRGP didn't retain the Renault SA identity. The years as McLaren Mercedes are part of McLaren's history as F1 team as well as Mercedes history as engine supplier and team shareholder. But LRGP of '11 is only part of Renault SA's history as engine supplier. --August90 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Gaeaman787 Lumping all of Renault by name is exactly what we do now, and the article is still rather small. Even if it was expanded it would be perfectly manageable, smaller than Ferrari or McLaren. And on that note, no McLaren have never changed their name. They've stuck sponsors and variations of team on their full name, but they are still and have always been called McLaren. And how does Formula 1 determine what qualifies as a new team? I don't think it does, just makes it up for each and every situation, and we have to follow.

@August90 Like I said it is a technicality, but as they ultimately kept the Renault name they were basically entering cars on Renault's behalf. Perhaps they would of, but I do doubt it they were just a sponsor, regardless they were known as Renault and that is how we have to follow. I do agree it is reasonable to state it was no longer a works team, something that should be stated for 2010 really as well, and clearly saying the involvement of Group Lotus in 2011. The Lotus F1 article is fairly brief at the moment, and it should well be expanded as you said. I think that having the crossover between the two articles is the best way to go forward now.

Finally, changing the name was your idea in the first place ;)

QueenCake (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@QueenCake: I don't see how LRGP entered cars on Renault SA's behalf. Neither Sauber entered BMW Saubers on behalf of BMW in 2010, or Lotus Racing Lotuses on behalf of GL. Renault allowed them to use name Renault, just as BMW permitted the use of BMW Sauber and GL the use of Lotus Racing in 2010. Yet, that's quite small an issue, the main point is that Renault SA, of which the article "Renault in Formula One" would be, was only engine supplier for LRGP but allowed the team to continue with Renault chassis name.

Anyway, if/when we get a consesus that Renault SA's all F1 activities belong to same article, I think we can rename Renault F1 to Renault in Formula and make some changes to the structure of that article. I still think Renault Sport F1 could be left out, as it's an active F1 operation of Renault and we also have the Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines article. --August90 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I good point I suppose. My argument came from that as Renault let them use the name, they were still entering cars for Renault even if Renault SA had no more involvement on the constructor side. Still as you said, it's a moot point and the situation should be correctly explained on the Renault in Formula One page.

My issue with Renault Sport F1 is that the article is just a copy of the engine section on the Renault page, which being before the company was spun off doesn't need the history to be put into that much detail. Should it be taken out, I don't think it really meets the notability guidelines, especially when the content will be still be duplicated in two articles. I did make the argument that HPE could be merged in to Mercedes as while, but that company was originally the quasi-independent Mercedes-Ilmor, so perhaps we need one and not the other. QueenCake (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My views (which I think are pretty similar to Queencake's):

• I think it's sensible to split the articles on a "constructor" basis (as we currently do), although I don't think this means the articles need to be strictly constructor-centric (as proposed by de Facto)
• I think in the vast majority of cases, one article can describe both the team and the constructor, e.g. I think it's fine for Brabham to cover (a) Brabham cars raced by the works team, (b) non-Brabham cars raced by the Brabham team and (c) Brabham cars races by other teams. De Facto is correct that most of the existing articles have a strong "team" focus, so in some cases, we probably need to tweak the wording to de-emphasise the "team" aspect and amplify the "constructor" aspect.
• Regarding Renault, my preference is to have a single article called "Renault in Formula One" encompassing 1977-1985, 2002-2011 and engine supply. If we must have subarticles for 1977-85 and 2002-2011, I suggest they be named on a "team" basis (e.g. "Equipe Renault" and "Renault F1 Team"), rather than a "constructor" basis (e.g. "Renault (F1 constuctor 1977-85)" and "Renault (F1 constructor 2002-11)") because most(?) external sources consider "Renault the 1977 F1 constructor" and "Renault the 2011 F1 constructor" to be the same thing and aggregate their statistics. Personally I'd prefer Renault Sport F1 to be merged into Renault F1 - it seems odd to me that Red Bull's 2010 engines link to Renault F1 but their 2011 engines link to Renault Sport F1, when they're effectively the same engines, and both called "Renault".
• For Lotus, I think the current arrangement of three separate articles (Team Lotus, Team Lotus (2010-11) and Lotus F1) is best, and least confusing for non-experts.
• Finally, all the teams/constructors with "complicated" histories (Renault, Lotus, Mercedes, Alfa Romeo, etc) are slightly different, so there may not be a "one size fits all" solution

