Talk:McLaren/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Woking, Surrey

Hi Mark83, always happy to discuss things, especially in light of the recent unpleasantness around this very issue. My position is that Woking is not exactly a famous city, even within the UK, and certainly not to those outside the country. In that sense it is ambiguous, as without further qualification it could be anywhere. That being the case, "England" doesn´t really narrow things down much so isn't hugely useful and doesn't really help anyone place the company within the sprawl of different industrial and population concentrations or cultures. As WP:PLACEDAB suggests, and I agree, for locations within England the county is a much more useful discriminant than the country. People with some familiarity with the UK know that "Surrey" is in the southeast, reasonably close to London, and not too far from major transport hubs like Heathrow and the coast ports. Similarly, a company based in Cockermouth is better identified as being in "Cumbria", which most people familiar with the UK will know is toward the north of England and is actually closer to major population centres in Scotland than it is to English ones. In both cases, as I said in my edit summary, "England" is coarse and doesn't help refine things much beyond the sovereign state, which should be included for those people with no knowledge of internal UK geography at all.

As a secondary, pretty minor point, as I don't live in the UK I am well aware that for many people in other countries (in error, granted, but we deal with the world as it is not how we would like it to be) the UK and England are synonymous. I know that here in Chile, if people ask me "¿de dondé eres?" and I reply "soy del Reino Unido" surprisingly often I get a blank stare. If I then add "Inglaterra", recognition hits. As I say, a minor point, but that erroneous confusion being pretty widespread (in Canada too, I recall) using "England" as a standalone is itself ambiguous. Pyrope 16:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As another illustration, albeit from a Northern Ireland perspective, when I wrote the short article on Kirkistown Circuit I made sure to include reference to County Down in its location description. In this case, although Northern Ireland is itself a more precise location for those outside the UK, for those people familiar with UK geography drawing attention to County Down says 'relatively close to Belfast, somewhere likely to the south and/or east. To people who know more about UK motorsport, saying County Down also says 'really quite close to where both John Watson and Eddie Irvine grew up, and near where Crosslé is based', but I realise this latter point might only apply to those with particular interests! Pyrope 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll start with the most important point I want to make here, thank you very much for taking the time to start this topic and for explaining your thoughts so fully.

Some points on the issue itself:

• I am reading WP:PLACEDAB very differently. It advocates 'placename, county' where there is a necessity for disambiguation. This is not the case with Woking. In contrast this would be the case for Newport, Ripley, St. Ives, and Stamford Bridge for example.
• You advocate for considering "people with no knowledge of internal UK geography at all." - If readers have difficultly differentiating England and the UK I guarantee you that adding Surrey will not clear things up for them. (And is redundant because clicking on the link for Woking more accurately describes location).
• I grew up in County Down, and I am of the belief hat this is not a good descriptor for most outside the island of Ireland, let alone further afield (and I include Great Britain in that).Mark83 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting points. Taking them one at a time:

• I think where I see ambiguity is more in the line of helping a reader mentally locate themselves. For a city that is well known (London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, etc. etc.) then no further help is required. For those towns and cities that are less well known, helping folks out by giving a reasonable idea of the location using a better known entity (e.g. county, or perhaps unitary authority in cases such as Greater Manchester) is useful.
• I'm actually advocating for two main audiences: one without any knowledge of internal UK geography (for these people "UK" is about as helpful as "England"); and one with some reasonable knowledge but who don't know the town itself (for whom "England" is a very blunt instrument). For the latter, adding the county is definitely helpful as there aren't that many of them and mostly people have some idea about where in general they are (even if they might mix up, say, Kent and Surrey on a map).
• Perhaps it is because I grew up in the days when sadly about half of any news report was about bombings here or hijackings there, although I am originally from England my understanding of the internal composition of Northern Ireland is reasonable, and I assume I'm not alone. This is particularly the case with County Down as it does rather seem to be Northern Ireland's hub of motorsport activity, with aforementioned Watty and Irvine, Irvine's own karting establishment in Bangor, Kirkistown being NI's only full-time accredited track, and Crosslé in Holywood being Ireland's only race car manufacturer. I mention this as it again illustrates to me why counties are useful. I don't know enough about the country to know independently that Bangor, Holywood, Newtownards and Kirkistown are all fairly close to one another, but mention that they are all in County Down and and I have a much better idea about where we are talking about. Pyrope 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope regarding the usefulness of "Woking, Surrey". I don't really see how it is less useful than "Woking, England". Adding the county helps readers orientate themselves with regard to the rough location of Woking if they do not already know where Woking is. "England" pretty much helps nobody. I doubt anyone is labouring under the impression that it might be in Scotland or Wales. Another point I'd like to make, as someone who lives in the area in question, and visits McLaren regularly, is that people often confuse Woking with Wokingham, which is not in Surrey but Berkshire. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If you’re not familiar with where Woking is, you’ll click on the Woking link, not the Surrey/England/UK links? Which makes this all a moot point. And the confusion between Woking and Wokingham isn’t possible in a Wikipedia article is it? They are different words? Whereas my examples above are links to disambig pages. Mark83 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

