Talk:Honda in Formula One

B-Class

Reads quite well, but rather brief and focussed on recent history. Almsot no references. IMHO. :) 4u1e 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of races

The infobox says 81, the results table indicates 72, FORIX says 70. Which (if any) is correct? DH85868993 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox changed to 88, which agrees with results table, FORIX and ChicaneF1. DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pole positions

the article says "Pole Positions 1968 Italian Grand Prix (John Surtees) 2006 Australian Grand Prix (Jenson Button)" if i remember correctly Button was on Pole once in Canada and in San Marino too. Loosmark (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

i checked that was.. BAR-Honda not Honda Loosmark (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Brawn Grand Prix?

[1] - looks like this is the likely new name, time for new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krytenia (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems it's already here! Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say I won't believe it until I see it... but Autosport has it.

It really is a shit name though. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

== Tidy-up ==

I have taken the liberty of refining the information in the lead section to include only salient points, placed the remainder in the body of the article, and removed POV since it did not nearly meet WP:LEAD guidelines. I also adjusted header levels and section positions for a more logical layout. I hope I haven't trodden on the toes of regular contributors here – if so feel free to revert. --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong talk page – sorry!!! --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose this page be moved/renamed to Honda in Formula One, to better reflect Honda's varied participation in Formula One over the years as a team, constructor and engine supplier, and for consistency with similar articles Alfa Romeo in Formula One and BMW in Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, a perfectly sensible move. QueenCake (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. We need to find some consistency with this type of article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Not all Honda's F1 operations happened under the "Honda Racing F1 Team" name. --August90 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, as per all of the statements above. - mspete93 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, but qualified. I think that we also need to carefully review the content of this article to ensure that it does not confuse or conflate the various F1 related activities of Honda with each other where it isn't appropriate to do so, and especiallly not attempt to imply integration of the activities of the team run by the company originally named "Tyrrell Racing" and now named "Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix", when it was a subsidiary of Honda and named "BAR Honda GP"/"Honda GP", where there was no such integration. The activities of that subsidiary probably justify a separate artcile, with the appropriate activities summarised here in the Honda context of course. -- de Facto (talk). 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It won't "imply integration" as you put it. It should talk about, as in DH85868993's proposal, "Honda's varied participation in Formula One". So there is integration in the fact that there was an F1 constructor between 1964 and 1968 called Honda, and an F1 constructor between 2006 and 2008 called Honda, and that both of these were run by the Japanese car manufacturer Honda. It will correctly imply that. It won't try imply that they were exactly the same team (which the current article name sort of does in some ways). Having them together in the same article does not automatically imply they are the same thing.