DH85868993 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If, or should I say when, Renault F1 article will be renamed as Renault in Formula One, should the introduction section be more about Renault's F1 operations in general, as currently it begins by telling the use history of Renault chassis name. I made an alternative version to my sandbox, which tells more chronologically about Renault's F1 operations. Besides, I support merging Renault Sport F1 with the Renault in F1 article. But, what about redirects "Renault F1", "Equipe Renault", "Renault F1 Team", "Lotus Renault GP"? Should they lead to the Renault in F1 article or to respective sections of the article. --August90 (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead of your sandbox version looks good to me. Regarding the redirects, F1-related redirects usually redirect to the whole article (but that doesn't necessarily mean we would have to do the same in this case). Renault F1 would definitely have to redirect to the whole article, since the 1977-85 chassis references, 2002-2011 chassis references and most of the engine references all link there. Equipe Renault, Renault F1 Team and Lotus Renault GP could either redirect to the whole article, or to the relevant sections - I'm not too fussed. Noting that it's probably a bit moot until the article is renamed (although I think it's likely that will happen eventually). DH85868993 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DH for a bit of endorsement there! I think our views are largely similar, and smaller tweaks to what we have is the best way forward. I do agree that there can't be a "one size fits all" solution, due to the various nature if how teams are acquired and renamed (different organisations, changing names, etc). On the subject of Renault, I was planning to rename the article once the Renault Sport F1 article was merged in, which I was going to do sometime soon when I had the time. We're blacking out tomorrow I see, but in the next few days I'll get round to it if no one else does. QueenCake (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a {{movenotice}} to Renault F1, to give anyone who might object a chance to have their say. DH85868993 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm broadly in support of DH85868993's bullet-pointed suggestions above (I'm afraid I haven't had time to scour through this entire discussion and make sense of it, but top marks to those that have moved it along). I'm in favour of the Renault in Formula One article, though I too am not keen on any suggestion of sub-articles. As has been proved in recent times there are conflicting views over where the boundaries lie between the different Renault eras. For that reason, I'd rather that anything involving a Renault-badged car was cobbled into the same article, and that remains the single reference point for it. - mspete93 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned the redirects to Renault articles, I think Lotus Renault GP is the one needing most redirect to a section, instead of the whole article, as the rest of the article is mainly about Renault SA's F1 activities. So, I added a short introduction to the sandbox version's LRGP section. I also added mention about name change to Lotus F1 Team in that section.

I'm not so sure, if Equipe Renault or Renault F1 Team need similar redirects to respective sections, but maybe links referring to Renault engines could direct to the article's engine section. --August90 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment the 2011 Renault engines (which are linked to Renault Sport F1), Renault engines from 1977-2010 are currently linked to Renault F1. This is consistent with other engine manufacturers, where engines are linked to the whole article, rather than an "engine supply" subsection, e.g. Alfa Romeo engines are linked to Alfa Romeo in Formula One, Honda engines are linked to Honda Racing F1, etc. I'm not saying we couldn't change the Renault engine links to link to an "engine supply" subsection of Renault in Formula One, but we'd probably want to consider it as part of a proposal to do it for all engine manufacturers, not just Renault. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I say we go by whoever owned the team. Having a Renault in F1 article is basically just the current one we have. Cutting it up into Equipe Renault will denote the fact that Renault has had a distinct manufacturer history. Or maybe we could have in Renault in F1 article, have links to the main articles (with some summaries) and have the focal point of the article be Renault's time as a engine manufacturer.

Going by whoever owns a team (has there ever been a instance where a team has just changed its name without change in ownership and where the points were counted?) OR does the FIA just not care in this instance and should we just come to a consensus.Gaeaman787 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In reading this debate, I feel some of us are losing sight of something. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a motorsport specific encyclopedia. What we do and write should keep in mind our audience. For instance, Renault. The two Renault Formula One teams should not be separated. While we know they were spearate teams that even lived in different countries, the majority of the world see it as Renault the car maker going Formula One racing. Instead of confusing the audience with a myriad of "for this go here and this go here", both Renault teams can be easily accomodated on one page. It is not completely impossible to write it how it can cover two team.

