Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Robs Lamplough

The Robert Lamplough stub lists participation in several non-championship F1 races. I can find confirmation of three: 1967 Spanish GP, retired after one lap; 1969 Madrid GP, (in an F5000) retired, 0 laps; 1971 BRDC International Trophy, retired (F5000); 1971 Jochen Rindt Gedächtnisrennen, 12th and last. The article's only cited reference is from RL himself. Can anyone come up with cites that can be added (or substituted) for his participation in any or all of the events listed? Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page there. The site I've linked to there will verify the results at all the 900 or so articles like this one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Formula_One

Is there a particular reason why this template only features two seasons or shall I just go ahead and link others in? Longwayround (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually it displays the current season, but because we are in-between seasons right now, it has the previous season and the next season displayed. So, no you do not need to link the others in. Editadam 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. Editadam 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Autódromo José Carlos Pace

The article about circuit claims the circuit was build there because the plan to build accommodations failed, but the reference article says the following:

"Sanson's ambitious project included the construction of large roads, multi sport complex and a racing circuit."

Also, I've found another, a bit longer article about the circuit and the area's history from circuit's own webpage. (written in Portuguese, Google translation can be found here, yet some sections need to be copy-pasted to Google Translator.) Here's a quote from it:

"Teria um hotel maravilhoso, praia artificial na represa e também teria o autódromo e ainda uma série de outras coisas para as pessoas morarem em Interlagos."

Google translation:

"Had a wonderful hotel, artificial beach and the dam would also have the racecourse and still a lot of other things to people they live in Interlagos."

So, I propose we start the History section like this:

"The land on which the circuit is located was originally bought in 1926 by property developers who wanted to build accommodations. They also planned to build a racing circuit there. Following difficulties partly due to the 1929 stock market crash, the project get stopped until in late 1930s it was decided to build a racing circuit. The construction of the circuit started in 1938 and the track was inaugurated in May 1940."

You can propose changes to my proposal.

Also, I think the Track Course section needs some fixing. The Wikipedia article says Arquibancadas ("Bleachers") [15] forms the end of what was once called "Cotovelo" ("Elbow") whereas that Portuguese written article says Cotovelo was former name of Bico de Pato.

"A Curva do S, de baixa velocidade, emendava na Curva do Pinheirinho porque realmente havia um par de pinheiros bem ali, ao lado da pista, e na Curva do Cotovelo, que depois virou Bico de Pato, pelo seu formato mesmo, parecido com o bico da ave, a curva mais lenta da pista. "

Google translation (needs to copy-paste):

"The S curve, slow speed, as amended at Wounded Knee Pinheirinho because I really had a couple of pine trees right there, next to the runway, and the curve of the elbow, which later became Bico de Pato, even by its shape, like the bird's beak, the slowest corner on the track."

The Portuguese article also speaks only about Curva do Café, not about a corner called Subida dos Boxes. Should we refer to that corner as Curva do Café, because Subida dos Boxes means Rise of the Pits, and that rise starts already from Junção corner.

Also, the Interlagos article claims the circuit is located in Interlagos neighbourhood whereas, to my understand, the Portuguese article says the neighbourhood in in the district of Socorro and the circuit is in the neighbourhood of Cidade Dutra. Can anyone confirm this? --August90 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport and other references

Looking at some of the articles, particularly season pages, I've noticed that we're relying on Autosport as a source a lot. They're very, very good, but I can't help but feel that we are using them entirely too much. I think we start needing to find some alternative sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport just happen to have the news up quicker than most. Also there is the fact that references to their site never suffer from link rot, unlike many other sites who regularly change without any consideration towards old links. QueenCake (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying taht we should stop using Autosport entirely - just that we should start using other sources where appropriate. For example, when Ricciardo and Vergne were announced as drivers for Toro Rosso, I put in a reference linking to The Australian instead of Autosport in the interests of spreading the sources out a little. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

BMW win credited to Sauber

The win of BMW Sauber at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners (constructors) is credited to Sauber, but should be credited to BMW. The team was a part of BMW at the time. The fact that it kept the name "Sauber" as part of the full name and that Peter Sauber later bought it back should not change this. At the time, BMW Sauber was more BMW than it was Sauber. Formion (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Autosport/FORIX credits the win to BMW Sauber, as distinct from BMW or Sauber. However, F1.com does credit the win to Sauber. Our situation is basically down to our way of deciding if a team is a new team, or a continuation of an old one, i.e. arbitrary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Tyrrell get creditted for it's Matra wins? That might be a parrallel to establish consistency. --Falcadore (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Both the above sources (at least) credit them as separate teams. Of course by 1970 they were both on the grid competing against each other, so I guess it's easier to see them as separate teams in that sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate constructors. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

They're credited as separate teams as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

David Coulthard

I have over the last couple of days spent some time updating the David Coulthard article in order to remove what appeared to be significant WP:COPYVIOs. I have rewritten most of the text concerned but would not like to promise that significant sections of the article aren't still a close WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, there remain some sections that I've not had the will as yet to rewrite.

