Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:59, 23 May 2017

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Motorsport and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26: 90 days

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Motorsport and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26: 90 days

Shortcut

WT:MOTOR

Other project talk pages:

Taskforce talk pages:

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 July 2012.

Formula Two

Seeing as GP2 is now F2, and the articles for the current F2 and Jonathan Palmer's F2 are clumsily titled, would anyone be against moving Palmer's series to a name such as "MotorSport Vision Formula Two" or something similar? A similar argument could also be made for merging both the current and original F2 series but keeping a GP2 article separate. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't move to MotorSport Vision Formula Two or use something containing MSV link as the series was never known under this name. What if someday Jonathan Palmer will decide to upgrade his MSV Formula 3 Cup to MSV Formula 2, like it's happened with BRDC Formula 4 and BRDC British Formula 3? "FIA Formula Two Championship (established in 2009)" is fine, as it's clearly references to an actual name of the championship. Merging Jonathan Palmer's F2 and current F2 it's not an option, as they are absolutely different championships. But for sure we should mention all the F2 Championships in Formula Two articles. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the idea of naming the current F2 series article "FIA Formula 2 Championship" and the past MSV F2 series "FIA Formula Two Championship", they are both written differently so its makes both articles distinguishable. Speedy Question Mark 16:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Than why you renamed it to "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)"? Corvus tristis (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that somebody changed the MSV F2 article title to "FIA Formula Two Championship (2009-2012)" that was the reason but I've changed my view. Speedy Question Mark 16:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what, if any, convention exists in this Wikiproject, but for the football (soccer) project, since the 2 names are basically the same, the year would be added to the title of the article on the historical series but not the current series. Also, since this is a continuation of the GP2 series, I'd expect that page to be renamed and updated rather than a new page to be created. Either way I think there should also be disambig links between the 2 F2 pages, although a full-on disambig page might be overkill.--John, AF4JM (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the most of you said. As first I think that it will be better idea to just rename GP2 Series article, basing on the logic, that it almost the same series just with another name. But GP2 Series was a direct successor of the International Formula 3000 (and also hadn't much difference from F3000), while F3000 was a direct successor of the European F2. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new article for what is considered a new championship. New Formula Two is not the GP2 Series - it's now the FIA's, not Bernie's - it's not related to Palmer's Formula Palmer Audi 2, which stands completely separate, and it's certainly unrelated to the old European F2 championship.

As for names, the new F2 championship will be considered the primary target, so should receive the name sans disambiguator. FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) was perfectly acceptable for Palmer's one. Using "established in 2009" adds unnecessary length, and also implies that the series is still going.

However, Corvus tristis and Speedy Question Mark, please stop moving the article. You've collectively made a pig's ear over this, and now the page history for GP2 is stuck on the supposedly new F2 article. We can't make a decision on the titles or make any edits until this situation is cleared up. QueenCake (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012)" wasn't perfect, as it's led to "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)" name, that made SQM. I understand that it makes slightly longer, but the years of existence, were never used in the disambiguation practice in Wikipedia. For example: Miodrag Jovanović (footballer, born 1922). You can't imply that he is still alive. And we can use "established in xxxx" in future cases when the current championship will have less or equal significance as previous with the same name. Corvus tristis (talk)

GP2 and F2 should have separate articles just like F3000 and GP2 do. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should take the lead from professional wrestling of all places and use the name of the Promoter - see Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) and Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts). -Drdisque (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about wrestling, but in case of the F2 championships promoters are not well known. If you are long-time motorsport fan you probably know Jonathan Palmer and Bruno Michel, but the "FIA Formula Two Championship (established in 2009)" and "FIA Formula 2 Championship" for the current one is much easier for the simple reader. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it's time to fix the consensus? I assume now we all agree, that we should have different articles for GP2 and F2? And we should move back "FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)" to GP2 Series and make a new article for FIA Formula 2 Championship? Corvus tristis (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least, that's how I see it.T v x1 08:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly non-notable autobiography