It is for reasons like this that WP:COMMONNAME exists. Don't get lost in technical correctness if it affects good writing and readability and accessability by the public at large. --Falcadore (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So do we just get rid of the Lotus F1 team page and slap it on the Renault F1 page. Because Renault as a manufacturer is out completely, it's just Lotus F1 now. We should drop the new Lotus F1 team article and move the whole Renault F1 page to the Lotus F1 page. Alot of analysts count the Renault F1 team as the one that bought out Benneton up to the point that Lotus got involved. So theoretically, Renault as a manufacturer ended when Lotus got involved.

@Falcadore Yes we know that Renault fans consider Equipe Renault and Renault F1 as one continuous team. But from an official standpoint about when a team enters F1, they're totally seperate. Let's say you bought out HRT and re-named it Falca Formula, and you kept Narain and Pedro de la Rosa. While those two drivers would still have their points continue, the fact that you bought the team completely and changed it (i.e. license, livery, etc.) means it's a new team to F1. Genii bought some stake in the Renault F1 team a few years ago, then Lotus shared the namespace with Renault as LRGP. Does anyone actually know how the FIA determines what a new team is? Gaeaman787 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 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 [1] and 2005 winners Renault [2] clearly as separate teams. Every statistics website on the web shows them as separate teams (GP.com) [3] [4] 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 [5], 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 [6], and here's the other [7]. 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: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] 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)

F1 results key

It has been proposed that the links to the F1 results table key above every F1 driver, team and car World Championship results table be replaced with a transcluded collapsible template version like this:

Key
Colour	Result		Colour	Result		Colour	Result
Gold	Winner		Red	Did not qualify (DNQ) Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)		Blank	Did not enter
Silver	2nd place						Did not practice (DNP)
Bronze	3rd place		Black	Disqualified (DSQ)			Excluded (EX)
Green	Points finish		White	Did not start (DNS)			Did not arrive (DNA)
Blue	Non-points finish Non-classified finish (NC)			Race cancelled (C)			Withdrew entry before the event (WD)
			Light blue	Practiced only (PO)		bold	Pole position
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)			Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards)		italics	Fastest lap

the advantage being that with the key expanded, readers can see the key and the table at the same time (which they can't with the current linked key). Is there general support for this idea? (If so, then there are a couple of details to discuss). DH85868993 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

THis may be a side issue, but why is disqualified black and excluded not black as well? --Falcadore (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was around when that was decided, but I imagine it was felt that exclusion from the meeting was most similar to the other "non-participations" (DNE, DNA, DNP, WD) and hence assigned a blank background. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't comment anymore, I'll styart that one as a separate discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of it. It's too wide. The current, single-column table works better, and is a reference guide to the table. It works, especially for readers who are not familiar with the colour-coding. I don't see why it needs to be changed and/or collapsed at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not proposing replacing the keys next to the Championship tables in the season summary articles, just the links to the key above the results tables in the F1 driver, team and car articles, like this one:

(key)

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	Points	WCC
2011	Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari 056 V8	P		AUS	MAL	CHN	TUR	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	KOR	IND	ABU	BRA	375	3rd
				Alonso	4	6	7	3	5	2	Ret	2	1	2	3	4	3	4	2	5	3	2	4
				Massa	7	5	6	11	Ret	Ret	6	5	5	5	6	8	6	9	7	6	Ret	5	5

Currently, when readers click the link to see the key, they are taken to the template page, away from the table. With the collapsible template, they can see the key and the table at the same time, like this:

Key
Colour	Result		Colour	Result		Colour	Result
Gold	Winner		Red	Did not qualify (DNQ) Did not pre-qualify (DNPQ)		Blank	Did not enter
Silver	2nd place						Did not practice (DNP)
Bronze	3rd place		Black	Disqualified (DSQ)			Excluded (EX)
Green	Points finish		White	Did not start (DNS)			Did not arrive (DNA)
Blue	Non-points finish Non-classified finish (NC)			Race cancelled (C)			Withdrew entry before the event (WD)
			Light blue	Practiced only (PO)		bold	Pole position
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)			Friday test driver (TD) (from 2003 onwards)		italics	Fastest lap

Year	Entrant	Engine	Tyres	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	Points	WCC
2011	Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro	Ferrari 056 V8	P		AUS	MAL	CHN	TUR	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	JPN	KOR	IND	ABU	BRA	375	3rd
				Alonso	4	6	7	3	5	2	Ret	2	1	2	3	4	3	4	2	5	3	2	4
				Massa	7	5	6	11	Ret	Ret	6	5	5	5	6	8	6	9	7	6	Ret	5	5