I have requested some assistance over at WP:CP but would also be pleased to see help from this project. Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you did forensic work on this before you started on your editing. This page has been a stable and naturally gowing entity for many years. Large parts of the material that you have identified as copyright violation are there in versions of the page as far back as 2005, and I have no doubt that with enough time to trawl a more thorough investigation would show sentences and phrases occuring on the DC Museum page that could be traced back to even earlier versions of the Wikipedia article. I have no idea when the DC Museum page was set up, but as they only claim copyright back to 2008 it would seem that their article is younger than the portions of the Wikipedia article that you think have been plagiarised from it. I think you may well be broadly correct - there is copyvio here - but it is their site violating Wikipedia's copyright, not us theirs. Pyrop e 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. There was no reason to so suddenly close off the article like you did without checking the site the text was supposedly copied from is in fact younger than the article. As Pyrope pointed out, the site claims copyright to 2008, and just a casual look at the biography on that site shows how they attribute Wikipedia for some of the information they used. If they would use statistics from here for their page, it is not unreasonable to suggest (and the evidence clearly supports this) they have also copied that articles text. I'm not sure what the procedure is once someone has started an official copyright issue, but I recommend the text to be restored - keeping any rewritten portions that are better of course. QueenCake (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't do forensic work. I looked at wayback.archive.org and didn't find the site at all. This, however, is not grounds to assume that the text was not copied from the DC Museum site. Likewise, that site does claim copyright. The year specified is rather a red herring since such dates frequently do not have any relevance to the year of writing (a swift glance at the bottom of any page on The Guardian website, for example, would demonstrate this). Unfortunately, much of the text which I had thought to be a CopyVio had no source specified. I guess the key question now is: what is to be done?

Firstly, we need to establish whether the text originated with Wikipedia or with the Museum. If with the Museum then that website needs to bring itself in line with WP:REUSE. We would also in that case need to remove the references to that site as a source, reinstating the text which I may have erroneously removed and seeking reliable sources. (I've plenty of time to do this.) Longwayround (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

People claim all sorts of things all the time, whether they should or not is a different matter. I think you should take a look at this page edit, dated September 2004, which introduced a lot of the material you have identified. Note the fact that the sentence "His first season with McLaren was unremarkable..." was actually introduced even earlier, in this edit, from March 2004. Notice how the DC Museum page more closely resembles our current page, rather than these earlier pages, yet the text on the current (or rather, the December 2, 2011) page is obviously related to the earlier Wikipedia entries (albeit expanded, and with a more formal tone). Now, either somebody has been keeping the two pages synchronised down the years, or else the material on the DC Museum page is based on Wikipedia. As for your last point... xkcd has something to say. Pyrop e 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern there, the text is similar and has been copied one way or the other, but I did question in this case whether immediately slamming the copyright notice in this case was the best approach. Claiming copyright does not mean they have the right to all the material, and I would disagree that the date is a red herring - The Guardian may claim copyright each year, but sites like the DC Museum that cite a range of years claim copyright from their foundation to the current year. For another more reliable point, a WHOIS query of the site shows that it was only registered in 2008 - and as has been brought up above large portions of content believed to be a copyvio dates back to 2005.

Now for me there is more than enough evidence that text originated on Wikipedia. The text will still need referencing, but the notice can be removed and the page restored. QueenCake (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Longwayround (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found alternative sources for every statement that I had previously attributed to the DC Museum. I hope you will agree that the article is significantly better-referenced now. I'm inclined to see whether my library has a copy of DC's autobiography as that ought to sort out the rest. Longwayround (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