What appears to be an autobiography has been created at Calan Williams. I am not familiar with notability criteria for drivers, but I doubt this person satisfies them. I invite you to have a look and see whether it should be put up for AFD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks notability. Seemingly competing, to date, in a 'regional' championship in a junior formula. Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Ole Kristian Temte. Has created his own article in the past, has been deleted and he's re-created it again. Now it meets some criteria but his notability is questionable. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an AFD for Mr. Williams. Mr. Temte [barely] meets WP:NSPORT/MOTOR as the FIA World Rallycross Championship, which he has competed in, is a fully professional series. He has driven in the series a grand total of twice, but he meets the guideline. -Drdisque (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Andy Scott's article was deleted despite having competed in nearly a whole season of the World Championship and at least two of the European? Where's the consistency? Holdenman05 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw Andy Scott's article. I would have argued against it if I was aware of the AFD or contested the Prod if it was prodded. -Drdisque (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jvm21

User:Jvm21 creates articles about karting drivers (Fin Kenneally, Sami Taoufik, Noah Watt, etc). I had big doubts if they are notable now. I think some other articles are also deserves WP:MOTOR attention. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I say AFD all.T v x1 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIA European Formula 3 Championship

User:QueenCake without any discussion had omitted FIA from the FIA European Formula 3 Championship. But FIA in the case with F3 is necessary for disambiguation purposes. The history of F3, F2 and any other open-wheel racing championships proves, that most of the championships are tend to cease. Some of them were created again under the same name after some period. So it is a very bad idea to remove something from the name, because F3 is not that stable championship as Formula One. Also QueenCake blind to the sources which states that in 1975 was known as FIA European Formula 3 Cup [1], while in the other years it was officially and more commonly known as FIA European Formula 3 Championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but that was some years ago, when I was shortening some over-lengthy article names, before reversing during the discussion last year. I doubt someone will confuse the European Formula 3 championship with the Formula 3 Euro Series (very different names), but I'm completely indifferent to its omission.

The big issue was you splitting the F3 championship between two articles, FIA European Formula 3 Championship (established in 1975) for the original run, and European Formula 3 Championship for the current history. I see zero justification for the move. It's the same championship, run to Formula Three rules, competed in Europe, and organised by the FIA. It's treated the same by many sources, as are many other championships that take a break during their history.

What it was called in 1975 didn't matter that much compared to the main point, so I didn't really talk about. QueenCake (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Formula 3 Championship may mean any other European championship with F3 regulations. You have doubts but motorsportmagazine.com confuses, and the reader who is not a motorsport fan may easily confuse.

I'm not a native speaker, but I always thought that a phrase "take a break" mean interrupt one's activity briefly with an intention to continue in the certain moment, not almost thirty years later. When FIA European Formula 3 Championship was disestablished in 1984, it certainly wasn't just paused.

The questions that I left to you on my talk page are still open. All your sources hadn't clear criteria to merge championships (Forix merged European F2/FIA Formula Two, Italian F2/F3000, World Sportscar Championship/FIA WEC, FIA GT Championship/FIA GT Series statistics, despite that they are clearly different championships, while Super Formula statistics is divided; motorsportmagazine.com merged the former European F3 Championship, European F3 Cup, F3 Euro Series and the current European F3 Championship; Autosport says two opposite things in the same article that you have provided). DriverDB for example treats to the current championship as new. You didn't prove that it's the same series. Even the FIA says in their press release, that it's "new championship". Also it's not correct that it's organised solely by the FIA, mostly the series organised by the people who organised DTM and F3 Euro Series with some help of FIA.