The advantage of the multi-column key over the existing single-column one in this position is that it's vertically shorter, increasing the chance of being able to see the whole key and the whole table at the same time. Also note that the multi-column key is narrower than the table. DH85868993 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A big improvement, definately prefer the landscape to the portrait for the same reason you outlined. Perhaps substitute "Other" as the column header on the right instead of "Colour". Great work Mighty Antar (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In favour, it is simpler for the reasons you have stated, and it is overall a good improvement should be implemented on individual driver/constructor pages as you have stated. However, in response to Mighty Antar, I think the column headings are good as they stand. I especially like the idea of the show/ hide feature. Editadam 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lotus E20 DRN thread

Hello everyone, I thought you might like to know about the dispute resolution noticeboard about the Lotus E20, as there has been a significant amount of discussion about it on this talk page. The noticeboard discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Lotus E20. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of F1Fanatic.co.uk as a source

What are the opinions of those here on whether F1Fanatic.co.uk - "The Formula 1 Blog" - should be regarded as a reliable source for facts related to Formula One. It is a self-proclaimed blog site afterall, and WP:BLOGS is fairly clear about the reliability of such self-published sources. Is there an overriding reason why this one should be exempt? It is being used to support a selection of assertions in some of the articles on this season's F1 cars. Examples include: Williams FW34, Caterham CT01, McLaren MP4-27 and Force India VJM05, amongst other things in this project. -- de Facto (talk). 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Read this article. The website might be a blog, but it does not simply post opinion pieces. It rarely does. It is run by a professional journalist, and if you actually read the articles supplied as sources - for example, this one - you will see that the quality of reporting is very high. Under WP:BLOGS, weblogs are acceptable undercertain conditions. I believe F1 Fanatic fulfils these conditions.

Furthermore, F1 Fanatic is necessary for triangulating articles. If you removed all of the F1 Fanatic references, all we would have is Autosport as a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For background information at least F1 Fanatic should be perfectly alright. I would prefer to use other sources in general though, especially for anything possibly contentious, as I don't believe Keith Collantine has written for other publications. QueenCake (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can almost certainly rely on F1Fanatic to be accurate. But being small, independent and a one-man band, it wouldn't really match the idea of 'a reliable source' - it doesn't have the structure or reputation of a publication such as Autosport or a newspaper, where journalists have certian standards to keep to other than just their own - which is all Keith really has to go by. I think we're okay to use it, but I would refrain from automatically going there first when the same information is available in a more reliable and traditional source. I do certainly appreciate though that it reports on more minor stories that aren't necessarily covered by the 'more reliable' outlets, so it would be more than fine to use it in such circumstances. - mspete93 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't go to F1F first time, every time. I use it as a source to broaden out the reference pool - I'll only use it when the likes of Autosport are running the same thing, but I don't want the article to rely too heavily on Autosport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrows / 1982 South African GP

I'm finding conflicting information over whether the Arrows cars at the 1982 South African Grand Prix were A3s or A4s. FORIX (subscription site), ChicaneF1 and this webpage say "A3" but StatsF1, Autocourse Grand Prix Archive, Mike Lang's Grand Prix! and Kimberley's Grand Prix Team Guide say "A4". Does anyone have a definitive answer or advice on which sources we should follow? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1982 Autocourse annual itself, Christopher Hilton's book on the 1982 season, and the Guinness Grand Prix Who's Who all state that the team used A4s for that race. I'll check my Motor Sport archive CD to see if it contains any further information.--Midgrid(talk) 13:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The contemporary Motor Sport race report has both Arrows drivers in A4s as well.--Midgrid(talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Midgrid, was that a Jenks article? Pyrope 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--Midgrid(talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a significant amount of reliable evidence for A4, so I have updated the one article which says A3 to say A4, so we have internal consistency. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was Jenks then that's the sort of detail that he would have made absolutely sure was correct. I know he gave up compiling the chassis numbers in the '70s, but there is no way he would have allowed a car's type to be misidentified. Pyrope 06:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mercedes GP

Looking at the Mercedes GP article, I have noticed the following line at the very beginning of the lead:

Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team, the trading name of Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited and formerly known as Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team

