Talk:1971 Argentine Grand Prix

Why constructor

Revert reason is not particularly valid - refer 1950 British Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a totally different type of table, a table of entrants, and only used in that article. The race results table is identical to the one in this article before you changed it. Also, you have removed links to the constructors of the cars, for no valid reason. I think you should also provide a reference for your assertion that the term "constructor" is specific to the World Championship, bearing in mind the outside sources use the term for non-Championship races. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A different table format is not insulation of argument. It's a non-championship, mixed category (ie non-F1) motor race so several conventions are already broken. Links to constructors can easily be restored where redlinks apply (quite a small refinement), and as those not redlinked link to actual cars surely in the instance of a race where there are no constructors championship points anywhere to be seen a link from Lotus 72 to Team Lotus surely covers bases. --Falcadore (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the outside source listed for this article has chassis names. It also falls in line with sports and toruing car race articles. BMW 320i does not link to BMW. HPD ARX-03a does not link to Honda Performance Development. --Falcadore (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it is, really. You link to another article to back up your point regarding the contents of a table, but in fact that article has a different bunch of tables. Links to constructors could indeed be restored but the chassis designations would have to be for each car, not just some, which is the current case for some reason. The awarding (or not) of constructors championship points is irrelevant to the way we tabulate information. Outside sources have all kinds of information that we don't use. You often revert other editors who introduce information you consider to be "too much", and we obviously have to restrict the information we put into articles. The 1950 article has engine layouts and tyres, as well as a dinky little table of fastest laps - do you advocate that across the board? I certainly do not. As I've said elsewhere, if you insist on including chassis designations, then they should be either in the text (the relevant ones), or in a table of entrants, not at the bottom of the article in a results table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it should conform to a standard not relevant to this race, rather than to other races it is more relevant to? It was also your assertion that we should reflect outside sources, I was merely indicating that I was actually doing as you suggested in this article's specific instance. --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What question are you answering here, apparently with another question? I can't answer unless you make sense. The outside source you're using (apparently Silhouet) only has one list - the race result - therefore it puts chassis designations in the race results. I assume you're not advocating that we use only one table. It would help a bit if you address the points I make, otherwise it just looks like "my way or an edit war". Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

My reply in the other thread addresses that. Look of tables is a secondary issue and easy to fix next to our divide over a non-championship races MUST follow everything F1 articles do regardless of import and circumstance of race. --Falcadore (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What is our divide, exactly? I cannot figure out your last sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, having thought about this, I propose the following: a table of entrants showing the name of the entrant, car number, the name of the driver, and the chassis / engine combination (headed "chassis-engine"). If there's a redlink, so be it - it's about time we wrote stubs for these cars anyway. Example:

No.	Entrant	Driver	Chassis-Engine
2	Gold Leaf Team Lotus	Emerson Fittipaldi	Lotus 72C-Cosworth DFV
4	Gold Leaf Team Lotus	Reine Wisell	Lotus 72D-Cosworth DFV
6	Gold Leaf Team Lotus	Wilson Fittipaldi	Lotus 72C-Cosworth DFV
8	Equipe Matra Elf	Chris Amon	Matra MS120

This would be followed by the simpler qualifying table:

Pos	No.	Driver	Constructor	Lap	Gap
1	18	Rolf Stommelen	Surtees-Cosworth	1:15.85	—
2	8	Chris Amon	Matra	1:15.88	+0.03

And a simpler results table:

Pos	No.	Driver	Constructor	Laps	Time/Retired	1st / 2nd heat
1	8	Chris Amon	Matra	100	2:08:19.29	4th / 1st
2	14	Henri Pescarolo	March-Cosworth	100	+ 21.86 s	3rd / 2nd

These last two tables have a "constructor" column because the links go to the constructors of the chassis and engines. We have the same slightly misleading issue that we have across all F1 articles in that it could imply that "March-Cosworth" is the constructor when it technically isn't - but this is an issue we've all discussed before, with no consensus to change the column heading. If we head the column "make" or whatever "March-Cosworth" technically is, it's misleading to link to the constructors. If there's ever a consensus to change the column headings across the board, then it can be addressed then.

The other thing I think we differ on is whether or not "constructor" is a term we can use for non-Championship races, F1 or otherwise. Regardless of whether or not the race was a Championship race, or whether or not there were constructors' points awarded, the technical definition "constructor" is the same, i.e. the intellectual rights owner of the chassis or engine. And that's what we link to in the column. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)