The championship which started in 1975 and the current championship are different because they have absolutely different sporting and technical regulations, different race weekend structure, different promoters, different circuits, etc. If we will follow your logic, than we should also incorporate FIA European Formula Three Cup, which also competed in Europe, used F3 cars, organised by the FIA and which motorspotmagazine treated as the championship, despite it consists just from one race. And also you should merge Palmer's F2 and the current one as they also had used Formula 2 cars, competed mostly in Europe, having almost the same name with a nominal FIA role in the organisation of the series. But I believe in common sense and that we will have different articles in cases with F3 and F2 championships.Corvus tristis (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One Pre-Qualifying

I would like to propose a change to the tables we use for pre-qualifying in Formula One Grand Prix articles.

This is what is currently used:

Pos	No	Driver	Constructor	Time	Gap
1	29	Éric Bernard	Lola-Lamborghini	1:27.134	—
2	30	Aguri Suzuki	Lola-Lamborghini	1:27.548	+0.414
3	14	Olivier Grouillard	Osella-Ford	1:27.938	+0.804
4	33	Roberto Moreno	EuroBrun-Judd	1:28.295	+1.161
5	17	Gabriele Tarquini	AGS-Ford	1:28.677	+1.543
6	18	Yannick Dalmas	AGS-Ford	1:30.511	+3.377
7	34	Claudio Langes	EuroBrun-Judd	1:33.195	+6.061
8	31	Bertrand Gachot	Coloni-Subaru	1:39.295	+12.161
9	39	Bruno Giacomelli	Life	1:41.187	+14.053

And this is what I propose we do:

Pos	No	Driver	Constructor	Time	Gap
1	29	Éric Bernard	Lola-Lamborghini	1:27.134	—
2	30	Aguri Suzuki	Lola-Lamborghini	1:27.548	+0.414
3	14	Olivier Grouillard	Osella-Ford	1:27.938	+0.804
4	33	Roberto Moreno	EuroBrun-Judd	1:28.295	+1.161
5	17	Gabriele Tarquini	AGS-Ford	1:28.677	+1.543
6	18	Yannick Dalmas	AGS-Ford	1:30.511	+3.377
7	34	Claudio Langes	EuroBrun-Judd	1:33.195	+6.061
8	31	Bertrand Gachot	Coloni-Subaru	1:39.295	+12.161
9	39	Bruno Giacomelli	Life	1:41.187	+14.053

*A red background denotes drivers who did not pre-qualify.

This would minimise confusion as to who did and did not PQ as there is no indication as to who did make the cut aside from matching the drivers in the results table with those in the PQ table (results are taken from the 1990 Monaco Grand Prix). Holdenman05 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the discussion will be more appropriate for WP:F1, but I am supporting the proposal. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COLOR using color as sole means to convey information is to be avoided. It's much easier and clearer to put a thick line in between those who prequalified and those who didn't.T v x1 22:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like it but Tvx1 is right about the colour issue/guideline. Either use a thick line as he says, or use bold type for the qualifiers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong, what WP:COLOR says is that color shouldn't be the only mean of separation and its advised to use the color in combination with a thick line. So, for me, the best solution is combinate the proposal of Holdenman05 with a thick line.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The color is not needed. It's distracting. If you add a thick line it's obvious enough. We don't use coloring to mark drivers who failed to make it within the 107% mark either.T v x1 19:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XXXX in motorsports

I can't understand current purpose of the lists. 2014 in motorsports list is a messy duplication of the List of 2014 motorsport champions and Category:2014 in motorsport. 2015 and other lists duplicate season articles with lists of events and winners. I assume that we need lists under this name, but we need to change their structure and content. I propose next structure (it is only a proposal, not my final decision): calendar of notable non-championship events (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Le Mans, Macau Grand Prix, etc), calendar of race festivals; births and deaths of racing drivers/people who related to motorsport; circuits that were opened during a year; championships and non-championship events the were established in a year. These structure will be more like the other year-related lists. We need a consensus on what is really matter to include in the list. P.S. Not sure but probably will be more correct to move the name to XXXX in motorsport. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposed structure for these articles. It should link to the respective List of Champions article. "Motorsports" vs. "Motorsport" is an American vs. British English issue, so I don't think it's necessary to change. As bad as you think "motorsports" sounds to you, "motorsport" sounds just as bad to Americans. Having the list of champions use "motorsport" and the year use "motorsports" is perhaps a god compromise. One thing that will also have to be determined is when a series is discontinued. Will that be discussed in the year of the series' final season or will it be discussed in the following year, the first year without that championship? -Drdisque (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation. But I think that there is a problem if we will use American English for the lists as it means that we should use American date format. While FIA and the most motorsport championship organisers uses the DMY one. It will be more correct to comply MOS:DATETIES. Also it is certain that we should have the same name as Category:2014 in motorsport. It looks a bit strange that a category uses "motorsport", while a list uses "motorsports". It will be just simpler to rename four lists than all "year in motorsport" categories. With all your other proposals I am absolutely agree.

