Jump to content

Talk:Mercedes F1 W04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04)

Mercedes AMG F1 W04?

[edit]

Since when has the constructor name been "Mercedes AMG" its allways been just "Mercedes" on its own, Show me a reliable source to support this name change. This page should just be "Mercedes F1 W04" otherwise. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 9:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to you on your talk page. However, since you insist, here is it again: the sporting regulations state that a chassis must be named for its constructor and given an individual designation. The "F1 W04" is the individual designation. Therefore, the constructor name must be "Mercedes AMG" because the chassis name cannot have any unrelated components. Otherwise, it would be "Mercedes F1 W04", with the "AMG" related to nothing, which would not have been accepted by the FIA with the team registered the chassis and submitted it for crash testing.
PS — What you are doing on this page, the season page, the team page and the related templates is edit-warring. If you wish to raise an issue, you leave the page as it is, start a discussion on the relevant talk page (this one will do) and wait for a consensus to be acheived. You do not keep going through the pages and revert edits to your preferred version of the page, trying to force the edit through until you acheive a consensus. If you continue to do this, you will be referred to the administrators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any reliable sources explicitly identifying the constructor name as "Mercedes AMG", I think we are obliged to assume it is still "Mercedes" per the "Name of the Chassis" column in the FIA entry list. Then whatever comes after that must be considered as the chassis designation (even if it doesn't match the pattern of last year's car). DH85868993 (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been demonstrated in the past, the FIA entry list is not a definitive source; we have only used the entry list for car numbers - you will note, for instance, that the entry list has no drivers at Sauber, even though Nico Hulkenberg had already been confirmed at the time. I would say the sporting regulations trump the entry list as a source.
Furthermore, there two sources in the article used to relate the names. In this one, the chassis is referred to as the "F1 W04". In this one, it is referred to as the "Mercedes AMG W04". The AMuS article has left out the "F1". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the car is called the "Mercedes F1 W04" (the formula1.com article just says the chassis is called the "F1 W04"; it doesn't say the car's whole name is "Mercedes AMG F1 W04") and the AMuS article is either incorrect, or quoting an earlier name which was subsequently changed (noting that the AMuS article is dated 27 Dec 2012 and the formula1.com article is dated 25 Jan 2013). DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Formula1.com article may just be referring to the car by its designation only. Kind of like calling the "Ferrari F2013" the "F2013". And without any evidence of the team having changed the name of the car since the AMuS article was published, we can't assume that it was changed.
I would suggest leaving the names as they are for the time being. We'll know on 4 February what the actual name is for certain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the thing that a team loses its FOM money if they change the constructor name, making constructor name change unlikely. Plus, I've seen some other cases in which Wikipedia hasn't used the official constructor names. For example the 2011 season article has constructor names Red Bull-Renault and Toro Rosso-Ferrari, even though the official names were Red Bull Racing-Renault and STR-Ferrari. --August90 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
August90, a team only loses its FOM money if the name change is down to a change in ownership. It's to stop someone from coming in, purchasing a team, and collecting someone else's prize money. There are certain exceptions to this; for instance, Genii Captial ran Lotus F1 as Renault for two years before changing to Lotus, and did not take any financial penalty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the constructors is official called Mercedes and the team is called Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, am I right? If that's true, the car name is Mercedes F1 W04. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect for you to assume that the car's name is "Mercedes F1 W04" if the constructor name is simply "Mercedes". Right now, we have sources that claim the car's name is "Mercedes AM F1 W04", and we cannot simply ignore what those sources say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its just you against everybody else, And since when have you been in charge of Wikipedia. We go with the majority of Sources that say the car is called the "Mercedes F1 W04" Alot more sources say the Constructor names just "Mercedes" as well.

Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 9:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's no excuse for you, for either of you, to compete in an edit war. As has been pointed out to me in such cases previously you are in breech of Wikipedia's policy and if an Admin sees this you will be blocked. Not might be. And Prisonermonkeys you would likely be blocked too, you know better.
Until such a time as consensus is established, or the FIA clarify, it should in all cases revert to what it was 2012, Mercedes. It can be changed to Mercedes AMG at a later point subject to the arrival of consensus or clarification.
Daniels Renault Sport, there is no time limit on debate, but the debate should run its course before change is made. --Falcadore (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think there is enough of a case to keep the name as "Mercedes AMG". So far, nobody has actually addressed this argument - most of what I have seen is a case of "it has always been this way, so it should stay this way". Daniels Renault Sport, you claim that there are "a majority of sources", but you are yet to provide one.
Also, Daniels Renault Sport, a consensus is not a vote. A consensus is a discussion that aims to resolve a situation in a way that satisifes as many editors as possible - and all of them if it is manageable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few sources which indicate that the constructor name is "Mercedes":
Can anyone present reliable sources indicating that the constructor name is "Mercedes AMG"? DH85868993 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little like the two bald men fighting over a comb. Following on from DH's comment, I'd refer the participants here to the official 2013 entry list. Note the term 'constructor' being entirely absent. Check the tech regulations and you'll see that the 'constructor' is the organsiation that builds the chassis and/or engine. They then give their chassis or engine a 'name', and the combined chassis and engine names are the car's 'make'. If the two names are different then the WCC is awarded to the constructor of the chassis. As I have complained before, Martin Brundle's erroneous but voluble contribution on this issue has muddied the waters, but what is commonly referred to as a car's "constructor" actually isn't. We use this convenient simplification here at Wikipedia because of the common names policy and the principle of least astonishment. In short, as that's what they are called by the general public then that's what we use. The Mercedes 'constructor' name has never officially been Mercedes, that's the chassis name, the 'constructor' is Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd., the official name of the Companies House-registered corporate entity that holds the IP rights to the chassis. 'Mercedes' is the WP:COMMONNAME shorthand for the constructor so that's what gets used, until you can prove that the general public has started referring to everything by some different moniker. If you want to be pedantic about it, the officially official name for the car is apparently the "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 W04". But as we all know that's not what people are going to be calling it, "Mercedes F1 W04" seems best and complies with both WP:AT and common sense. Pyrope 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the tech regulations and you'll see that the 'constructor' is the organsiation that builds the chassis and/or engine. They then give their chassis or engine a 'name', and the combined chassis and engine names are the car's 'make'. If the two names are different then the WCC is awarded to the constructor of the chassis.
This is the basis of my argument. The car is named the "Mercedes AMG F1 W04". If the constructor under WP:COMMONNAME is "Mercedes", and the unique chassis name is "F1 W04", then where does the AMG come into it? We have sources that show the AMG in the name, which should not be there if it not part of the name. But since the car has been registered with the FIA - which is has to be in order to go through crash testing - then the name has to have been accepted by the FIA. With so many sources giving the individual name as "F1 W04", that means the AMG must belong to the constructor name.
Also, DH, that comment about providing sources was intended for Daniels Renault Sport, who has insisted that there are sources that support his argument, but has consistently failed to produce them when asked. It has less to do with actually finding through sources, and more to do with his particular style of editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources that show the AMG in the name. And we also have sources like this one and this one which don't have "AMG" as part of the car's name, i.e. external sources disagree on the matter. So we, the WikiProject, need to decide, by consensus, the name by which the car will be referred to within Wikipedia. Currently the consensus is leaning heavily towards "Mercedes F1 W04". The "constructor name" (i.e. what the FIA call "Name of the chassis") is actually a separate (if related) issue - so far I haven't seen one reliable source explicitly identifying the constructor name as "Mercedes AMG", but several (see above) identifying it as "Mercedes". DH85868993 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that contradictory sources alone are enough of a justification for these edits because any argument that you make in favour of them can be equally applied against them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making earlier was to leave it as Mercedes (as per 2012) rather than Mercedes AMG until such time as a consensus is reached, or the FIA clarify. If consensus to change to Mercedes AMG is reached, then make the change. I make no comment on the debate itself, I am concerned (at this time) only with the edit-warring that will get you both blocked. That you might disagree Prisonermonkeys is irrelevant. Complete the discussion, then make the change - do not edit-war. --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: Mercedes is both the name of a team, and an engine supplier. Those engines are not provided by Mercedes, but by Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. If you look at any race article; for instance, the 2012 Australian Grand Prix, particularly the results tables, you will note the following entry:

Pos. No. Driver Constructor Q1 Q2 Q3 Grid
1 4 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 1:26.800 1:25.626 1:24.922 1

The link is not piped to Mercedes-Benz, but to Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains.

Considering the naming provisions, I believe that "Mercedes AMG" best-represents the constructor name, since the engines Mercedes builds are specifically built by Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. This is reflected in the full "formal" name of the Mercedes team, "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team". Article 6.3 of the sporting regulations states the following:

The constructor of an engine or chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor. If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car.