...and in the meantime how about restoring the page? I think we've fairly firmly established that the material is not and never has been copyvio, yet the David Couthard page is still a bombsite. I'm tempted to revert to the December 2 version, and then try to integrate any references that you have identified. Any objections? Pyrop e 14:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it a bomb site? I have not removed the Copyvio templates as the text "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" suggests I should not and at least one other user has suggested that the text was based on the information at the DCmuseum site. If you wish to remove the Copyvio templates, whether by reverting or simply removing them, I shall not stop you. I would, however, suggest, that removing the templates would be the least harmful of those two options. Longwayround (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The template also says "If you have just labeled this page as a potential copyright issue, please follow the instructions for filing at the bottom of the box." You did not do this so admins and copyright clerks have no way of seeing that there is a problem. As for the user who suggested that the text was based on the DC Museum site, I assume that you are referring to DH85868993? Their comments were made before QoC and I put in the legwork to establish a timeline and relative age for the two pages, and I'd be interested to see what they say now. Pyrop e 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On the assumption that the "one other user" is me: It was a mistake on my part to suggest that the Wikipedia article text had been copied from the DCmuseum site, without checking for myself which existed first. Queencake and Pyrope seem to have established fairly conclusively that DCmuseum copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Which of the instructions did I not follow? Longwayround (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I see you added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 December 11. However, you don't appear to have notified any of the authors who added "copyvio" material. Had you done so you might have spotted what myself and QoC did, that most of the material had been added piecemeal and organically over a period of several years. Pyrop e 23:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you really haven't looked very hard. Considering that I stated exactly which edit I suspected, it should have been fairly easy for you to find the relevant message, not that there was any need for you to go looking. Would you like me to tell you exactly which Copyright Clerk I asked for advice as well? I don't, however, think this is at all helpful. The editor who I had probably erroneously suspected has not contributed to Wikipedia since 24 April 2011. Now, if you have something constructive to state, I'm all ears. Longwayround (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you put the page back to a proper, unmutilated state? How about you check properly before you start accusing other editors of copyright violation? Pyrop e 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the first question and I've not accused anybody of anything. Now, please, if you have something constructive to state, I'm all ears. Longwayround (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, a copyvio is an accusation. To say otherwise is like arresting someone is somewhow not accusing someone of a crime. However in this instance the copyvio seems to be unfounded. A restoration is a sound idea. --Falcadore (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Having come back from a break, and noticed that no admin or anyone associated with the Copyright Issues page has even glanced at this page, I've gone and restored the article myself. I know that's not meant to be the procedure, but David Coulthard's page sitting around half ruined, when we have quite reliably shown this is a false alarm is not remotely a constructive thing. Thanks Pyrope and DH for helping to establish this was not a copyright violation. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple English

As most of us here speak English, surely it wouldn't be too hard to start some articles in the Simple English Wikipedia (I "half-copied" (copied then edited massively) the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix (here)). Couldn't be too hard, now, could it? Spa-Franks (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How to cover the Enstone F1 team

With the Enstone team apparently about to change, not only its 'constructor' name, but its team name too, we need to seriously consider how we handle it in our articles.

The last time this team changed its 'constructor' name (from Benetton to Renault) its new life and history was shoe-horned into the Renault F1 article, as if it was somehow related (in anything but name) to the previous team to use "Renault" as its 'constructor' name. So are we now going to tack it onto the end of the Team Lotus (current) article (the previous user of "Lotus" as their 'constructor' name, or even the Team Lotus article, the original user of that 'constructor' name? I hope not.

This team is the same underlying team that started life with a 'constructor' name of Toleman, then changed it to Benetton, then to Renault and now to Lotus.

As I see it, there are two logical options to ensure consisency with other team articles (c.f. the other teams that just have, or are about to, change their team names and 'constructor' names):

Create one new article as a merger of the Toleman, Benetton and appropriate portion of the Renault F1 article and cover in it the whole history of this team. Its name could be "Lotus F1 Team", or whatever the teams official name becomes for the new season.
Create two new articles: to follow the pattern of the Toleman and Benetton articles. One called "Renault in F1", or whatever, to split out content from the Renault F1 article into - the content that doesn't relate to the Enstone team, and be an umbrella article for all the Renault complexities. Then strip Renault F1 down to cover just the Enstone team's Renault days. And create another new article called "Lotus F1 Team", to cover the team under Genii/Lotus ownership. That would also allow another article "Lotus in F1" to cover all the Lotus complexities.

My preference is option 2. -- de Facto (talk). 13:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I recently explained my opinion on this in a topic above. I don't see need to have articles for both Renault in F1 and "Enstone Renault". E.g. BMW Sauber is a only section in BMW in Formula One article. The company history (e.g. ownership changes and biggest achievements) can shortly be described in Lotus F1 Team article. The Renault in F1 article can have separate sections for Equipe Renault and Renault F1 Team. I think the '11 season is the biggest issue, was it part of Renault's or Lotus's history? --August90 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