This makes it quite clear that the team is no longer known as "Mercedes Grand Prix". Nowhere do the words "Grand Prix" appear in the formal title of the team name, and the constructor name is recognised simply as "Mercedes". Even their chassis names have changed, from "Mercedes MGP W(number)" to "Mercedes F1 W(number)". So I think the page should be moved, either to Mercedes AMG (Formula One constructor) (or some variation thereof) or Mercedes F1 Team, since "Formula One Team" is consistent in both formal trading names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, can't it be moved to Mercedes in Formula One like we've done to Renault and Honda? - mspete93 11:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say just that. I actually forgot about Mercedes in all the discussion about Renault, but we mentioned moving that page as well. Mercedes in Formula One is simple and consistent with other manufacturers that have entered F1 in separate periods - and we really need to add the information about the 50s team back in. QueenCake (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the "XYZ in Formula One" should be reserved only for car manufacturers that aren't currently constructors in F1, and have had many F1 activities, like Renault and Honda, unlike Toyota. If the car manufacturer currently is a constructor in F1, then we should use the official team name without sponsors, possibly in a simplified form. In Merc's case, we have to consider whether or not AMG is a sponsor name. AMG is not a part of constructor name, but neither AMG is a car marque, AMG's models are Mercedes-Benzes. I think both Prisonermonkeys' proposals are good, depending on whether AMG is considered to be a sponsor or not. But, I think there's no need to hurry up, maybe we can wait to see how media refers to the team. Mercedes GP is still quite good an article name, it tells it's Merc's team that participates GP races. --August90 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just let's not have an article title with a disambiguator - we're trying to evolve to a system that doesn't use them, aren't we? I don't have a problem with "Mercedes in Formula One" or "Mercedes F1 Team", depending on whether or not it will include the 50s team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there isn't anything obvious to call them means there's no real reason why 'Mercedes in Formula One' cannot be used. It needs to include the 1950s - else we're being inconsistent up against Renault and Honda. I can't see them being called 'Mercedes AMG' very much. They'll be commonly referred to as just 'Mercedes' in the same way they have been the last two years. - mspete93 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to favor "Foo in F1" for those not currently (or ever) actual constructors. I'm not thrilled with "Mercedes F1 team", but it beats moving it every time a main sponsor changes. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to have the 50s team on the page, as we fully should, then naming the article after the current team would really be incorrect. Mercedes in Formula One (or perhaps Mercedes-Benz?) covers both teams simply without facing the possibility of a future name change. QueenCake (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with where the page ultimately ends up, just so long as it's not Mercedes GP, since the team name does not contain the words "Grand Prix" anymore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes in Formula One is fine with me, too. I think Mercedes F1 team is a bit clumsy. JonC^Talk 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I suggested "Mercedes AMG (Formula One team)" - because the "AMG" has replaced "GP" in the team name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me, but we're supposed to be avoiding disambiguators, by the sounds of things. I don't understand the problem, personally, but there you go. JonC^Talk 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to use a disambiguator, then simply Mercedes (Formula One) would do the job surely, seeing as 'Mercedes' is what they're commonly referred to? But then Mercedes in Formula One would remove the brackets, and be consistent with other articles. - mspete93 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes in Formula One wouldn't be consistent with the articles about car manufacturers' active F1 teams. Those "XYZ in Formula One" articles have always been about car manufacturers that currently aren't constructors in F1. I think we just have to decide whether AMG is a sponsor or not. As the former Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines has nowadays AMG in its name, I'd say adding AMG is just part of increasing AMG branding in Merc's motorsports programme. So, I think the best name is Mercedes AMG (Formula One). Another option might be Mercedes AMG F1, as the trading name is Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team, and Wikipedia usually drops sponsor names and "Team" after "F1" (even though I don't like about dropping "Team"). At least the latter wouldn't have brackets. --August90 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally think we should be setting the new standard now in having "XYZ in Formula One", regardless of whether or not the car manufacturers are currently active. We don't have to worry about consistency with active manufacturers because the only other manufacturer in the sport (Ferrari) has been continually present since day one, hence no need for this longer name. The problem with a disambiguator is that the guidelines do say to only use one when strictly necessary, and we came to the conclusion in the discussion up the page that most teams have a longer name to use as the page title. QueenCake (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion there are some things not in favour of Mercedes in Formula One. An article with that name would be supposed to concentrate on all Merc's F1 activities, incl. engine supplying and previous McLaren ownership. And, an article with that name wouldn't be supposed to tell short pre-Mercedes history of the Brackley team. The Brackley team's history is part of the current Merc team's history, but not part of Mercedes-Benz's history. In my opinion the article's main focus should be in the current team, that's what most readers are searching for. That's why I don't find Mercedes in Formula One the best option, the title should also refer to the current team, despite that that the article also inludes Merc's early F1 history. --August90 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if there was an obvious unambiguous thing to call the team then there might be an argument to use their current name, rather than a general overarching name. But there clearly isn't, so... - mspete93 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I could live with Mercedes AMG F1 or Mercedes F1, as they do have "Formula 1 Team" in their name. Perhaps the latter, as AMG isn't part of the constructor name and so I assume is treated as a sponsor. JonC^Talk 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking for one article to replace Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, Mercedes GP and a large part of Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? If we are, then we should also consider Daimler in Formula One, Daimler AG being the parent company owning 'Mercedes' brand, to be consistent with the other 'xxx in Formula One' articles. -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What? What on earth are you even on about? You'll find a way to complicate anything, won't you? Renault, Honda, Mercedes. That sounds like consistency to me, and 99.99% of other people I expect! When has 'Daimler' ever competed in Formula 1? Never. - mspete93 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I happen to agree with that view. The company is Renault, so it is Daimler, not Mercedes. And so the page should be Daimler. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If we went down the route of using parent companies, would we also have to have a Fiat in Formula One page, covering half of Ferrari's history and a few years of Alfa? The French and Italian Government-run teams?? Shady middle-eastern business concern? At the very least, let's stick to common names and not confusing half our readers. QueenCake (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the pages aren't done on ownership (as has been explained on countless occasions now!). If they were, 2011 Renault wouldn't be covered in Renault in Formula One but 2002(?) Benetton would be. - mspete93 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No to any "Daimler F1" articles - that idea is just all kinds of wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, it's unnecessary. As mspete points out, it's a complication that is apparently for the sake of complication. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion about renaming Mercedes GP to Mercedes in Formula One on the talkpage here Talk:Mercedes_GP#Proposed_move, as a help to others who may not be watching this discussion. Please add your opinions on the move there. Thanks QueenCake (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Autosport.com as a source

