Jump to content

Talk:Caterham F1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Team or constructor?

[edit]

[Moved this comment by QueenCake to here from my talkpage (User talk:DeFacto) - it's more appropriate to discuss it here]

On a related note to this, I've reverted this edit you made to the Caterham F1 article. I feel that it is inappropriate to change articles in this way, as we did not come to any consensus to change the constructor articles in the recent discussion. Thanks QueenCake (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- de Facto (talk). 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be team-centric and not actually constructor-centric, then surely it should be renamed to match the name of the team that it is about? -- de Facto (talk). 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't believe it should at all. Like I said, changing the introduction of the articles was one of your proposals on the Project talkpage, but as it did not gain any consensus from the community then I can't see why it should be changed. Convention is, when a discussion does not produce concrete results, we keep the status quo. QueenCake (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QueenCake, do you believe that the article is about the team then, rather than the constructor? -- de Facto (talk). 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the team as well as the Constructor, depending upon your definition of team. Arguably they are one and the same ever since all teams had to become constructors in the 80s - which was a point I did fail to bring up before. You seem to be be saying a team is the physical organisation based in one factory, although in Formula One terms it's just the organisation running cars from a constructor. Either way this has been discussed recently, and I don't believe we should start it up again so soon. QueenCake (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team and Constructor are synonymous terms in F1 these days. It's even explained in the List of Formula One constructors and teams in F1 are usually listed either as teams or constructors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus & Caterham

[edit]

Not asking for a change, just curious why the former Lotus Racing and Caterham are split into their own separate articles? At least the official F1 home-page recognises them as the same team: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/194/ --User:HannuMakinen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.246.133 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of last year, we had several very long discussions like this one and this one and the consensus was that the name change (from "Lotus" to "Caterham") should result in a new article. DH85868993 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See ALSO section - Dec. 2013

[edit]

Hi guys. I created a "See Also" section today, placing it under references, above external links, w/ following wikilinks in it:

==See Also==

Can't imagine anyone objecting, but if so, please discuss here w/ me on the Talk Page. Thanks! Cheers! joepaT 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1 is unneccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caterham F1 and Caterham Racing (GP2 team)

[edit]

How many examples do we have where race teams competing in seperate categories are given seperate articles? It's been creating a precedent in other formulae. --Falcadore (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the second article; "In addition to being owned by the Caterham Group that owns Caterham F1 Team, Caterham Racing shares deep technical links with its Formula One parent team. The GP2 operation is embedded within the Formula One operation and base, and the two teams share the same technical staff." It is crystal clear that they are the same team and hence there should only be one article. I fully support merging them together.
I had noticed that someone created a new Super Aguri Formula E article rather than adding it to the existing page, which I presume you are referring too. We established the convention that car manufacturers efforts in F1 should be covered on one article, so the same principal should apply to Aguri Suzuki's efforts. QueenCake (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should it also include the new for 2014 Moto2 team? I'm not sure if it will be located in the same factory, but it is certainly owned by the same group.
Also, while on the topic of merging F1 articles, shouldn't the Marussia F1 page be merged with the Manor Motorsport page? The F1 team is run by Manor, and Manor also run a GP3 that is also sponsored by Marussia. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is run by another organisation, possibly not. The various A1GP and Superleague Formula teams run by professional outfits (like Alan Docking Racing) are maintained in seperaate articles. Examples where F1 teams are run by a third party are fairly rare. --Falcadore (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caterham Group Template

[edit]

Should the Caterham Group template be reapplied to this article or not, due to new ownership its no longer part of Caterham Group so I removed it but due to continuity should it be left on? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they continue to use the website that it once used prior to the buyout then possibly seeing as we use the CG tag as the publisher source however if they don't then I see no other point unless it's really worth documenting. That's the only think left linking the team to the group however and it's a bit of a stretch *JoeTri10_ 23:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct or not

[edit]

Marussia is dead, Manor will race in 2015. In March, they are selling the assets of Caterham, but the team are still portrayed as an existing team. It would be interesting to know if they are defunct or still alive.--VincentG (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caterham 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caterham 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caterham_F1&oldid=1255409686"