Talk:Red Bull RB10

Content

Most of the content on this page has had very little to do with the actual subject. I have removed this content, but the person who created the article reverted it and is demanding that I establish a consensus. I'm going to humour him and demonstrate why.

Firstly, this page appears to exist solely to justify the existence of two other pages: one on the Reanult engine, and one on the 2014 season rule changes (which has since been deleted). As a result, the majority of the content in the article was about the engine - the one part if the car that Red Bull will not actually build. In an article specifically about a car Red Bull will build. Hence, it has no place here. It's worth mentioning which engine the car will use, but a full run-down of the details of that engine is not appropriate.

Secondly, the article was stacked with quotes about how dramatic the rule changes will be. However, there was no content on how Red Bull have or will specifically address these rule changes. As someone with a degree in marketing, I feel I am adequately qualified to tell you that these baseless comments are exaggerated hype. They are designed to spark interest through persuasive and emotive language rather than inform an audience through recounting fact. As the primary function of Wikipedia is the latter and not the former, those quotes have no place here.

Finally, there was no content related to who will actually drive the car, or who is designing it. These were left to an infobox, which, while useful, only provide information at a glance, and should not be used as the primary means if informing the audience. Furthermore, the lack of this content and the over-emphasis on marginally-significant details made the article inconsistent with the style of other similar and related pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to talk. All of that content is related to the actual subject, which is why I replaced it. We can discuss exactly what you think is unrelated, and why. Then we can decide how/if to adjust the content mutually.

This article is here for the same reason as all other racing car articles: to describe the particular car. This car is notable as the next from the world champion constructors. The article is currently in its infancy, and, I agree is top-heavy with engine content, but it is a radically new engine formula and the article will inevitably grow to cover more aspects of the car. That doesn't mean that what is there at the moment is not valuable information. Red Bull selected the engine and packaged their car around it and will fit the engine as they fit the thousands of other externally manufactured parts.

That the rules have changed is an important fact, and should be covered. We can tweak the wording if you think it unduly exaggerates anything. You can't justify removing content about subject "A" because there is no content about subject "B" there. Why not help improve the article by adding relevant information that is currently missing? Freimütig (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Because that information is not available. Yes, the rules have changed, but that is something that applies to every car. If you're going to discuss rule changes in the context of Red Bull's car, then you're going to need to describe what solutions Red Bull came up with to address specific rule changes. Since that information is not available, it can't be included just yet, and leaving the article as it was amounts to PR bullshit with dramatic and exaggerated quotes from staff. You run into the same problem with the engine - how did Red Bull design their car around it? You don't know, so you can't say, and instead talk about content that is only tangentially-related and more appropriate elsewhere.

The problem with the article is that you created it too soon, used it to justify the existence of articles on the rule changes and engines, and have padded it out with low-priority content in the absence of anything that would be useful. And then you revert any changes to the article and demand a consensus for it, completely neglecting the way those changes added in important content that you did not see fit to include, which you have subsequently edited out without a second thought.

The problems with this article are many and varied, as is your approach to it. It all ready breaks WP:TOOSOON, WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and us dangerously close to WP:3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonably harsh here, attacking my position rather than offering help and constructive comment to improve the article. Yes, I created the article, but several others have added content since I last did. You came and removed vast sections, repeatedly - 3 times in the last 24 hours. You don't like the article, you are warring to get your own way. You are preaching one thing, yet practising another. Freimütig (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's my constructive input: get rid of the stuff on the engine and the rule changes until you can substantiate it with content in how Red Bull addressed specific issues arising from them. Otherwise, it's useless padding of the article. In the meantime, restore the actual content that is relevant, like the drivers.

There is nothing wrong with adding or removing large sections of content, especially when an editor thinks it is flawed. It does not automatically demand a consensus. Now, you have felt free to criticise me, but I suggest you look at your own practices: you clearly want to keep your preferred edits in the article, because they are your preferred edits. You seem to think the number of editors that have worked on your preferred edits is tantamount to consensus, but you revert any edits that you don't like the moment you see them, which stops people from establishing a "consensus" as they don't have the opportunity to edit that version of the article.

In the end, it's a bad article. It lacks content, places undue weight on minor details, and us poorly constructed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Freimütig, I'm going to assume you're familiar with WP:3RR. I'm going to disagree with Prisonermonkeys wrt to WP:CRYSTAL, but I think bringing up WP:TOOSOON is spot-on. Better to keep a shorter article and wait for better citations to show up. Garamond Lethet
c 03:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm outnumbered. I'll now await to see if anyone else has any opinions, particularly those whose material has removed. I do however, disagree that WP:TOOSOON is relevant here. The stuff added is currently reliably sourced and the article is about a currently notable subject.

Also a note to User:Prisonermonkeys, I had no problem with your addition of new, reliably sourced material, but had serious problems with your removal reasoning for the stuff you removed, and didn't think it my job to unravel the two. Freimütig (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely too soon. The only details we have are the driver names, the engine to be used, and we had stuff on the fact that new rules are coming in. Nothing more. Most of the time, these article don't get published until the chassis names of all the cars are known. Nothing like that is going to be known until late January or early February. Until then, this page is just going to sit, inactive. Red Bull winning the title might be notable, but that only affects the numbers that will be on the side of the cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the party, all. Regarding specifically the removal of the stuff I added: while I agree that the section was a tad heavy in information that is not exclusive to this particular car, I think Team Principal Horner's commentary on the design challenges they face as a result of the rule changes is notable, as is the fact that the team will continue to use a Renault engine (rather than one built by Ferrari or Mercedes), despite the fact that previous Renault designs have experienced serious electrical problems with their energy recovery systems, while emphasizing the fact that that the rule changes will necessitate an even more complicated recovery system. These are pieces of the car's story that are currently verifiable and will remain, IMO, of encyclopedic interest regardless of future events. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AdventurousSquirrel, I appreciate the argument you're trying to make, but I feel that it has one critical flaw that makes adding that content to the page in its current form unworkable.

Horner can describe just how dramatic the rule changes are until he's blue in the face, and I'll agree on every single point. He can tell everyone about how those rule changes pose significant challenges, and I won't deny it. But the problem is that he doesn't say how Red Bull addressed these issues. After all, every team will encounter them. It's not a problem exclusive to the RB10, but this is an article about the RB10.

I'll give you an example: prior to the 2014 regulations, the biggest rule change was the introduction of KERS. In 2009, KERS units weighed close to 30kg, and teams were struggling to get as close to the minimum weight with the KERS unit. Williams came up with a solution that used the flywheel to charge the KERS battery. Although it never raced, the system cut the overall weight by 12kg. It is an example of both the challenge posed by the regulations, and a solution to overcome it.

So, if we apply this way of thinking to the RB10 article, we only have half the content we need, and we're missing the most important half. We have Horner saying "the regulations are a challenge for us", but we still need him saying "and this is what we did to overcome it". Until we get that, the first half does not count for much because you could pretty much copy and paste it into every article on individual car.

All of this comes from the article being made too soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. But I'd still argue (somewhat more unemphatically) that the history of Renault ERS issues and the team's reliance on Renault motors is an interesting part of the car's history, particularly in light of the new rule changes. i.e., IMO, this is important irrespective of how they addressed or will address it. The result of this issue (if it becomes an issue) will be interesting to add once it becomes available, of course, but I don't think it's necessarily necessary. And by that, I mean it seems to me to do more to benefit the article than to do disservice to it, even w/o that second bit of information. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)