Talk:Arrows Grand Prix International

Formula One Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I eliminated a webpage with no relation with the original team. The website was about two guys who painted their go carts with the old team colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.17.192 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added "In its checkered history, Arrows set the unenviable record of 356 races without a win through the 2001 season." Haven't done the math thru their folding up. Maybe someone can...? Trekphiler 06:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrows Grand Prix International section

So far, so good. Thank you for starting the article on this interesting team.

In the Arrows Grand Prix International section, however, I became a bit confused. I initially came to the page looking for information about the team's history. So when it was stated that Patrese was banned from racing in America in 1978, but then that he scored the team's first pole position in 1981, I became a little confused. I don't know the answer, so if someone who is more knowledgeable about this topic could clarify this a little further in the article it would be very helpful.

otherwise, great work.

Rockthing (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrese was only banned from the very next race, the 1978 US Grand Prix. I've clarified the text. Thanks for picking that up. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm surprised at the turnaround. Again, great work. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes those things seem obvious when you know the topic. :-)

Rockthing (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Aguri connection

I found the confirmation of some information I was searching for on the Super Aguri F1 article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Aguri

2006 In 2006, the cars were powered by Honda engines (RA806E 2.4 V8), and used Bridgestone tyres. The chassis, SA05, was based on the 2002 Arrows A23, bought from ex-Minardi principal Paul Stoddart who purchased them when the Arrows team went into receivership.

I'll try to come back to work this into the Arrows article somehow. I think it is very relevant, especially to connect the team to a potentially current squad. Feel free to use this information as you like, of course. I will be more than happy to see someone else incorporate this into the Arrows article.

Rockthing (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already sort of covered in the "Further use of Arrows chassis" section at the bottom of the article (although admittedly it doesn't specifically mention the A23). Perhaps that section needs to be moved above the results table to make it more visible. DH85868993 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was moved. The discussion section is noted; if editors desire a better qualifier, use another RM or be bold. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Arrows → Arrows (F1) – This is not the primary use of the term "arrows" it should instead redirect to the primary usage, the plural of arrow as an {{R from plural}}, so this should be moved to "Arrows (F1)" or Arrows Grand Prix. As this team has been defunct for 10 years, it's relevance will only decrease, especially as it was not a very successful endeavour, with no race wins, no world champions, no constructors championships. 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