August90, logically then, you would favour adding the teams new life under Lotus into the old Team Lotus article - and not creating a new article for it - as that's what happened with the team under Renault? -- de Facto (talk). 13:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault and Lotus are a bit different cases. I really think Renault F1 Team should have had (but not anymore) a separate article, as it was a separate company to Equipe Renault. That's what I think about Lotus F1 Team, as well as about Mercedes GP. But, once those teams have left F1, I don't see a reason why their history couldn't be explained in an article that tells about mother company's F1 activities, also as an engine supplier, or even as a sponsor. Also, adding Lotus F1 Team to Team Lotus's article is a bit problematic because the current team is Group Lotus's, whereas Team Lotus was a separate entity that, even in the days of original Team Lotus, had different owners than GL. --August90 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Now explain me why ownership by X or Y is so decivise and important, more important than name of constructor! If so, then create separate articles: Brabham (Brabham era), Brabham (Tauranac era), Brabham (Ecclestone era) etc. By the way I hope idea of merging Toleman, Benetton and Renault is only bad joke. Yurek88 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'merge' scenario would give a more consistent set of articles than we currently have. However, I believe that the better solution to achieve consistency would be to split-out a "Renault in F1" article from the "Renault F1" article and creating a new "Lotus F1 Team" article. Leaving us with four articles covering the history of the Enstone team (Tolman, Benetton, Renault F1 and Lotus F1 Team) and a new umbrella article for the Renault Factory involvement. -- de Facto (talk). 14:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault F1 Team can be a section of Renault in F1, just like BMW Sauber I've already mentioned. Renault F1 Team could be a redirect to that section, just like BMW Sauber is a redirect to a section of article. That's why I don't think we need a separate article for Renault F1 Team, only a section. --August90 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a simple solution to this. The Renault F1 article can cover both constructors known as Renault, as it currently does (in the same way as Mercedes GP and Honda Racing F1 do). The create a new article called Lotus F1 for 2012 onwards. - mspete93 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think withdrawn car manufacturies articles should be renamed in style "(Manufacturer) in Formula One", if those manufacturies have had multiple own teams, or have been engine suppliers, like Renault, Honda, and Mercedes. I doubt Honda teams have always been known as Honda Racing F1, and they didn't supply engines with that name. So, I'd move Honda Racing F1 to Honda in Formula One. --August90 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, to be honest, I dont understand what you are solving here, guys. It is pretty simple. Lotus in 2012 season will be the same come-back as Alfa Romeo (1950-1951 and then 1979-1985) or Mercedes Benz (1954-1955 and then since 2010) or Honda (1964-1968 and then 2006-2008) or Renault (1977-1985 and then 2002-2011) did. Therefore there is no need to speculate about the creation of new article which would refer to new Lotus team in 2012 season. It would be the best to continue in the article about old Chapman's Lotus team such as it is done in articles about Alfa Romeo or Mercedes or Honda in F1. The change of owner is also irrelevant. For example, some teams, Ligier or Minardi, also changed their owners (Ligier's ownership shifted from Guy Ligier to Flavio Briatore, Minardi's ownership shifted from Giancarlo Minardi to Paul Stoddart), and despite of this fact, there is only one article referring to Ligier or Minardi respectively here on wikipedia. If Kimi Raikonnen win a race during 2012 season, it will be the 80th win for Lotus as F1 constructor, the first win since Ayrton Senna's win at 1987 Detroit Grand Prix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case at all. The team formerly known as Renault will be called Lotus as per Lotus Cars or Group Lotus, which has very little to do with Team Lotus. Just because it has the same constructor name does not mean it's a continuation of Team Lotus. They're not pretending that it is, either. I doubt very much whether any reliable source will treat this team as a continuation of Team Lotus. Even if it were, we wouldn't continue its history in the same article for the same reasons as we didn't do so with Tony Fernandes' shitboxes over the last couple of years - they even pretended to be a continuation of the original team, and we still had a separate article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to question your claims. You wrote: "Just because it has the same constructor name does not mean it's a continuation of Team Lotus." This assertion I could use referring to the article about Renault F1. What has current Renault F1 team to do with French company Renault apart from just the same name (engine supply is irrelevant in this case) ?? In 2011 season, French company Renault had no involvement in the F1 team bearing name "Renault", and despite of this fact, here on wikipedia is only one article referring to the Renault team in F1 during whole period from 1977 to 2011, and statistically also the results and achievements achieved by current Renault F1 team in 2011 season are automatically counted to the previous Renault results during period from 1977 to 2010.

What has current Renault F1 team competed in 2011 season shared with "old" Renault team which competed during 1977-1985 ? Renault F1 team 1977-1985 Nationality: French (holding french licence) Based in: France Owned by: Renault (100%)