I've noticed that a lot of the articles in the Formula 1 pages use Autosport.com as a source. Some use Autosport almost exclusively. However, I think that we need to tread very carefully here. Ever since Kimi Raikkonen joined Lotus in November, I have noticed that Autosport have been running a lot of pro-Raikkonen and pro-Lotus stories. There have been accusations that they favoured Group Lotus in the court case with Tony Fernandes, but I never really saw it. This, however, is another matter entirely. Now, I suppose you could argue that Autosport is simply playing up to public interest in Raikkonen's return, and maybe I could believe that, but I think we need to err on the side of caution. Autosport ran a whole host of articles invterviewing the likes of Sebastian Vettel, David Coulthard and Damon Hill about how Raikkonen will succeed, but they ignored Gerhard Berger's comments when Berger said he would not have taken Raikkonen. I just think that we need to be really careful in how we handle this - there have been a lot of pro-Raikkonen stories, and Lotus did sponsor the Autosport International Show last month. There is a potential for some serious bias here, enough to compromise Autosport's reliability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're not using Autosport to support POV, and Autosport is not inherently stating a POV, then what is there to look out for? Them having more Raikkonen articles doesn't really affect our ability to present an encyclopedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying we should look out for the potential for it to happen, not that it actually is happening. I'm aware that more Raikkonen articles does not skew their credibility - my concern is more about the content of those articles. Like I said, they interviewed half a dozen different people about Raikkonen's return, and all of them gave glowing comments. But they ignored people like Berger, who said they did not think Raikkonen was a good choice for 2012. That, to me, is bias. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But we, on Wikipedia, say nothing about people's opinions of Raikkonen's return, so why do we can what Autosport does about people's opinions? How exactly would they start biasing facts and news? The³5₉ (Talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is more about fact checking and editorial overview, not about POV. There is nothing in Wiki policies to say that a reliable source has to be neutral, just that the facts it reports need to be trustworthy. WP:NPOV deals with POV, and insists that articles must strike a neutral balance between the various of notable (e.g. that of Autosport) POVs expressed. -- de Facto (talk). 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Team attribute terminology

The terminology, used in F1 articles, to refer to various attributes of the F1 teams appears to be inconsistent and at odds with that used by the FIA (which may also be inconsistent, of course). We need to review our definitions of these and produce a glossary, or similar (perhaps we already have one in WP:F1, or in another article?). The terms that I believe need clarifying are:

• Team
• Team name
• Full team name
• Short team name
• Sponsor name
• Constructor
• Constructor name
• Chassis name
• Engine name
• Entrant
• Make
• (I'm sure there are more too)

-- de Facto (talk). 07:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

These terms were never in need of clarification until you came along and complicated the matter, as you regularly do. Everyone understood them well enough. And if you don't understand them to the point where you need them clarified, then why are you editing sections of articles that deal with the differences between the names?

