Talk:Lotus F1

Statistics

As "Lotus", should their statistics reflect the combined stats of both the original Lotus (1958-94) and the Tony Fernandes team of the past two years? In the same way that as "Renault" their stats included those of the 1977-1985 incarnation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.89.178 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We will be guided by the approach taken by external reliable sources such as FORIX, ChicaneF1, formula1.com, etc. Having said that, my expectation is that we will maintain separate statistics for all 3 teams, as we have done to date for Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Lotus Racing/Team Lotus (2010-2011). DH85868993 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Several constructors made their comeback during F1 history, e.g. Alfa Romeo, Mercedes, Honda, March, Brabham, Renault. At each of them, his statistics were counted together. Why should Lotus be an exception ? Several of them changed their owners or their base/headquarters locations and despite this their statistics are still counted together. Mercedes, Renault and Honda changed their base locations after their comeback and Brabham changed several times his owner during his F1 lifetime. Still, their statistics are counted together. I do not understand this different attitude at Lotus case. In my opinion, if Kimi Raikonen win a race in 2012 season, it should be the 80th win for Lotus as a F1 constructor, the first win after Ayrton Senna´s triumph at 1987 Detroit Grand Prix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.217.173 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Different situation. This is the Genii Capital team running cars called "Lotus" on behalf of Group Lotus, the car manufacturing company. Team Lotus was a separate company not owned or controlled or associated with this new team. Effectively, there have been three separate constructors who have entered Formula One under the name of "Lotus". QueenCake (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Team Lotus was always a separate company branch from Lotus Cars. The new team is tied to Lotus Cars/Group Lotus, not Team Lotus, therefore they are not the same team. They just use the same colours. That's why there was such a fuss over the team names of Tony Fernandes' team and the Lotus Renault team last year. It all went to court and the result was that the new Lotus team was not a continuation of the old Team Lotus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal or RS content

This removal of reliably sourced content flys in the face of Wiki principles. Please explain the reasons here. -- de Facto (talk). 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the reasons as I have explained them to you elsewhere. Your text says 500 GPs participated, and the infobox says zero. Either change neither or both, with references for both. You are introducing contradictions into this article, sourced or otherwise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You deleted sourced content because it conflicted with unsourced content? Bizzare. I'll restor it then, that'll bring my total number of reversions to 2. The reversion of the unexplained removal of sourced content by an anonymous IP editor doen't count under the WP:3RR rules. -- de Facto (talk). 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, what I did was delete the bullshit, sourced or otherwise. The unsourced content is long-standing, and it happens to be correct in my view. There is a discussion ongoing and it's best to wait for a consensus. By the way, 3RR does include an IP reverting you, so I wouldn't revert again. FYI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content has no weight, no matter how longstanding. Reverting "obvious vandalism" is exempt, and the deliberate deletion of sourced content, without even an edit-summary explanation, looks pretty "obvious" to me. Anyway, 3RR only takes effect on the 4th reversion - 3 is OK. Perhaps you'll save me the trouble though, and do the honourable thing and self-revert yourself, putting the article back to the reliably sourced state I left it in? Then we can get to the bottom of the "discrepancy" in a good-faith way by discussing it here, and acting on the findings. -- de Facto (talk). 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Then change the infobox to say 500 - what's so hard about that, if you believe it? The IP edit wasn't obvious vandalism - as 3RR explains, obvious vandalism is things like page blanking and adding offensive language. No, I shan't be reverting myself, as I could never make an edit that is a) so offensively contradictory, or b) utter crap. I know you don't have a problem with either, so go ahead and revert it yourself. I'm not wasting any more time with this - I'll leave it to the others. If they can ever get you to understand what a consensus is, then maybe we can move on. Otherwise, it's your plaything to wreck as you please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to add "500" to the infobox because I am a good-faith editor, and I realise that there is a confusion of terminology here somewhere. The infobox reflects the FIA "constructor", or whatever name they aggregate their stats under, not the actual "physical team" results. I'm disappointed that you don't realise that too, and have chosen to fight against the addition of the legitimate ande eliably sourced "physical team" results, rather than attempt to accomodate the differences. So be it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine that if one had nothing better to occupy their time, they'd probably see your behaviour as closer to disruptive than mine, you having reverted my reliably sourced content twice, me having restored it twice, the first time before this discussion got going and in the face of an anon IP editor deleting it without any explatation at all. -- de Facto (talk). 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you realise there's confusion, why didn't you attempt to address it? Anyone would be able to see how contradictory your edit is, and that you aren't interested in either changing the text to explain it, or making the text agree with the stats, even after two people reverted you. A reference doesn't render confusing and contentious edits automatically acceptable. They would also see (after I'd told them) that a lengthy discussion is going on concerning this situation and the default is always to revert to the original version until a consensus is found. I'm hardly going to report someone if I was in any danger of being seen as disruptive, would I? It's not like it's ever happened on the other dozens of occasions when I've reported someone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Team ownership