Renault F1 team in 2011 Nationality: British (holding british licence) Based in: United Kingdom (Enstone) Owned by: Genii Capital, Luxembourg based company (75%) and Lotus Cars (25%)

and despite of all these facts, here on wikipedia is still only one article about Renault F1, covering whole period 1977-2011, and statistically, results are counted together. So why shouldn't Lotus be presented on wikipedia in only one article, covering period from 1958 to 1994 and then since 2012 ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.209.91 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Renault F1 has been based in Enstone since 2000. The license is arbitrary, Benetton Formula moved from a British to Italian license during its lifetime. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: the Enstone team was known as as "Renault F1" from 2000 until 2010. Since the end of 2010 it's been know as "Lotus Renault GP", and it looks likely to be known as "Lotus F1 Team" shortly. -- de Facto (talk). 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I only wanted to point out that Renault team in 2011 season comparing to "old" Renault team in 1977-1985 is the same case as Lotus in 2012 season comparing to "old" Lotus team in 1958-1994. That means, different owners, different bases (HQ), in case of Renault even different nationalities, but still presented only in one article here on wikipedia. When Renault can be presented in one article covering whole period from 1977 to 2011, why Lotus not ? Why should we create a new article for Lotus in 2012 season ?

I propose to incorporate Lotus competing in 2012 season in the article about old Lotus competing 1958-1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.209.91 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The team's headquarters should play no part in comparing the old team to the new one. Teams move bases all the time, and the actual physical location of the team does not have to match the inherent nationality of the team. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless and misleading to compare the Lotus situation with the Renault situation. They are two different teams with two entirely different backgrounds. Collecting a couple of similarities and claiming we should treat them the same is no help. Why on earth would we have Team Lotus and the 2012 Lotus F1 team in the same article, and not include Fernandes' team? The lack of logic in this argument is quite spectacular. They all have the same constructor name but it's pretty clear that they are three separate teams, and should have three separate articles. We do actually want some people to understand what the hell we are talking about, after all. The real question is at what point do we decide that Lotus / Renault / Genii became distinct from the older Renault team. That's the vital point to discuss. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bretonbanquet and with The359. It's not the location or ownership, or the owner's nationality that is important. What I believe is important is the people, the heritage, the tradition and the lineage of the team. The current Enstone team is essentially the team that started life as Toleman, in Witney - the team that then moved to Enstone whilst known as Benetton. There will almost certainly be current team members who joined when it was Toleman. The ownership, location, name, even flag, may have changed - but it is still the same "team". This team, now using the "Lotus" name, no more belongs in the Team Lotus article than it belonged in the Renault F1 article when it was using the "Renault" name. -- de Facto (talk). 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution to all of this is fairly simple: we discontinue the pages for the current Team Lotus, Renault F1 and Virgin Racing. They will no longer be credited as receiving points, so we can't attribute results to them, even if they are the same team racing under a new name. Instead Team Lotus (current) should become Team Lotus (2011) (or possibly "Team Lotus (2010-11)"). Renault F1 should be Lotus F1, and Virgin Racing should become Marussia F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Lotus/Renault is the only team that needs a new article so far, maybe Marussia/Virgin, too. Both those teams have had ownership changes and especially Renault have been completely rebranded. Instead, for Caterham/Team Lotus this is just a name change. So, for Caterham, and maybe Marussia, I'd wait to see if Melbourne is considered to be their 1st or 39th race by reliable statistics pages.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Team after F1 is usually dropped from team names, it's a part of team's name. Renault didn't always seem to have "Team" after Renault F1, and Williams seemed to use name WilliamsF1, so I understand dropping "Team" in those cases. Also, dropping "Team" from HRT F1 is somewhat logic as HRT came from Hispania Racing Team. But, if Lotus F1 Team and Marussia F1 Team begin to use word Team even in their official logo, I don't see why it should be dropped from Wikipedia article's name. --August90 (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't just create our own standars here. If Formula 1 officially considers Lotus F1 (which is the new team's name) to be a continuation of the Benneton team. Team Lotus was the Lotus team run under Colin Chapman, not the one that is now Caterham. We' may have to wait and see if the FIA considers them a completely new team, as they did with Marussia and Virgin. If that happens, then we should make a new Lotus F1 Team article and make the Renault F1 team page into a former F1 team. Considering that they switched licenses from France to England, the second may be the case. Gaeaman787 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@August90 - that's true, the team's trading names are Marussia F1 Team, Lotus F1 team, not their full names. But we don't have the Mercedes article named Mercedes AMG Petronas GP Formula 1 team or whatever its called. Gaeaman787 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone already made an article for Caterham F1 which is seperate from the Team Lotus article. Why do we have a bunch of articles splitting up a single team's history. Personally, we should dump the Team Lotus (2011) article, since Caterham is a direct continuation of that and its still owned by Tony Fernandes. Lotus F1 is a continuation of Renault F1. What we just did is the equivalent of making an article for BMW Sauber when its Sauber F1 in 2012!.Gaeaman787 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Lotus teams