The question of when the championship was discontinued is definitely controversial. But I assume that the final season of the championship will be more correct. GP2 Series formally was re-branded into FIA Formula 2 Championship in 2017, but the last season was in 2016. In 2017 GP2 Series hasn't any rounds that counted towards the championship. It's just my first thoughts. Probably I should study this issue more. What your thoughts on that one?Corvus tristis (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also leaning towards using the year of the final season to discuss a discontinued championship. In the case of a substantially re-named championship, probably mention it both years. -Drdisque (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should mention the final season of a discontinued championship in the same year list and mention that the championship was renamed from one name to another in the next year list in the section of established championships? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit academic. They articles redirect list of champions articles. If the **** in motorsport articles contained more than a list of champions this would not be the case. The absense of any text, any contextual description made the redirect easy. --Falcadore (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the redirect is the best decision for now. What do you think about my and Drdisque proposal to make an overview lists like the other year-related lists? It is much simpler to establish unified structure for all lists before creating them. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, any list requires text to contextualise it. Any list without it should be deleted on sight. --Falcadore (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing on text? I did a little research on year-related lists, and usually all text (excluding list) they have is one line of summary and some notes (Example 1, Example 2). I assume that we need a text to make a clear explanation for calendar of the notable events. It maybe either non-championship event (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Nürburgring, etc) or event that has own significance (24 Hours of Le Mans, 24 Hours of Daytona, Indianapolis 500, etc). We need criteria for inclusion of the events, as we don't need the duplication of the season calendars. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not going to be able to post regularly ATM as I'm been busy lately so I won't be able to answer immediately but I'll give my opinion anyway) How is 2014 in motorsports a messy duplication of the List of 2014 motorsport champions when it was intended to be an extension of the overcrowded 2014 in sports list and I never saw it an such. The purpose of xxxx in motorsports is to allow flagship events (Dakar Rally, 24 Hours of Le Mans, Suzuka 8 Hours, etc) to be included that normally would never be included into List of xxxx motorsport champions. If its a mess, it's upto the editors to do something about it. Donnie Park (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this extension hasn't provided any information different from List of 2014 motorsport champions, excluding Dakar Rally winners (didn't see any other notable single events) and if we compare them the last one has much more content and sources and has a more clean look with the help of table. While in the case of latter XXXX in motorsport lists editor just copied season calendars. We don't need to mix flagship events and championships in one list as it will be a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Corvus tristis (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that articles like 2014 in motorsports should be more than just a list of champions. They can include births and deaths, summaries of each championship, news (ALMS and Grand-Am merged into the 2014 United SportsCar Championship), etc. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR discussion

A discussion which may be of relevance to this WikiProject is being held ITNR, to discuss the status of Indianapolis 500 and Monaco Grand Prix on the ITN Recurring items list. Input welcome. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Jones (racing driver)

Before I go on indefinite leave (for external issues), I'd like to draw attention to the proverbial shitfight going on over Jones' nationality. There is an official source by IndyCar themselves stating he is Emirati, however a certain IP (who has allegedly evaded blocks and used sock puppetry) is reverting all productive edits. Could we sort this out please? Holdenman05 (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 4

Quick question, I have the time and resources to be able to be able to give every current and former F4 driver with a personal page a complete racing record from their time in F4. When I tried to do that for Billy Monger it got deleted due to consensus. Should that consensus change due to the growth in importance and growth in F4? Nerdfighter Reed (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly has F4 grown? It's still a low low tier of motorsport. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 4 drivers fall below the level of notability because of how far down the rungs of motorsport ladder it sits. Formula 4 largely replaces categories like Formula Ford, Formula Renault 1600 and these categories have never been notable for wikipedia why would the change to Formula 4 affect that?