There are no other articles needed to cover anything ever done by Honda in F1. The 2006 to 2008 history certainly does not need its own article. Nor does there need to be a seperate article detailing Tyrrell, BAR, Honda, Brawn and Mercedes all together as one. There is a sufficient explanation on each an every one of those individual articles explaining the history before, and the history after. That will do. If what you're trying to get at DeFacto is some kind of "DNA-based" article, it's about time you realised you are the only one campaigning for that and that consensus is against you. - mspete93 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is getting really boring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "BAR Honda GP Ltd"/"Honda GP Ltd" was once a subsidiary of Honda, yes. It has since been renamed and is now a subsidiary of Daimler AG. Just as Jaguar Cars was once a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company and is now (as part of Jaguar Land Rover) a subsidiary of Tata Motors. Note that no attempt was made to expunge Jaguar's 1999-2008 history from the Jaguar article and move it to the Ford article. -- de Facto (talk). 17:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about F1 teams here, not car companies. In the same way it is relevant to keep Jaguar's history in one article, it is relevant to keep Honda's F1 history in one article. - mspete93 18:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A better analogy for your position would be to delete the Jaguar article and split its history between the British Leyland, Ford Motor Company and Tata Motors articles. Why should a company that operates as an F1 team be treated any differently to a car company when its owner changes? -- de Facto (talk). 18:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Or indeed, why would it be treated the same, given that F1 and car manufacturing are two entirely different concepts? Perhaps if Toyota bought a Honda factory and started building Toyotas in it, you'd be telling us that the cars are still Hondas because the workers used to work for Honda? De Facto, are you waiting for all of us to just give up and let you reconstruct the entire F1 wiki? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be. I'm sure that the concept of a consensus means that we can DeFacto, if we like, just ignore you and just get on with it. However, I'm worried that after we do that you'll just go doing your own thing to the articles. And we'll be back at square one again. Which is why I'm trying to get you to actually realise everyone else's viewpoint and accept it, rather than us just ignoring your voice rabbiting on in the corner. I really do have better things to be doing though. I'm sure you probably do too. - mspete93 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain my position that F1 teams aren't just inanimate chattels, with no character or story of their own. If they did become digested and absorbed into the corporations that buy them, as seems to be the implication from the way they are currently handled in Wiki, how then can they be extracted and somehow reconstituted into something 'whole' that can be sold on to another corporation a few years later? F1 teams have a lifecycle indepenent of that of their various owners, and that is what I want to see recognised. -- de Facto (talk). 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An F1 team isn't just a factory though. It is, effectively, a car manufacturer. It is the whole enterprise concerned with the research, design, development and manufacture of F1 cars. There may be decades of experience and tens, if not hundreds of staff with specialist skills. Your position is more akin to Toyota buying, not a single Honda factory, but the whole of their motorcycle operation, putting Toyota badges on the motorcycles for a couple of years, and then selling the motorcycle business on, lock stock and barrel, to, say, Daimler. And then expecting there to be no specific Honda motorcles article, but to have its story split between the Toyota and Daimler articles. The only difference that I want to see in the Wiki F1 articles structure is to have a separate article for each constructor era. -- de Facto (talk). 19:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We know. The thing is that nobody agrees with you. It's such a strong consensus that you really are wasting your energy. There won't be separate articles for each "constructor era" because a) nobody wants it but you, and b) none of our sources treat these "eras" separately. What you're proposing violates WP:OR so horribly that it almost deserves its own article. Just my little joke :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We do understand the point you are making DeFacto. But none of us feel that's the best solution for Wikipedia articles. For an encyclopedia the formal identity under which these teams entered the sport is better for defining teams than Bob or Steve who have worked for the team for decades. If you want to pay homage to those that have worked at Brackley from Tyrrell through to Mercedes, or those that have worked at Enstone from Toleman through to Lotus, then maybe set up your own space on the internet with which to do it. I, for one, don't see Wikipedia as the best place to do that. Sorry. - mspete93 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet & mspete, I'm not sure why you think my proposal would remove the teams' recognised identities or represent unacceptable OR. All I'm talking about is adding a couple of sub-current-level articles, which could be summarised in the current articles and wlinked as the main article covering the nitty-gritty details. These few 'new' sub-current-level articles could also support, in the same way, a handful of 'new' team "whole life" articles, for teams that, although having effectively been the same physical teams for many years, have had their stories fragmented in Wikipedia because they have have passed through the hands of more than one owner, and thus not had a persistent public identity. These 'new' articles would compliment, not replace, what we already have. -- de Facto (talk). 21:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they would confuse what we already have without offering any new information. Don't forget that F1 is already complicated - very complicated in some instances - and we are trying to make it as easy to understand as possible for people who might be new to the sport, or who don't use English as their first language. Introducing multiple new levels of articles that add no new information, but also imply that teams have more than one identity, is a recipe for a nightmare. This conversation really isn't going anywhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup of McLaren (2015–) section

I’ve recently added cleanup templates to the McLaren (2015–) section of this article and wanted to explain why I’ve done this and maybe enlist some help in cleaning it up.

The other sections in this article appear well written, with a balanced amount of technical detail and overview. However, this section lacks such detail and has become difficult to read due to having an excessive amount of examples that are not adding any weight to the main article.

It is quite clear that Honda have had numerous problems with its engines since 2015, but do we really need one hundred examples of this? An engine failure in a Free Practice session or Qualifying session doesn’t add anything useful to an article summarising Honda’s history in Formula One. The same applies to excessive quotes from the team or drivers. Quotes can be very informative, but a couple of examples of quotes from the team or drivers should suffice.

The tone and sheer amount of excessive detail in this section makes it very hard to read. In fact, it now reads more like a rolling news site/blog than an encyclopedia article and appears somewhat biased, even though Honda have had numerous problems. I think it’s very important to show that Honda have had various issues with its engines post 2015, but it should be written in a way that summarises these events in a neutral tone, along with other relevant information.

I have started drafting some improvements and aim to start making some edits to the article soon. In the meantime, if anyone has any thoughts they’d like to add, feel free to comment.

Thanks, --LlamaBear (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)