By that token, we just need "Woking" on its own, as people can click on it to find out it's in England or even the UK. And disambiguating places with the same name is unnecessary as people can just click on the link to find out which one it is. The confusion is possible, and I believe including the county helps in the way that I said it did, and to help distinguish Woking from Wokingham without those people who confuse the two having to click on it. The benefit of including the county may be nebulous to some, but the benefit of excluding it is indubitably non-existent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My main concern on this whole issue is the edit warring. My response was to revert to the principle quoted in WP:PLACEDAB, i.e. 'placename, county' where there is a necessity for disambiguation. I don't accept that such a need for disambiguation exists. Woking and Wokingham are different placenames. To be honest, Woking, United Kingdom would be fine with me and would negate the whole debate which has lead to warring. But I'm glad that there is constructive debate here which is preferable to back and forth via edit summary. Mark83 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on the edit pattern of the other party concerned, I doubt very much whether "Woking, UK" would be acceptable to them. The real debate here is whether "Woking, England" or "Woking, Surrey" is the more useful construction to help a reader. Trying to solve an edit war when one party won't even come to the table to discuss their position will always be a losing proposition. If they aren't prepared to explain their preference then there really isn't any way to move forward with them collaboratively. Pyrope 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You see my concern though that you quote WP:PLACEDAB which begins "It is often the case that the same widely accepted English name will apply to more than one place, or to a place and to other things; in either case disambiguation will be necessary." but this doesn't apply to Woking? Mark83 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I rather thought that WP:PLACEDAB refers to the naming of articles rather than the way placenames are treated in text? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why if you look at my mainpage edit summary and the rationale I've given above, I refer to the advice and recommendations given in that guide document. I did not invoke the guide without qualification. The reasons for using a county to dab a page rather than a country are the same, whether you are talking about page names or location references in the text. Pyrope 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Have we got anywhere with this discussion, Mark83? Pyrope 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Although it's been amongst a small group the consensus seems to be Woking, Surrey. I know you have advocated for the specificity being a good thing; my concern here is that doesn't make much sense to most non-UK readers. But to use my own argument against myself, the blue link can clear up confusion. So I'm happy for you to make the change. If there is further edit warring behaviour I'll also support the new status quo position being Woking, Surrey if/when further discussion is ongoing here.Mark83 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, understood. You made some very useful points that I will certainly be using to judge individual circumstances if and when any future situation arises that is similar. Cheers. Pyrope 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As you say using the county doesn't have much meaning for non-UK readers, whereas England is more specific and is the nation state. InterContinental Hotels Group is a good example ofWP:PLACEDAB where use of the county makes sense. As a sidenote, counties are also phased out in Royal Mail addresses as they are used only ceremonially now and in some cases, like Middlesex, haven't officially existed for over 50 years, see here: http://couriernews.co.uk/blog/counties-no-longer-count-its-time-to-stop-including-counties-in-addresses/ Angryskies (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Most non-UK readers consider UK and England to be synomous. People not knowing where the county is, isn't a reason to remove it from those who do. Counties being phased out of adressess is also irrelevant, they still have geographic meaning. Your paragragh works for including "England" in the location detail, it doesn't give much of a reason for removing the county.
SSSB (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I see where some of your issues may be arising from Angryskies. You are taking what you know about Scotland (where, yes, since the council areas were formed counties only form a ceremonial function, and there are so many of them that keeping track is tricky) and applying it to other parts of the UK as though there were no differences, which is simply incorrect. In England and Wales, counties (alongside the urban unitary authorities) are still the fundamental unit of local government, responsible for levying taxes and providing the majority of practical local services. Policing is still largely governed along county lines, and even where some larger policing bodies exist (e.g. Thames Valley) there are still constrained to a group of counties and associated unitary bodies. The Royal Mail information is spurious as they simply use a different system, whereby mail is sent to "post towns" (i.e. a single point) and then distributed from there. In England and Wales for sure, counties are still a very familiar geographic reference, and are certainly useful in locating towns that are less well known. Pyrope 16:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruce's nationality

I object to the description that Bruce McLaren was "a New Zealander by birth." Bruce was a New Zealander by any measure, and the words "by birth" give the impression that he had adopted another nation for his identification. (210.86.33.219) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 13 July 2005

Extreme E

For the record, I have included "electric off-road racing series" before "Extreme E" in the last paragraph because the series is still relatively new, unknown, and different from what McLaren is doing currently. It's a different discussion if one should explain this in the text or just refer to the series' article. Ved havet (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"no evidence that the announcements date is relevant"

I see that someone recently removed contents from the article of when certain decisions were announced, like the team changing engines, saying that the timing of the announcements is irrelevant. Well I think otherwise (I don't want to revert it by myself though), since it shows who was the CEO/Team principal etc. at the time the decision was made, and thus in my opinion gives historical context. Hunocsi (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. @SSSB: Can you show to any guidelines or previous consensus that times of major announcements are not relevant unless the timing is "significant"? Are we not here to collect information? I would like to know why we shouldn't include it, considering it might be exactly the kind of detail some people are looking for. You've just removed a lot of information that has been a part of the article for years without anyone objecting to it. Ved havet (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Our job isn't to collect information, it is to write encylopedic content. Look at #3 on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, ... articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. A date that something happens is a statistic.