In this case, the make of the chassis and the make of the engine are the same. If the team and the body producing the engines share the same name - in this case, "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team" and "Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains" - then, under the sporting regulations, this is the name that should be used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, we use the common shorthand the same as the majority of reliable sources. The FIA entry form states that this is simply "Mercedes". Mercedes-Benz themselves have registered the car as a "Mercedes". Most reliable sources simply use "Mercedes". The team themselves have never, so far, used the form "Mercedes AMG" except as part of the full team name. They didn't refer to last year's car as the "Mercedes AMG F1 W03", in fact their launch for this year's car is almost a carbon copy as far as semantics is concerned. What's our article for the 2012 car called? Yup, Mercedes F1 W03. What you believe is neither here nor there, what can be verifiably proven by reference to reliable sources is what counts. In addition, you have fallen into the trap of equating "team" with "constructor". As the entry form makes very clear, the constructor is a corporation called Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd., who also run a World Championship team (that is, the people that race the cars) called, variously, Mercedes AMG Petronas or some variation of same. I see little to no evidence that the name commonly used by the media or general public to refer to the car is or is likely to be "Mercedes AMG F1 W04". You do seem to be going in for guessing, assuming and believing in lieu of hard facts recently, and it's getting a little tedious. Pyrope 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's our article for the 2012 car called? Yup, Mercedes F1 W03.
Mercedes adopted the "AMG" into their full, formal team name in 2012. Prior to that, they were known as "Mercedes GP". As Mercedes GP, they produced two cars, the MGP W01 and the MGP W02. The naming was only changed to F1 W03 in 2012, the year that "AMG" was adopted into the title. That, I feel, is no coincidence - they started changing the name of their car when they changed the name of the team, and they changed the name of the team to reflect the name of the engine supplier. Between that and the provisions set out in the sporting regulations defining the name of a constructor, I think the team should have been listed as "Mercedes AMG" under cosntructors in 2012, with the F1 W03 page moved to "Mercedes AMG F1 W03".
They didn't refer to last year's car as the "Mercedes AMG F1 W03", in fact their launch for this year's car is almost a carbon copy as far as semantics is concerned.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with the argument that the team should be known as "Mercedes" rather than "Mercedes AMG". as we have seen from the other launches, teams have released their 2013 cars with 2012-spec parts in places (usually the areas they would rather not be revealed publicly just yet). Therefore, I don't think you can argue that because the 2013 car is virtually the same as the 2012 car, the naming convention remains the same (and even if you could, that may still be addressed in the above point). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Constructor name change seems to be based on an assumpition that they keep their chassis naming conventions, i.e. F1 WXX. But not even it has been always that way. Originally it was MGP WXX before changing the team name from Mercedes GP to Mercedes AMG. Why couldn't they now have changed their naming conventions to have a chassis name AMG F1 W04? I'd consider that the chassis name and Mercedes the constructor name. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by August90 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that "Mercedes AMG" is still more representative of the constructor name because both the team and the engine supplier are named for Mercedes AMG. If we continue the logic that the name "Mercedes" should be used because Mercedes-Benz own both the team and the engine supplier, then one could make the case that the constructor name should be given as Daimler, since Daimler AG own Mercedes-Benz. While I understand the argument that the team should remain "Mercedes" under WP:COMMONNAME, reading through COMMONNAME, I have noticed that every example it gives - ie "Big Dig" instead of "Central Artery/Tunnel Project" and "Caffeine" instead of "1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione" - has a common name that is markedly different to full name. I don't think there is enough difference between "Mercedes" and "Mercedes AMG" for COMMONNAME to be a justification for keeping the name as "Mercedes", particularly when there is that clear-cut relationship between the team and the engine supply having the "Mercedes AMG" name.
After all, Red Bull and Toro Rosso as technically known as "RBR" and "STR" respectively, but we use the expanded names there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you 'feel' is irrelevant next to the facts. We do not invent our own terminology, we go with what is official. If Red Bull is officially RBR then that may need to to be changed but that is a seperate case not part of this discussion. A problem with piped links to AMG Powertrains would not be solved unless the team involved was to become known as Mercedes AMG-Mercedes, which is something I've not seen anywhere and we should not begin using. Putting in a separate link in Mercedes and AMG with the former linking to powertrains and the later to the race team is likewise not acceptable as it runs against guidelines of side-by-side linking. If you want to compare to other examples, The modern Honda team has no links in its constructors terminology to Mugen. --Falcadore (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "feel" because I didn't want to come across as aggressive in my argument. I was never calling for piping separate links to separate pages; merely pointing out that there is clearly a relationship between the team and the engine supplier. At the moment, the team and the engine supplier are given separate pages. However, if you look at Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results, you will see that all of their results as a team and all of their results as an engine supplier are grouped together on the same page.

Something very different has been done on the Renault in Formula One page. The page has their history as a team and their history as an engine supplier. Similarly, their results page includes their results as both a team and as a supplier.

Scuderia Ferrari has the same arrangement as the Renault pages. They have their team history and their engine supply history on the same page (though the latter needs work), and their results page contains both their results as a team and results as an engine supplier on the same page.

BMW has this set-up, too, and they're not even in Formula One anymore. They have engine supply and team histories together on the same page, and their results as team and engine supplier together on the same page.