Anyway, the team name is the name the team uses to refer to itself. This is usually a formal team name, like "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". The constructor is the person or organisation that owns the team, and is generally the common name of the team, like "McLaren". The chassis name is the name given to the car by the constructor, and is usually the constructor name plus something to identify it from other cars built by the same constructor, like "McLaren MP4-27". The engine name is the name given to the engine by the organisation that built it, plus something to identify it from other engines built by the same organisation, like "Renault RS27-2012". The rest of the name you listed as needing clarification are -to the best of my knowledge - not used in Wikipedia articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at how your definition of "constructor" compares to its use in the articles shall we. You define "constructor" as "the person or organisation that owns the team".

In 2012 Formula One season we have the constructor name of the team named Lotus F1 Team given as Lotus, yet Lotus don't own the team. In the same article, the constructor for the team that Daimler own is given as "Mercedes". So which is incorrect - your definition or the article?

In the 2011 Formula One season article we have the constructor for the "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" team given variously as "McLaren" and "McLaren-Mercedes". Your definiton happens to fit one, but not he other - which is correct?

-- de Facto (talk). 11:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Constructor officially means the following (rule 1.7 as taken from the 2012 Formula One sporting regulations)...

In the case of Formula racing cars, an automobile make is a complete car. When the car manufacturer fits an engine which it does not manufacture, the car shall be considered a hybrid and the name of the engine manufacturer shall be associated with that of the car manufacturer. The name of the car manufacturer must always precede that of the engine manufacturer. Should a hybrid car win a Championship Title, Cup or Trophy, this will be awarded to the manufacturer of the car.

2012 F1 sporting regs

Note the the FIA use the term "automobile make". "Constructor" is an equivalent term that has been in use for longer and is more widely used. So for the "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" team, the constructor would be "McLaren-Mercedes". Readro (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Readro, thanks for that. That looks like a definition of "make" though - where is the confirmation that "constructor" and "make" are the same thing, and if they are; what is just the "McLaren" bit in your example called on its own? -- de Facto (talk). 12:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you'll find confirmation that they are the same thing. We have the Formula One Constructors' Championship, formerly the International Cup for F1 Constructors (Coupe Internationale des Constructeurs Formule 1), which is for what are defined as "makes" above. "McLaren" is just the car manufacturer. Readro (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

McLaren, as well as Lotus, Caterham, and Marussia are chassis names. That's the word FIA used in the press release of '12 name changes. link And in the entry list, constructors are "McLaren Mercedes", "Red Bull Racing Renault" "STR Ferrari, or "Mercedes" (not "Mercedes Mercedes"). --August90 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. "McLaren MP4-27" would be a chassis name. "McLaren" is the chassis manufacturer. Readro (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So there isn't even a common understanding of what a "constructor" is. No wonder there is so much apparent inconsistency amongst the F1 articles, and so much squabbling each time someone attempts to rationalise any of it. Let's start then with trying to understand what a constructor is, we currently have two suggestions:

• The person or organisation that owns the team?
• The 'make' of the whole car, including the engine?

-- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think most people do have an understanding of what these terms mean; but I suspect people are just tired of having extremely long, protracted and frustrating discussions about it. I don't see anyone trying to rationalise anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Pedantism can be taken too far. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantry? ;-) Pyrope 14:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the Lotus Renault GP and Marussia Virgin Racing situation is the reason why we talk unncessarily much about trading and constructor names. I take an example from Renault in Formula One article:

For the first two seasons under Renault the team continued to be called "Benetton Formula" and used "Benetton" as their constructor name. In 2002 Renault rebranded the team as the "Renault F1 Team" and started to use "Renault" as its constructor name.

Come on, wouldn't it be enough to have it like this:

For the first two seasons under Renault the team continued to be called Benetton. In 2002 the team was rebranded as Renault.

