Talk:Renault in Formula One

Team name

The Team name needs changing to lotus f1 from renault as renault dont own the team anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me12356 (talk • contribs) 10:24:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Renault in Formula One. 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/20150929214759/http://www.renaultsportf1.com/F1-Signature-of-a-letter-of-intent-between-Renault-Group-and-Gravity.html to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/F1-Signature-of-a-letter-of-intent-between-Renault-Group-and-Gravity.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207105628/http://renaultsport.com/Introduction.html?lang=fr to http://renaultsport.com/Introduction.html?lang=fr
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renault.com/en/PassionSport/sport-automobile/Documents_Without_Moderation/saga-f1-en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228091419/http://www.renaultsportf1.com:80/Nouvelle-traduction-Histoire.html to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/Nouvelle-traduction-Histoire.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renaultsportf1.com/RED-BULL-RACING-AND-RENAULT.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222002039/http://www.renaultsportf1.com/Q-A-with-Rob-White-deputy-managing.html?lang=en to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/Q-A-with-Rob-White-deputy-managing.html?lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315073044/http://www.renaultsportf1.com/Testing-update.html to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/Testing-update.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001063516/http://www.renaultsportf1.com/?lang=en to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/?lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928131600/http://www.renaultsportf1.com:80/?lang=fr to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/?lang=fr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renault in Formula One. 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://www.webcitation.org/65HTcMdKY?url=http://www.renault.com/en/PassionSport/sport-automobile/Documents_Without_Moderation/saga-f1-en.pdf to http://www.renault.com/en/PassionSport/sport-automobile/Documents_Without_Moderation/saga-f1-en.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Renault in Formula One. 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/20120406065838/http://www.media.renault.com/download/media/specialfile/12375_1_5.aspx to http://www.media.renault.com/download/media/specialfile/12375_1_5.aspx
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65HU5293u?url=http://www.renaultsportf1.com/RED-BULL-RACING-AND-RENAULT.html to http://www.renaultsportf1.com/RED-BULL-RACING-AND-RENAULT.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017142356/https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-renault-melbourne-problems-resolved-145007905--f1.html to https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-renault-melbourne-problems-resolved-145007905--f1.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I was disappointed to see my recent edits reverted. I had simply added three infoboxes and split another - basically providing four missing infoboxes (one for each incarnation of the constructor) and refining the original one to provide the appropriate information for an article covering the four different eras.

Can we please discuss alternate ways then of making the article usable and the different teams navigable and their data distinguishable. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be disappointed, but I don't think there're valid reasons to say the article isn't "usable" as it stands, or that made-up stats and mostly repetitive infoboxes will make it more useful. The improvements that this article need are a more professional-style writing and more sources, not more infoboxes. As I said in my edit summary, most "Something in Formula One" infoboxes are in fact covering constructors, with at least two different "eras" for most of them, and no-one seems to have a problem with that. This "Team Enstone exceptionalism" hasn't grips on reality. As you said in your edit summaries, there're no published stats for the individual "teams" covered into this article, so we need to actually engage in WP:OR to came with some form of them.

If you insist with adding those extra infoboxes, please publicise (or continue it there) the discussion at WP:F1, as this change has the potential to be implemented in all "Something in Formula One" articles if it get a consensus. As for me, I think the article infobox is OK enough and I don't see an scenario where section infoboxes here can be an improvement.

Lastly, if you don't want all your changes reverted, make small edits for the non-controversial things you change. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I found the article to be unusable when trying to follow the "next name"/"previous name" chains starting from the infobox in Benetton Formula. The benetton article took me to the top of this Renault article, but the "previous name" link from there took me, not back to the Benetton article, but to the Lotus F1 article! So there was clearly something wrong there. The obvious solution was an infobox for each team in the Renault article with the next/previous links correctly chained. So I took it from there. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think that way, just link to the specific section (as I see you did). In fact, is the same in other cases, as Brawn GP, and no-one said we need an infobox in the section covering the second incarnation of the Mercedes team. As I said, that can't be used as an argument we need three repetitive infoboxes with made-up stats. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the first step was to link to the correct team section, but in the correct section there is no infobox, so no "previous name"/"next name" links. The obvious solution, I thought, was to add them. I'm not sure why this is so controversial. If I came across the same problem in other articles I would have tried to fix that too - and yes, Brawn and Mercedes will likely suffer from the same problem, so need fixing too. Let's see what other ideas appear before we decide how best to proceed.

And no, none of the stats were made up (by me, at leat), but because there were no references at all in Renault Grand Prix results to turn to, I copied the data directly from that article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the stats were made-up, as you're admitting you made an original synthesis of a generic results table that, as you so correctly tagged, is unsourced. If you don't see how the edits you made here are controversial, there aren't much things I can tell you. I suggest you open a new section in WP:F1 for "Infoboxes in 'XX in Formula One' articles" and try to gain support there. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If the stats were made up, rather than merely being unreferenced in the Renault Grand Prix results article, I wouldn't know - I assumed good faith on that. And I didn't make any original synthesis, because to do that I would have needed references to synthesise from. I just used the unsourced data from that other article, assuming good-faith on behalf of the original contributor(s), whilst tagging that other article to try to find the references. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You made an original synthesis of the content in the table, as you used it to get "stats" that aren't published anywhere. In short, you made them up if you prefer. Simple as that. Also, as you may know, Wikipedia can't be used as a source for anything, at least for content within Wikipedia itself. We don't assume good faith there. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I never made anything up, I only copied stuff and did simple arithmetic, so we'll have to agree to differ on our interpretations of WP:SYNTH. But, I will follow your suggestion and go to WP:F1 to try to find a solution to fix the unusable and confusing article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH doesn't apply here, as your edits were more than basic arithmetic and didn't get any consensus up to this point. In fact, SYNTH says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". actually disproving all your point, as data shouldn't be used to imply a conclusion the sources don't. In this case, that would be that your stats are valid and/or are recognised by reliable published sources. They don't. And Wikipedia is a bad source for Wikipedia, on top of that. Good luck in WP:F1. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It was you who called it synthesis, not me. I know it isn't synthesis, as I said, because I wasn't drawing conclusions by mixing references. All I did was add numbers together. Granted I had no source(s), I acknowledged that though, and was expecting to fill that gap when we found sources for that results article that I tagged.

However, that isn't the main point here, the main point is to make this article more usable, logical and navigable - which was my original intention. The addition of the era stats too would add even more interest and value, so it would be a shame not to.

I will leave this discussion now, and move to WP:F1 to start looking for a solution to the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

With "WP:SYNTH doesn't apply here" I meant your intention of using WP:SYNTH as an argument for validating your edits wasn't correct in this case, sorry if it wasn't clear. I do think your edits are an original synthesis as I explained, even if you used Wikipedia as a source. I don't think there're are problems with this article as it is, and, to be honest, yours are the only consistently present complains on that regard. Past discussion on increasing the distinction between the "eras", either by creating three separate articles or a "Team Enstone" one, have had a consensus against, and I agree with those past consensuses. That's why I'd like to know which is the present consensus for the WP:F1. If a clear consensus goes with you, and while I personally still wouldn't agree, I've no problem in increasing the distinction between the "Renault" sections in some way. However, I do think there're clear policies against the "stats" you intend to introduce as, no matter how you try to justify it, they are neither official nor published in any reliable source, you just made-up them to increase the info of an arbitrary article division. The stats of "Renault" in F1 are as they appear in this article's infobox. If you still disagre in both points, I'd say a new section in WP:F1 is certainly the way to go, as no other editor is commenting here. And, seeing the low traffic at the moment, a discussion there will also be slow. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)