For some reason, Mercedes is the only constructor and engine supplier in Formula One that have separate pages for their team and their engine supply. I believe Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains should be merged into Mercedes-Benz in Formula One just as the Rnault, Ferrari and BMW pages contain both their histories as a team and as an engine supplier. I have seen no valid reason or explanation as to why the two should be separate, in contrast to other works teams that also supplied engines. It's possible that we haven't been aware of the problem until just now.

Futhermore, I believe that because the full, formal team name is "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team", and because the name given to the body that produces the engines is "Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains", that "Mercedes AMG" best represents the constructor name of the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesnt make it right for the teams constructor name to be "Mercedes AMG" have you read any of the points above? The "Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains" are a seperate entity to the Formula One team, Although under same ownership and they should reflected both on the same article but because the article is mainly for the F1 team it should be under the "Mercedes" constructor name that is "Mercedes" shown on many sources above. Having the """teams""" constuctor name "Mercedes AMG" would look stupid as it would be "Mercedes AMG-Mercedes" nobody refers to it as that? But as "Mercedes" reprsenting both the F1 team and engine maker. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renault's engine production was separate to their racing team when they were a constructor, and yet they are included on the same page. It was the same with BMW and with Ferrari.
Furthermore, I was never claiming that the team name should be listed as "Mercedes AMG-Mercedes". I said that the Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains article should be merged into the Mercedes-Benz in Formula One article, and the team and engine suppliers referred to as "Mercedes AMG", the name that I tihnk best-represents the team.
Or haven't you read any of the points I made above? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason that Renault, Ferrari and BMW have one article and Mercedes has two is that when the Formula One-related articles were originally created (in 2005/2006), Renault, Ferrari and BMW were both teams and engine manufacturers, so their articles covered both the team and engines, but Mercedes was only an engine supplier, so that article only covered engines. Then when the Mercedes team was announced in 2009, a separate article was created for the team, which eventually morphed into Mercedes-Benz in Formula One. There is perhaps an argument that the two Mercedes articles should be merged, but I think this is tangential to the main focus of this discussion, which is what Mercedes' "constructor name" should be for 2013. Prisonermonkeys, you have explained your view and rationale clearly, but it seems that nobody else shares your view. And since Wikipedia operates by consensus, that would suggest that the constructor name should remain as "Mercedes" for the time being. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we'd consider Mercedes AMG as the chassis name, constructor name should then be Mercedes AMG-Mercedes, or otherwise there would be McLaren-Mercedes AMG and Force India-Mercedes AMG. Whether the chassis and engine are of different make is basically about their name. Renault chassis made by Lotus Renault GP and Renault engine made by Renault Sport F1 were of same make, i.e. it was Renault, not Renault-Renault. AMG was added simultaneously to the engine factory's name as to the F1 team's name, but both chassis' and engines' names were still Mercedes. Anyway, when it comes to merging the engine factory article to this article, I support.
Furthermore, I wonder if we should even include AMG to the chassis name at all. The source for the chassis name doesn't have AMG at all, and that German source has an incorrect chassis name. --August90 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The constructor name will be whatever is used officially. If it is different from what was used in 2012 ie Mercedes, then we change it. Until such time that official sources DO change it stays Mercedes. Cureently there is doubt so it stays what it used to be before there was doubt until there is no longer doubt. Struggling to see why this debate has gone on this long. It was Mercedes, it might be something else but we don't know for sure. When we do, we change to what it actually is. Until then its Mercedes. Incredibly simple. --Falcadore (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And in fact I see far more evidence that it hasn't changed than I see for something new. Enough. Pyrope 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

So now its been settled is the article going to be moved to "Mercedes F1 W04" then? Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above mainly about whether the constructor name is Mercedes or Mercedes AMG. So, I don't see yet a consensus about the chassis name, whether it is F1 W04 or AMG F1 W04. But I haven't seen any sources that say the chassis is AMG F1 W04. --August90 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read again August90. The discussion above relates directly to how we handle the name on Wikipedia. Yes DRS, it looks as though consensus is pointing toward moving the page back to Mercedes F1 W04. Pyrope 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the presence of a source that clearly gives the name with "AMG" in the title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An source. One. Compared with myriad other, highly reliable sources, including the manufacturers of the car themselves, that do not. The FIA, FOM, BBC, Autosport, Sky, Motor Sport, Speed, F1Fanatic, blah bla blah bla blah.... boring. They all use variants of the name, but one thing they seem never to do is use "Mercedes AMG F1 W04". This stale now Prisonermonkeys, leave the horse alone. Pyrope 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mercedes_F1_W04&oldid=1202102402"