Would it have made any difference if the announcment is join Extreme E had been made in July? No? Then specifing this is unnecessary. If there was no change in major personal in 2020, even less so, then we can just say "mid-way through the 2021, McLaren decided to join the series starting from 2022.", or "mid-way through the 2021 Extreme E season, McLaren decided to join the series starting from 2022."

Finally, the timing of an announcement is never significant, the date of the decision could be.
SSSB (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering the date of an announcement as excessive listings of statistics according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE is edging it. The spirit of that paragraph is, as it says, to prevent a lot of statistics from impeding readability of articles, and the examples it provides illustrates that. The solution it proposes is to place such statistics in tables, with context (explanatory texts – descriptions). If we were talking about a paragraph with 20 dates of something, sure, that should probably be placed in a table, but that's not the issue at hand. It's a couple of dates, with context. Of course you may choose to word it differently, but I don't see the point when the established method is to write just the month when the exact date isn't necessary. Ved havet (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I hold the opinion that if you want to include information, the onus is on you to justify its conclusion. The dates of seperate announcements have different levels of significance, so I suggest we do this on a case-by-case basis.
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And my general justification is that dates of announcements can and does matter, meaning I disagree with your previous statement that they never do. Though we don't manually place them into every possible context in the article (because that would actually be excessive), as an example, only stating that McLaren competes in Extreme E in 2022 leaves you with no information about how this compares to the timeline of the possible Formula E team, or any other event in the company's history. Once time moves on, these details will probably fit better in it's own section. Ved havet (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree this should be taken on a case by case basis. An announcement is not automatically significant, it's the context and importance that matters. On a more general point, reading over the article to understand the different points of view has made me realise the prose needs some work. On this topic, the number of times "it was announced" is trotted out is repetitive and irritating. Overall, lots of updating required and it needs to be rewritten to be less like a tabloid news article and more like an encyclopedia. Mark83 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Button retirement

I propose we change "On 3 September 2016, Jenson Buttonannounced he would take a sabbatical from Formula One for the 2017 season. He then confirmed on 25 November that he would retire from F1 altogether with Vandoorne being Alonso's new Teammate for 2017." to "Jenson Button decided, at the tail end of the 2016 season, to retire from Formula One at the end of the season, having initially decided to only take a sabatical". What is the justification of these exact dates? Does it make any difference whether the decision was announced in November or October?
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is a bigger discussion probably affecting a lot more articles than just this one. Just look at Red_Bull_Racing#History, or Mercedes-Benz_in_Formula_One. It is extremely common for major announcements to be dated, either by the day or the month. You may disagree that this is a justification, but unless there is a general consensus to change this practice, I don't see the need to purposely not be specific in this article. That's just my opinion though, I hope more people share their. Ved havet (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't going to discuss this specific case, I will simply assume that you have no objection to this proposed change...
SSSB (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I literally just said I don't see the need to change this when there is a general practice of including the day or month of major events and announcements. Ved havet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that there has never been a consensus to include exact dates, that isn't really arguement. Note that there are plenty of articles (including Jenson Button) where exact dates are not in use.
SSSB (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing we should consistently add dates, but I think it's completely unnecessary to remove details that aren't excessive or makes the article worse, about information that is inherently relevant. That's my view. Ved havet (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I do think it is excessive and that it makes the article worse. By including the exact dates we imply that the date of announcement is noteworthy, but its not. We are burdening the reader with non-noteworthy, unnecessary details, implying that these dates are somehow relevant.
SSSB (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Arrow McLaren infobox

At the moment, the Arrow McLaren infobox in this article is a combination of McLaren's previous Indycar results and results of Arrow McLaren SP, but only after McLaren joined forces with the already established Schmidt/Schmidt Hamilton/Schmidt Peterson team. The infobox in the Arrow McLaren article is of course a collection of all the results of said team, both from before and after McLaren's involvement.

To me, it's not obvious that the "Arrow McLaren"-labeled infobox in this article combines all McLaren Indycar entries. The label of "Arrow McLaren SP" along with dynamic information about the current team makes it look like it should just be a duplicate of the infobox in the Arrow McLaren SP article, but instead, it simultaneously serves as a static log of results not strictly related to the team the infobox is branded after. I've previously tried to clear up this distinction by adding a footnote to the "Career" section, but it's not a perfect solution.

So my question is if the current Arrow McLaren SP/Indycar infobox in this article is actually justified anymore, considering the existing team has its own article, and McLaren's combined results are all explained in greater detail further below where the teams are actually separated correctly? And if it is justified, could there be ways to improve it?

One alternative could be to ditch the Career-section, and let it strictly serve as an infobox about the current Indycar team, leaving results for the infobox in the Arrow McLaren SP article. Either way I believe we do need to make it clear what it's actually about – a specific team that exists today, or a collection of McLaren's combined Indycar history. It's simply not true that the team Pato O'Ward drives for made its debut in 1970. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed the infobox. Arrow McLaren has it's own article with it's own infobox. Other, historic results are covered in tables at the bottom of the article.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)