Any new racing driver needs to pass the principles of the general notability guideline first. If they cannot achieve this level of notability then the status of Formula 4 is irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although, should we add F4 information to people who have been in F4 but now are notable enough. For example Lance Stroll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdfighter Reed (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any driver is not notable just for being F4 driver, but his F4 carreer can be part of his article.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, F4 part of his career should be mentioned in prose and in the "Career summary" table, but it doesn't mean the table with race-by-race results. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that any random F4 driver is far from notable. I'd argue that random GP3 and Pro Mazda drivers aren't notable either. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draggin' us in?

I should have done this before... I've suggested Front engine dragster be merged to Dragster, since that's the logical parent. I've also suggested merging Gasser and Top Gas (tho, tbh, a Gas (drag racing class) page makes more sense to me...). Comment at the respective pages is invited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

It has been proposed that Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile be moved to FIA. Interested editors are invited to participate in the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The discussion was closed as "no consensus". DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Motorsport, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Superleague Formula

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject Superleague Formula be merged into WP:MS; for the discussion, see WT:WikiProject Superleague Formula -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WT:WikiProject Superleague Formula

A1 Grand Prix

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix be merged into WP:MS; for the discussion, see WT:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WT:WikiProject A1 Grand Prix

WRC teams' national flags

I've found some inconsisties regarding the nationality (flagicon) of Hyundai Motorsport motorsport, sometimes apeearing with Korean flag and others with German flag (for example 2016 World Rally Championship vs 2017 World Rally Championship). For me, like Toyota's Motorsports teams, since its an official team, its a japanese team, although Toyota Team Europe (WRC 1993-1999), F1 or WEC team is based in Cologne, Germany, or the current Toyota Gazoo Racing WRC is based on Finland. Several official F1 teams are based in England and they are not British. So, we should stick to nationality of the Master/Mother-Company (Hyundai-Korea) or base? And for the remaining official teams with a HQ in other country besides the Master-Company?Rpo.castro (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question. In the 2016 season's page there is a source next to Hyundai's entry, which states that it is a German-based squad. Whereas, there is no such information about this in the 2017 season's page. I changed the flag to German and pointed people to this discussion if they disagree or want to clarify. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is whatever the team decides to be, actually. Just because Toyota is Japanese does not inherently mean all their teams are Japanese. ByKolles, and by extension their previous entry under Lotus, ran as German (2012), Czech (2013), Romanian (2014), and Austrian (2015-2017). By extension, Audi's Le Mans racing teams have been entered as German and American, even when they were run by Joest Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it can change year on year. Just because they were German in 2016, that does not automatically mean that they are German in 2017. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the sources that would confirm that they race under South Korean flag this year? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The old WRC site. Where are your sources that say it is still German? After all, there was a consensus formed on the talk page agreeing that it is Korean. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they play the Korean national anthem when Hyundai win rallies, not the German anthem. In the same way, they play the British anthem for M-Sport, Japanese for Toyota, and French for Citroën. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just pointed people to that discussion instead of going "your way" like always. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you could have looked at the article talk page first, instead of swooping in and making changes without understanding the issue the way you always do. After all, the Korean flag is used four times in the article, not once. You clearly didn't read it; you just assumed that because they competed under a German licence in 2016, they're still German in 2017. Plus, the argument that "they're German because they're based in Germany" holds no weight—Toyota is based in Finland, but competes under a Japanese licence (and like Hyundai with the Korean anthem, the Japanese article is played when Toyota wins), but you made no attempt to change that. Could you at least read an article and try to understand it before coming to a conclusion?