In my opinion the chassis constructor name is enough in most cases, trading name, or a shortened version of it, should be used only when chassis constructor name can be confused with another company with that name or the team's commonly used name is other than the chassis constructor name, like Brawn GP instead of Brawn. --August90 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating race report pages

Hey guys, quick question: how far in advance should we start creating race report pages? I noticed that someone made the 2012 Australian Grand Prix page a month in advance of the event. I've reverted it, because most of the page content was trivia about how long it had been since certain nationalities had been represented by drivers, but it did get me thinking as to when the appropriate time an place for the creation of these pages would be. I can understand making the likes of 2012 United States Grand Prix sooner than other race report pages because it is a new event, but I'm wondering what opinions should be: should we create each race report page a certain amount of time before the next event (for example, as soon as the previous event has finished), or should we simply play it by ear and create each page when we have enough information about the event to justify its existence? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DRS zones on circuit maps

Just a quick idea here: should include a secondary map in each article showing the placement of the DRS zone? I'm thinking it could go in the body of the article rather than the infobox, but a visual representation of the zone would be better than trying to describe it in prose. Even if it is just an insert showing the section of the circuit (with corner numbers to clarify the section), I think it would add a lot to race articles. The only problem is that I can't draw these things myself - I'm hopeless at graphics programs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If we must it would be better to add it on the map in the infobox, rather than add a separate one that may interfere with the layout on a page, especially if there are already several pictures included on the article. Like you said if you can't do it you'll have to find someone who can, or politely ask the users who made the existing diagrams. I don't particularly mind either way though. QueenCake (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea, but one issue is that (as far as I am aware) the DRS zones can change from year to year. Also, DRS zones are specific to F1 - and for the majority of the circuits on the calendar, F1 is not the only major series to go there in a season. Or, just reading your suggestion again, were you suggesting they go in the individual race articles (i.e. 2012 Australian Grand Prix)? - mspete93 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking they could just be included in the race reports. Say the DRS zone for Melbourne takes up the front straight - all we would need is a little insert showing the area of the DRS zone, with the detection point, activation point and the actual zone marked on it. I don't think it needs to go in the infobox; we can easily have it floating in the body of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wheel doughnut

FYI, Wheel doughnut has been proposed for deletion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say let it die. I'm fairly certain BBS and Porsche had this about 30 years before Formula One decided to do it, although the empasis there was more on aerodynamics and less on brake cooling. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Send it to Glossary of motorsport terms, it's hardly worth debating. --Falcadore (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I forget to post a note on here. Redirecting it's a good idea, I'll add my support to Falcadore's comment. QueenCake (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a fuel field on the team infobox?

I thought I'd bring this up here, as I'm not sure if Template:Infobox F1 team is that followed, but I'm not sure if there is a need to have a separate field for the current fuel supplier to the team in that infobox. It's really a component of the engine (in a very basic way) and not separate like the Chassis, Engine and Tyres, and it seems to me to be unnecessary to include fuel and not things like KERS, ECU, wheels, etc. (Not that I want anything like that included either.) Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be included, as fuel is an important part of the F1 car, and there are many different suppliers. even though it is a component of the engine, there are some teams that use the same engines as one another, but have different fuel suppliers. Even though it is not talked about much, fuel is very much an important part of the F1 car. Editadam 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What about oil, spark plugs, brakes etc.? I'd say leave fuel out as otherwise you can start overcomplicating the infobox very quickly. Readro (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering how much control there is on the fuel, I'd say that the brand of fuel counts very little and makes negligable gains on performance based on how they happen to formulate it. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe back in the 80's when Agip was putting rocket fuel in the cars it was relevant, but for the most part it isn't. In a situation like that where there really was something special about the fuel, just mention it the prose. 74.70.111.59 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please link the race reports

A lot of the season pages have very detailed, race by race accounts (although TBH a lot of these need some serious style editing). But the only place one can find the race reports is in a small table at the bottom of the page. Especially when there's a section that summarizes another article, there needs to be a link there in the prose. I just did 90-91-92 but there are many other seasons with the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.111.59 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that really neccessary? The season article already have many links to race reports. Race by race stories of the season should not exist in the season article. The season article should describe the whole of the season rather than small bits of it in isolation. --Falcadore (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Team drivers

A decision which impacts upon such categories as Category:Williams Formula One drivers and could see them deleted - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 18#NASCAR_race_team_categories. --Falcadore (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be an over reaction. As I read the discussion, people aren't fussed if the teams operated in the top category of their class, if the drivers competed for the majority of a season, and if the team lineups are fairly stable. This is generally true of F1 driver-team relationships so I think the categories are fine. Pyrope 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet all the categories were deleted. While some debated how they wer defined they were ultimately all deleted regardless of scope. --Falcadore (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)