- Support (no preference on alternative title). An F1 team is very specific compared to arrows as plural of arrow, which I imagine is what quite a lot of people are looking for. In other words, the potential benefit outweighs the negative. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one seems obvious to me.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. The only more common usage I'm aware of is the plural of arrow, so it's not like there's huge chance of confusion. I have no particular objection to moving, just not seeing a need for it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm with Trekphiler, I don't really see the point. How many people looking for arrow are going to type the plural? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see two reasons for this; 1. The plural of arrow see likely to be a more common search term 2. There is showing that this article would even me the primary topic of articles named "Arrows". The suggestions of alternates from Bretonbanquet are equally as acceptable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. While I can fully understand Trekphiler and Bretonbanquet's points, and I don't believe that even a smallish minority of people would actually search for bow-launched projectiles using the plural, it set me thinking about how we use the search box. In the most part, we start typing a term and a predictive list drops down based on the first few letters. Normally, as intended, at this stage I glance to see if the term I want has appeared and then click it to save myself the extra typing. It strikes me that if Arrows Grand Prix International were to show up in the drop-down it would be far clearer that was the page I was after than the more ambiguous Arrows. For this reason I think the move would, on the whole, be a benefit, but I don't think there is a pressing need. Pyrop e 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Arrows Grand Prix International. I don't think searching is so much of a problem, I think a larger problem is one of editors accidentally linking to this article by typing [[arrows]] when they mean [[arrow]]s - indeed Special:WhatLinksHere/Arrows shows at least three such instances (Ainu people, Vejovis, Aboriginal peoples in Canada) in the first 50 results. (I will fix these in the fullness of time). DH85868993 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed these links (and a bunch of others). DH85868993 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per DH85868993 (links from articles intended for the projectile). It seems unlikely that an average consumer would be looking for the F1 team instead of the projectile (and I'm familiar with the team). Royal broil 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense to do so. But, at the same time, we are losing motorsports' major foothold a little, although not so much as Arrow isn't viewed often, like Apple. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2012 (AEDST)
Support the move to Arrows Grand Prix International. If the page needs to be moved, it should be changed to the most unambiguous name. QueenCake (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the primary meaning of "arrows" is quite clearly as the plural of arrow, whether searching or linking. Prouder Mary 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support No real stand-out argument to go for or against, but moving to AGPI and redirecting this page to arrow seems acceptable. AlexJ (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Firstly, arrows isn't even an active team any more, and hasn't been for years. The primary meaning of arrows is the dart, not the F1 team. Most people searching for arrows would want to see an article for an arrow, not an F1 team. Sas1998 (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I suggest a much better name for this if the move goes ahead, e.g. Arrows Grand Prix or Arrows Grand Prix International. The latter already exists as a redirect page. No disambiguator should be needed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the move is approved, the article name should be Arrows Grand Prix, which is the simplest actual name. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company's registered name was "Arrows Grand Prix International Limited". As far as I'm aware, they never used the name "Arrows Grand Prix", whereas they did race as "Arrows Grand Prix International" in 1989. DH85868993 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Arrows (F1 Team), as this is how many other F1 team pages are named. Sas1998 (Talk) 00:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going down that route, I'd prefer Arrows (Formula One team), i.e. "Formula One" in full and a lower case 't' for "team". But I still prefer Arrows Grand Prix International - why use a disambiguator when we don't need to? DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguators. Ugly and unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we removed most of the existing disambiguators earlier this year, there's no need for them when teams always have a long form name. QueenCake (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Despite the above discussion the move has been made to "Arrows (F1)". Remind me what the point of these talk pages is again? Grr..... Pyrop e 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, what is the fucking point of having a discussion when all of it is entirely ignored? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just replace everything with clicky buttons as that's all some people seem concerned with. BTW, sorry for not flagging up the RM entry. I did draft out a note to place here bit its tone was more than a little impolite, so I went away for a soothing cup of chamomile. Pyrop e 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their talk page, it seems the admin-wannabe responsible has a bit of a history of this sort of thing and has been advised previously that they should stop... No helping some folks I suppose. Pyrop e 20:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I moved the page in something of a rage, and then immediately found your RM post. I should have followed your lead and gone for a walk or something. As soon as I saw the closer's user page, I saw the category "Admin hopefuls" and rolled my eyes. If any good comes from this, it might be less likely he/she will have their wish granted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:BDD is currently manually changing links from [[Arrows]] to [[Arrows (F1)|Arrows]] (I wonder if they realise there are over 500?). In light of the RM, should someone ask them to stop? (I'm just about to go out for the day). DH85868993 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just told him – it's up to him whether he wastes his time or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so should this move go to Arrows Grand Prix or Arrows Grand Prix International? That didn't look so clear to me. I wish someone had let me know of this earlier instead of burning me in effigy first. I'm more than happy to help clean up. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion section alone is pretty clear that the (F1) disambiguator was preferred by nobody. The desired move to Arrows Grand Prix International has to be done via a technical request, so when it's finalised, any help you can offer to change the many, many wikilinks would be appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with discussions where alternate names come up is that discussion isn't always going to look clear. Every editor who expressed support for the move without further discussing alternate names was probably fine with the qualifier, which was in the original request. It looks like more editors supported the proposal without commenting on alternate names than those who supported it and did (did I make that confusing enough?), so I don't think you can say (F1) was preferred by nobody. But of course, as soon as that move happens, I'll do all I can to fix the incoming links (if I'm still around—tomorrow if not today). --BDD (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about fairly technical subjects like this one is that several of the editors who supported the move might not be aware (being polite) that the nominated title is not only naff, but flat-out incorrect in at least two aspects. All the editors who suggested other titles are members of the WikiProject and it probably should have been handled there anyway, ideally. We recently standardised titles for Formula One teams, and I suspect Arrows was not moved then due to the large amount of work involved. I'm sure that a few of us can get together and sort the links out in a fairly short time, thanks in advance for your help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil, it's just been moved, so we can crack on with the wikilinks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a few, I realise just how long it's going to take. Can anyone get a bot to do it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it appears all the incoming links have been dealt with. Note that if you check WhatLinksHere on Arrows there are still a fair amount of pages listed, but they don't actually have said links. I've encountered this with other moves; links from templates can take much longer to be cleared on such lists. So as far as I can tell, every transclusion of {{Formula One constructors}} is still there, but the links now properly point here. Sorry again for all the trouble. My talk page will be the best place to reach me with any further concerns. --BDD (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was completed a lot faster than I'd anticipated. Well done to all concerned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arrows Grand Prix International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]