Besides, I didn't decide anything. I made a change that kept the article internally consistent and reflected a consensus on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the way you always do" I wonder when I did that? It is useless to discuss anything with you as you always get into conflicts with everyone at the project. I am not going to bother to discuss with someone who shows arrogance in every single post. Good luck. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do? Recognise the merits of your edits? There were none. You have a reputation on the Formula One articles for charging in and making edits without thinking about it. You clearly didn't make any attempt to understand the content of the article here. Is it too much to ask that you read the article and the talk page before making edits? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think when its a official team, its is running under the Manufacturer flag. The anthem is a good argument, and most of media (if not all) refers to Hyundai as Korean, Toyota as japanese. Even their victories are combined to make a balance between german vs japanese teams (for example Mazda being the only japanese winner in Le Mans despite the importance for Japan, highlighted during 2016 Le Mans, when Toyota almost won).

ByKolles is a different case (probably more complex), its a private company. But if you look at Toyota Team Europe, until 1993 was a private team founded by Ove Anderson and had in some years, some support from Toyota, but still private until Toyota bought the full team. From that moment on for me is a japanese. It responds to the mother-company in every important matters, like shutting down the team.

Besides, as a oficcial team, it can run for manufacturer championship. So if it represents the manufacturer, the flag must be the same as the manufacturer. The same facilities of TTE were used as HQ for Toyota WEC and F1 teams and they were always considered japanese. Renault F1 has a base in Enstone (some times Renault F1 is called "the team from enstone" in media) and nobody says its english, neither Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 team, based in Brackley or Sauber, or WTCC Honda team (running by JAS Motorsport).

Just to add some more confusion, in WRC official website, Hyundai apeears as based on Germany, while Toyota as based on Japan, which for me makes no sense.

PS forgot to fullfill the description of the topic, and so this was post under an existing one.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It works the same way as it does in Formula 1. A team registers with the national sporting body that then issues them with a licence to compete. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 311: / Line 311: @@
 Besides, I didn't decide anything. I made a change that kept the article internally consistent and reflected a consensus on the talk page. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 07:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 ::"the way you always do" I wonder when I did that? It is useless to discuss anything with you as you always get into conflicts with everyone at the project. I am not going to bother to discuss with someone who shows arrogance in every single post. Good luck. – [[User:Sabbatino|Sabbatino]] ([[User talk:Sabbatino|talk]]) 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
+:::What do you want me to do? Recognise the merits of your edits? There were none. You have a reputation on the Formula One articles for charging in and making edits without thinking about it. You clearly didn't make any attempt to understand the content of the article here. Is it too much to ask that you read the article and the talk page before making edits? [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 :I think when its a official team, its is running under the Manufacturer flag. The anthem is a good argument, and most of media (if not all) refers to Hyundai as Korean, Toyota as japanese. Even their victories are combined to make a balance between german vs japanese teams (for example Mazda being the only japanese winner in Le Mans despite the importance for Japan, highlighted during 2016 Le Mans, when Toyota almost won).
 :ByKolles is a different case (probably more complex), its a private company. But if you look at Toyota Team Europe, until 1993 was a private team founded by Ove Anderson and had in some years, some support from Toyota, but still private until Toyota bought the full team. From that moment on for me is a japanese. It responds to the mother-company in every important matters, like shutting down the team.
@@ Line 316: / Line 319: @@
 :Just to add some more confusion, in WRC official website, Hyundai apeears as based on Germany, while Toyota as based on Japan, which for me makes no sense.
 :PS forgot to fullfill the description of the topic, and so this was post under an existing one.[[User:Rpo.castro|Rpo.castro]] ([[User talk:Rpo.castro|talk]]) 09:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
+::It works the same way as it does in Formula 1. A team registers with the national sporting body that then issues them with a licence to compete. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)