Overnight, I've seen this article (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96726) emerge, stating that all Lotus-backed teams will carry the same livery. It further suggests that Lotus F1, both Lotus ART teams and all Lotus Indycar teams (except HVM, at a sponsor's request) will receive works support: "All the works supported racing activities will be black and gold, and all the customer racing will be green and yellow or whatever," said Bahar. So perhaps we should start up a page like we do with ISR Racing and have all Lotus-supported teams on the one page. The groups operating the teams are different - ie ART Grand Prix, the former Renault F1 team, Bryan Herta Autosport - but they're all bound together by works support. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain 2011

An editor has questioned whether the (scheduled, postponed, rescheduled then eventually cancelled) 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix should be included in {{F1GP 10-19}}. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:F1GP 10-19#Bahrain '11. (I thought I'd mention the discussion here, since I thought not many people would have that template on their watchlists). DH85868993 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ITV F1 & Autosport

Just as a heads up to everyone here, the ITV F1 website went offline recently, which has unfortunately left us with a large amount of dead links on any page with references to the site. Since they don't seem to have transferred any of the content, best way to fix them is by using the Wayback Machine or finding a new source.

Also, on a better note, Autosport currently have the race reports from their magazine up for free on the website. Hope someone finds it useful :) QueenCake (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Team article names

I've been wondering this for a long time, why do we drop "Team" from team names when the team's name is something like "XYZ F1 Team"? I'd understand dropping the whole "F1 Team" part better, "F1 Team", not only "Team", is almost always an addition to team's common name, like in Sauber and Force India's case. That's also the case with Lotus, Caterham, and Marussia, but Wikipedia needs a disambiguator to separate those teams from car manufacturies. But, what's wrong with "F1 Team"? Williams seems to be the only team using "F1" commercially in their name without "Team", so Williams F1 is OK for me. But I don't understand why we couldn't use the "XYZ F1 Team" form in titles if a team uses mainly that form of their name. I don't think dropping one word from the title is a huge advantage, and I don't think a Wikipedia police should be more important than using real name. E.g. Caterham seems to refer to their team mainly as Caterham F1 Team. Anyway, I think hardly nobody speaks about Lotus F1, Caterham F1, Marussia F1, and HRT F1.

I suspect the more recent articles (e.g. Marussia F1, Lotus F1, Caterham F1, HRT F1) have been so-named "for consistency" with existing articles like Renault F1 and Williams F1. But I also note that "xxx F1" is also a little more "change-proof" than "xxx F1 Team" - consider that if our Caterham article was called "Caterham F1 Team" and next year Tony Fernandes decided to rename his team to "Caterham F1 Racing" (not that he would ever do such a thing :-) then we'd probably need to rename our article too. Whereas because our article is called "Caterham F1", then we probably wouldn't need to rename it. Finally, "xxx F1" is a somewhat more "flexible" name - it can be read as "xxx F1 Team" or "xxx the F1 team" or "xxx in F1", depending on the reader's particular point of view, whilst still disambiguating the article from another potential article named "xxx". DH85868993 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, should Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 articles be moved to "Renault in Formula One" and "Honda in Formula One" in style of Alfa Romeo in Formula One, as Renault F1 Team and Honda Racing F1 Team haven't been the only names of Renault and Honda F1 teams, and they've also been only engine suppliers at times. --August90 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On your second point, yes I agree that both articles should be moved. They contain information from what was essentially two separate organisations, as well as the engine operations during those times. Also, we have a Renault Sport F1 article, that personally I would support merging back into the engine section of the Renault article. It is just copying a great deal of information - and it's more poorly written, from the current Renault F1 page. It would also be best if the Renault in Formula One article was written chronologically, rather than a mish mash of information all over the place. QueenCake (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also support the renaming of Renault F1 to "Renault in Formula One", Honda Racing F1 to "Honda in Formula One", and the merging of Renault Sport F1 into the "Renault in Formula One" article. DH85868993 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of sorting Renault F1 out, including making it chronoglogical. We do have a seperate article for Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines though - I don't know if there's a way of making Renault Sport F1 worthwile without it being a copy of what will be on the standard Renault page. - mspete93 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done on doing Renault, that page really needs it! On the subject of Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines, perhaps that article too should be merged into Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? Or possibly a better idea, we also create a "Mercedes in Formula One" page, where we can put the current operation, the engine article, and of course the Silver Arrows of the 1950s. QueenCake (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, possible. But for current teams I think it is best to use their current common name. Mind you, our article is still called Mercedes GP, when the team is now just called Mercedes AMG Petronas (F1 Team). So perhaps Mercedes in Formula One would be best. Let's not do a Prisonermonkeys and do that without getting consensus first though! - mspete93 23:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of "making Renault F1 chronological", I'd still like to see a distinct "Renault as an engine supplier" section, since their history as an engine supplier overlaps and intersperses their involvement as a constructor/team. I'm in two minds about merging the various Mercedes-Benz-related F1 articles; I like the idea of a single "Mercedes-Benz in Formula One" article, but the existing articles are fairly stable and non-controversial, so it might be better to leave them as they are. Having said that, if there is consensus to merge them, the off-season would be the best time to do it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's "Renault in F1" or "Lotus in F1", or whatever, I'm seeing it doesn't actually solve anything, because it just becomes an umbrella for linkouts to the "main article" under another name...& we're right back here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, the Mercedes-Benz cars in the 1930s were entered by "Daimler-Benz" rather than Mercedes. So it's not altogether clear cut. ~~Also, if the article was "Mercedes in Formula One", you'd have to remove the 1930s as it was pre-F1.~~ Readro (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to a few points in one post here, mspete while I do agree for a current team it may make sense to have its current name, but given that there is basically an unlimited amount of ways to put all your sponsors and variations in the current name, it will always have Mercedes and Formula One in the name. Of course there we could just call it Mercedes F1 or keep the current name, but I do think that the engine article and information on the 50s team should be on the same page. You'll also notice that currently, any link for Mercedes from a 1950s article goes straight to Mercedes GP, despite the complete lack of information on that page.

