Talk:McLaren Group

Fair use rationale for Image:McLaren Group.png

Image:McLaren Group.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:McLaren Group.png

Image:McLaren Group.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lede: Successor of McLaren F1

I noticed that, in the lede,

"The company hopes to expand its market from Formula One to manufacturing cars as it prepares to launch the successor to the McLaren F1, the McLaren P1"

the successor of McLaren F1 was changed from "McLaren MP4-12C" to "McLaren P1". The McLaren P1, according to its McLaren P1, is considered to be the successor of the McLaren F1. However, it seems to me, the lede was written to meant McLaren MP4-12C, rather the McLaren P1.---North wiki (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

The infobox lists Bahrain Government Holding Company (50%), Ron Dennis (25%) and Mansour Ojjeh (25%). The Ownership section says that Ron bought the Bahrain shares back and ownership is Ron Dennis 75% and Mansour Ojjeh 25%. Both the infobox and the ownership section dont cite any sources. I found this reuters story about Bahrain agreeing to a sale, but cant find anything that the deal was finalized. If there is a reliable source that the deal was finalized then the infobox needs to be fixed, on the other hand if the deal was never completed, the ownership section needs to be fixed. Chris Ssk _talk 21:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

McLaren Engineering

How does McLaren Engineering Group (the US engineering firm) figure in to the convoluted history of McLaren, if at all? Or the McLaren Engineering division of Linamar Corp (the Canadian transmission and engine design specialist firm)? Is there any connection, or are they all unrelated? Or were they previously related, but spun off from the original? Santamoly (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This comment is over a year old but I just thought I'd answer in case anyone else was curious - the two companies are unrelated, just happen to have the same name. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

McLaren Engineering was formed as McLaren Engines Inc by Bruce McLaren in 1969, primarily to build engines for the Can-Am racers in the US. It was a separate company from the racing team. It went on to develop racing engines and related technology in the US market, going through a number of changes in ownership - currently the McLaren Engineering division of Linamar Corp. A recent book was published on its history: see https://speedreaders.info/23284-mclaren-the-engine-company/ 138.128.251.29 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on McLaren Technology Group. 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/20070812185734/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=motorSportsNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=motorSportsNews&storyID=2006-08-16T120110Z_01_L16595138_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-DAIMLERCHRYSLER-MCLAREN-UPDATE-1.XML
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120613010424/http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/f1-mclaren-team-made-big-profit-in-2009/ to http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/f1-mclaren-team-made-big-profit-in-2009/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620073100/http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=5&compID=846&yr=2011 to http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=5&compID=846&yr=2011

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) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Logo

Can anyone figure out why the logo has a white background when it's clearly a transparent PNG? Wicka wicka (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox changes

@Urbanoc: This is the talk page. It is a place on Wikipedia where you can discuss changes to an article. If you don't like the way this article is formatted, please come here and explain why, and we can all work together to find a proper outcome. Don't just run around like you own the place and force your changes down our throats. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: DISCUSS THINGS FIRST. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, the only person that opposes the changes is you and the one with a WP:OWN problem is also you. The only reason you give to ignore the guidelines up until now is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you think that is the correct approach, fine with me. We can agree that the lesser problem of this sub-standard article is its non-compliance of the guidelines and leave it there. Have a nice day. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Urbanoc, This page has looked this way for a long time, lots of people have contributed to it, lots of people have seen it and not felt any need to make changes - I am not the only one who obviously prefers it. Guidelines are not rules. I happen to think the page looks nicer this way, and again, many many others agree. If YOU disagree, great! Explain why you think the page looks better your way. Don't just rush in and revert stuff and spam me with meaningless guidelines. Stop and have an intelligent, thoughtful discussion about the pros and cons. Why is that so hard? Wicka wicka (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, you can say other people really like the current non-compliant style and are ready to edit-warrying in order to keep it, but I only see one. In any case, if there are more people out there and their only argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT like yours, their position is irrelevant: Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The onus is on you, not me, to explain why we should ignore the guidelines. Subjective aesthetic reasons are not enough. Guidelines can't be ignored on a whim as you suggest, they aren't "meaningless" but they help to bring consistency through the project. If you deny that, we are miles away, so there's not point arguing with you. That's it for me. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

McLaren's research partnership with KAUST

https://www.kaust.edu.sa/en/news/a-race-against-time

Should this news be added to the article? Is it relevant to this article or related one? --07:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)196.152.78.50 (talk)