I have already previously added the "citation needed" to the article after the explanation of team ownership. Where has it been told Group Lotus are shareholders of Lotus F1 Team? My only understand on the ownership is based on this:

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/165988/1/boullier_group_lotus_doesnt_own_any_of_renault_f1.html

So, Group Lotus have are title sposors and have an option to acquire a ownership share of the team, whereas Genii Capital are currently the only sharehoders. Unless no source for GL's 25 per cent ownership is found, I change that part of the article. --August90 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No claims against that, so I'll change that soon. --August90 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "and United Kingdom-based investor consortium Infinity Racing Partners Limited." from the top section. Although it was previously understood through a press release and new broadcasts that Infinity Racing had bought in, it turns out that the deal has yet to go through. If it does, the information can, of course, be re-added. Thanks. Master.signal (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Team's 500th grand prix

Given the increased F1 organisation and media mention of the fact that this team will compete in its 500th grand prix this season, I think we need to seriously consider adding this information to this article. I tried to do so yesterday, but another editor took exception to the fact. Let's review that situation now, and see if we can agree an appropriate wording and put it back in. I'll offer a proposal as a starter:

The team will be competing in its 500th Grand Prix in 2012.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We may as well repeat what Boullier actually says in his quote in the F1.com article:

In 2012 the team will compete in its 500th Grand Prix across its different incarnations.

That makes it clear what you actually mean by 500th GP, and makes it clear why it will be different to the figure in the infobox. - mspete93 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. -- de Facto (talk). 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