Just on making it Renault chronological, since I brought it up my main intention was just to have the old team first on the page, followed by the Enstone one. I do support keeping a separate section for the engine supplier, as it has been distinct from the actual racing team.

Also Readro, the 1930s should of course stay distinct. That's covered on the Mercedes in Motorsport page, but if we do create a new page we could provide some history of the pre-war racing. QueenCake (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, Mercedes GP is another one of those pages that has been messed up by someone's obsession with previous incarnations of teams. This is what it used to be like [1]. - mspete93 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that looks close to what I had in mind, with some expansion needed on the early team. Perhaps it would be better for the European championship results not to be included on that page, they do seem out of place since they are not Formula One results. I would do the page myself if that's what we want. QueenCake (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the entrant may have been Daimler-Benz in the 1950s as well. Worth checking I think. Readro (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Giving it a quick look, both Daimler-Benz and Mercedes-Benz seems to have been used interchangeably. On here, the entrant name seems to be Daimler-Benz, but the cars are called Mercedes! I would say that it's a technicality anyway, at this point it is the same company, and the team is mainly referred to as Mercedes. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@DH85868993: As you said Caterham F1 Team could become e.g. Caterham F1 Racing, that's not possible, "F1" in team names must always be with "Team". Anyway, I still think e.g. Caterham F1 Team would be a better title than Caterham F1.

When it comes to Renault, Honda, and Merc, as well as to Toyota, I think the article about an active team of a car manufacturer should have its common name as its article's title. In Merc's case it's a bit difficult, as usually people talk about Mercedes, but that can mean Mercedes-Benz, too. And Mercedes GP has been a commonly used name of Merc team, but they don't have anymore GP in their name. "Mercedes Formula One team" with small t might be an option, as it means the F1 team of Mercedes. And, I'd understand also "Mercedes F1", as Merc have "Formula One Team" addition in their trading name. Yet I wouldn't like it, as "Formula One Team" seems to be only a clarification in their name, just like in Red Bull Racing's logo. At the moment people seem to consider AMG as a sponsor, but if Merc team will commonly be referred as Mercedes AMG, I don't see, why we couldn't use that as the page title.

But, if there have been many incarnations of a car manufacturer's F1 team, maybe the article about the active team should contain only information about that latest incarnation, and there could be information about previous incarnations in "XYZ in Formula One" articles. That could be the case with Merc, as well as maybe with Lotus (Original team, Fernandes's team, and Enstone team) and previously Renault and Honda. I mentioned Toyota before, as I think Toyota Racing is OK because it was the only F1 team of Toyota. And, I think there can be separate articles about car manufacturies active F1 engine plants, like Renault Sport F1. --August90 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would a team not be allowed to use the title F1 Racing? What basis do you have for this apparent fact? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FOM doesn't accept teams to use "F1" without "Team". Initially Tony Fernandes wanted to call Lotus Racing as "Lotus F1 Team". But he wasn't allowed to use "Team" with "Lotus", so he wanted then to use name "Lotus F1 Racing". But he had to drop "F1", because there should've been "Team" after "F1". --August90 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not telling me where you are getting that from. The only instance I can recall was USF1 temporarily changing their name to USGPE because they were not yet a Formula One team. That however does not address the use of the term Racing over Team. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave a brief look on Augusts behalf, but I couldn't find anything stating that you must use "F1 team". However I have most definitely read that multiple times, and you'll probably notice every current team either uses "XXXX XXXXX F1 team" or leaves it out.

I don't agree with having a separate article for an active manufacturer team, and one containing all the previous incarnations. That to me defeats the point in having a "XXX in Formula One", in that it is seen as one team, with multiple periods of participation. I'll argue that readers would be interested in the entire team history, not just the current period. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Midland F1 Racing. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Williams F1. Pyrop e 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. It was User:DeFacto who removed the 1954-55 history of Mercedes from the Mercedes GP article [2]. Does anyone agree with this change? I'm almost certain that when that page was created when Mercedes bought Brawn there was an agreement here that it should include the 1954-55 stuff. - mspete93 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that change in the slightest. Looking in the archives, there's a few discussions (like here), as well as the Mercedes GP talk page having several discussions that state the idea was to have one page for both the previous and current teams. If nothing else, that previous history should be restored. QueenCake (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I deleted it, and provided a full explanation. It has nothing to do with that article which documents a team which didn't exist in that guise until 2010. That content was added by an anonymous editor in November, and with no explanation at all. It rightly belongs in the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport article, which was already summarised further down in the article in question at Mercedes GP#Mercedes Benz anyway. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You did provide your full explanation, but that was completely against what the consensus was to have a page containing the 1954-55 history and the current team. Whoever added it is irrelevant now, the content is wanted on the Mercedes GP page. If we weren't currently discussing the pages I would revert it back. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read it or even see it?

A summary of that unrelated and irrelevant history is already in the article once, and a wlink given to the article which (correctly) contains a fuller version of it, why add it again in another section?
It was added anonymously, unreferenced, with no attept to integrate it with the existing content, with no edit comment explaining why it was added and with no discussion that I could see on the talkpage. It was a textbook example of what should ordinarily be reverted. No one objected to tmy removal of it or supported its inclusion at the time - what's changed now that we can't do without such poor quality content, and where is the "consensus" supporting its addition?

-- de Facto (talk). 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. --Falcadore (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The history of Mercedes' previous effort was there well before November. It was there in November 2009 - the month the team (and article) were created [3]. I apologise for not seeing your removal of it earlier - if I had I would have questioned it. But anyway, you've made it plain clear how you want these car manufacturers with multiple entries are covered. But we need to decide whether we are all happy with these changes or not. Do we want them covered (proportionately) in the same article or in seperate articles? DeFacto's current solution of almost entirely ignoring the old teams isn't satisfactory to me. Either we give them proportional coverage in the existing articles (like they used to have) or give them their own articles? - mspete93

The section we are discussing is the one that, as you scornfully pointed out above, I deleted with this edit, was added in November (2011), as I said, by an anonymous editor in this edit sequence. -- de Facto (talk). 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to deny that fact. I believed you when you said that. I was simply trying to point out that that article had since its introduction been structured with a reasonable seaction on the old Mercedes team before moving onto the acquisition of Brawn. So when I had seen that you removed it I wrongly assumed you were removing something that had been there for ages. I was probably just getting annoyed with things when I decided to point that out. I would genuinely like to apologise for that.

Can we please now move back onto whether we want:

A) Renault, Mercedes and Honda's teams to be covered in a single article each with (as near as possible) proportional coverage given to each era.

B) Renault, Mercedes and Honda to have seperate articles for both their older and newer teams.

or C) Any other consistent solution to the problem.

- mspete93 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just make a point regarding B), that back in earlier times there were no doubt other manufacuturers that made entries on more than one occasion. Alfa Romeo is one that springs to mind. - mspete93 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

mspete, firstly fair play to you for the apology and clarification of that point.

Secondly, on the way team/constructor articles are structured... As I've stated before, my preferred option was one article per 'physical team' (for want of a better term) - through its various changes of ownership, team names and constructor names, documenting its entire lifecycle. For example a 'Whitney/Enstone F1 Team' (or whatever) article documenting the progress of that 'physical team' through its Toleman, Benetton, Renault and Lotus years. I believe that a "team" transcends the boundaries of ownership and names, and to artificially declare it to be a different team because of such changes is unfair to the members of the teams involved. However, I say "was" because after observing (and participating in, to some extent) the article turmoil caused by the renaming of a few teams recently, I have had second thoughts over that. The problem appears to me to be caused by the confusing and incompatible ideal of treating the 'team/team name' and the 'constructor' as synonymous. And there is (in my opinion) an obvious solution to this... However, as this thread has rambled on and got side-tracked a bit, I'll start a new one later to clear the decks for another attempt to resolve this ongoing and timewasting issue. -- de Facto (talk). 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold text in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions

An editor has questioned the use of bold text (to indocate current drivers, teams, etc) in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#bold_text. While you're there, you may care to comment on the separate discussion further down the page at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Drivers'_Champions#Too_much_British_bias. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)