De facto, you don't give up, do you? This statement as you want to include it is totally misleading and unacceptable. It's about time you accepted that nobody agrees with you on this and you have no consensus for anything like this. "The team" is not an acceptable term to use, as it clearly, to anyone reading this article, implies the Lotus team, and that would clearly be false. What "team" do you mean? What is the name of this "team"? If you really must include this pointless statement, then it will have to be something like, "The Enstone factory will compete in its 500th GP during 2012", and in any case, this is probably the wrong article for that information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The principle is worth pursuing. I'm looking for an acceptable wording. mspete's sounds okay, don't you think? You ask what the team's name is! You know, as I know, that it has changed several times over the years. "The team" is the phrase used in the media for this entity - it's currently named Lotus F1 Team, yes. "Factory" doesn't do the team justice, as it's the developers, builders and racers of the cars whose achievement it is, not the building. This is the article of the current incarnation of that team, isn't it? It's is they who will achieve this milestone. Where would you put it (let's assume, for the sake of argument, you thought it weighty enough to put somewhere)? -- de Facto (talk). 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm asking what the team's name is. It's not an unreasonable question. If we're talking about Enstone, then we're talking about several teams. Some of the media do use that word, but it's very ambiguous, and it needs clarification for our purposes, especially in an article about a specific team (Lotus), which isn't the team you mean in your proposed sentence. Well, if not "factory", Boullier used "facility and personnel", which seems fine to me. I would put it at Enstone, where you've added a paragraph about the F1 activities at the facility, and where this factoid is most appropriate. Note that we never put such milestones in F1 team articles - we never mentioned Toro Rosso's 100th GP last season, for example - it's not terribly important at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Lotus F1 Team" is the team's current name. It has changed several times over the years, as has the constructor name they use. Team, as an English word, isn't ambiguous. The problem is the use of the word "team" in these articles when what is actually meant is "constructor name". The team comprises the people and the facilities, I agree with Boullier on that. This is the article about the team under its current name of "Lotus F1 Team", so what's wrong with including details of that team's milestones here, if it achieves due weight, of course? Did Toro Rosso's 100th make it into the sources? -- de Facto (talk). 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Team" has a number of meanings. To cut to the chase, it's undue weight. You have one sole source to say that this "team" has achieved 500 GPs, and I can provide a number that say it hasn't, starting with the F1.com source that I gave you somewhere else. And yes, of course Toro Rosso's 100th made it into the sources. [1], [2] - there's two, one more than you have for this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not undue weight, it's common usage! You want more sources for the 500 GPs story? There are plenty around. Most of the crop about the new E20 car mention it, including Formula1.com and Autosport. Show us some that say it hasn't then, particularly F1.com (but not that obviously erroneous page). -- de Facto (talk). 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Autosport source just has the Boullier quote, and the Motorsport.com source (is that reliable?) is a regurgitation of the quote. I'm not following you with F1.com - you like one of their pages but the one I showed you is erroneous? How do you arrive at your choice of which one is right? It's the same site, so they carry the same weight, obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You confirm then that there are numerous sources carrying the fact about the team's 500th GP. F1.com carries the news of the team's milestone too, yes - it complies with the general consensus amonst authorative sources. However in its "teams" section it not only assumes that this year's Lotus constructor is a continuation of the Renault one of last year, but also seems to treat the new Caterham constructor as a continuation of last year's Lotus one and Marussia as a continuation of Virgin - does all that conform with the general consensus amongst authorative sources? If it does, then we've got a lot more work to do! -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can mention the team's 500th GP, if they celebrate it. In my opinion, we can't ignore team's own opinion. But the 500th GP can be mentioned something like this: "The team celebrates the 500th GP for an Enstone team". That doesn't claim its the 500th GP of Lotus F1 Team. --August90 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lotus already celebrated their 500th GP at the European Grand Prix in Valencia 2010. Clive Chapman was there and everything. http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/237054/lotus-to-start-500th-grand-prix-in-valencia/ The race in Malaysia is Lotus' 531st GP.SchumiChamp (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But this is about the 500 GP of that Enstone-based team, not about the 500th GP of Lotus. --August90 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Lotus, not the Enstone-based teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

Please add Hungary GP results: Raikkonen 2nd; Grosjean 3rd 86.141.86.250 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The change has already been made. Here's the RS: http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2012/874/ DH85868993 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See ALSO section - Dec. 2013

Hi guys. I added a "See Also" section today to the article (below references, above external links) with three links in it:

==See Also==

• Formula 1
• Genii Capital
• Renault in Formula One

Can't imagine anyone has a problem w/ those 3 links but if so please discuss here on the talk page. Thanks for any feedback. joepa^T 23:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, none of those should be added because they are already linked in the article. See WP:SEEALSO. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagreed. "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." joepa^T 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but it also states "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I'm not going to remove it again, but virtually no articles include this duplication intentionally. I don't see why this article is an exception to the rule. Bahooka (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lotus F1 Grand Prix results

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The rough consensus of this discussion was to merge Urbanoc (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Per WikiProject covention we don't have these articles unless the team has at least competed in excess of ten seasons while taking into account WP:SIZE Tvx1 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. I agree with your points. It's pretty clear for me, the article isn't long enough to justify a separate article for results based on WP:AS. Lotus F1 is a really short and poorly sourced article, it actually needs more content. There seems to be a tendency to create articles for results only for the sake of it... --Urbanoc (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You should just merge the tables back in, this is uncontroversial enough not to warrant a discussion. And indeed, yes people do have a odd need to create articles, whether or not they are needed. QueenCake (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lotus F1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123004918/http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2012/870 to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2012/870/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lotusf1team.com/news-archive/federico-gastaldi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)