Jump to content

Talk:Red Bull Racing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Chassis Information

I edited the chassis information to align with what is stated in Scuderia_Toro_Rosso#Car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.38.60 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Material on other teams

In common with a few other articles, this one contains a fair amount of information on not only Red Bull's immediate predecessor (jaguar), but also the iteration before that (Stewart). I tend to feel that this is unecessary and leads to a lot of duplication across the articles. I propose that a short reference to Jaguar's demise and Red Bull's purchase of the team is sufficient, together with the link to the Jag article, which covers the previous history. I'd like to delete the extra material from this article, pasting anything that is not already there into the Jag or Stewart articles. Any views? 4u1e 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've copied relevant stuff to the Jag article. What I propose therefore is deleting the first two paras, which are not especially relevant to RB itself: "The history of the team started with Jackie Stewart's Stewart Formula One team in 1997. The Stewart team had become quite competitive by 1999, winning a race in its own right in its final year. Ford, as part of its global marketing operations, bought the team outright and renamed it Jaguar Racing; Jaguar is a premium car company owned by Ford. However, during the years of Ford's ownership, the team was unable to revive its performances of 1999. The team's inconsistent results are generally attributed to a high turnover rate with team management. In Jaguar's five-year tenure, it withstood three management shakeups, including names such as triple world champion Niki Lauda and CART champion Bobby Rahal, as well as an abortive attempt to lure McLaren's incumbent technical director, Adrian Newey.

Jaguar's Formula One parent company, Ford, issued a polite ultimatum as part of a reduction in sport involvement internationally. In particular, because Jaguar did not advertise the core Ford brand, there was little return of value from the enormous amount of money invested, so funding was reduced from Ford itself. Ford chose to sell the operation near the end of 2004 despite a more consistent showing in its previous two years." 4u1e 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, as of the 10th, I think. 4u1e 12 April 2006

Ze French are Hacking!

Looks like there are some French visitors who aren't too happy with Red Bull's latest PR stunt. Here is a link: http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/53053&type=news&id=53053 Also, RBR has taken the press release down so I cannot find it on their website anymore.

Anyway, just keep an eye out for people changing things maliciously around here. --MattDell 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Bull politically close to Ferrari?

I just fixed up an ambiguous line of "Red Bull being seen as politically close to Ferrari" by explaining the reasons why. Ian X490 10:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Entry into NASCAR

Red Bull is entering in a team for the Nextel/Sprint Cup series beginning in 2007. Should we be adding some info on the new team?

I think we leave it as Red Bull Racing is the F1 team. Ian X490 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Bull is entering NASCAR, but that information belongs in the Team Red Bull article. I think a disambiguation link may be in order, but the information belongs in separate articles.Mustang6172 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red bull racing logo.JPG

Image:Red bull racing logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Any reason for it? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is the editor is concerned about disambiguating the Red Bull NASCAR outfit, which apparently recently changed its name to Red Bull Racing Team. However, as one has "Team" in its name and the other doesn't, a simple dab header would suffice - parenthetical disambiguators aren't needed. Unless the editor intends to redirect "Red Bull Racing" to "Red Bull Racing Team", or vice-versa. Which I would view as insupportable in either direction. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Just revert and be done with it. Discussions on three different talk pages are condemning the move so just revert and add whatever anti-confusion 'hatnotes' need to be added. Don't really need to be discussed further than that does it? --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Since there was no rationale given for the move, and no obvious need, I have reverted it, with a suitable edit summary; as opposition has been voiced, please can anyone who supports this move use the requested moves process so that all opinions can get a hearing, and a proper debate can be had. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Nationality

Can somebody add some sources to the Austrian licence claim?VincentG 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

God Save the Queen was played along with the German national anthem when Sebastian Vettel won this weekend at China. I'd say that means that the team is officially British. - Warpfactor (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a mistake, RedBull has certainly the Austrian licence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.220.200 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
With nothing other verifiable to go by, the anthem is the best, and only source we have. I have changed the flag on the infobox accordingly. DJR (T) 09:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
According to F1 Sporting Regulations (Appendix 3: Podium ceremony) and International Sporting Code (Article 112), licence should decide the anthem played for a team. 83.150.91.10 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.redbullracing.com/Team/Team-Profile/ , the nationality is Austrian but the the team is based in Milton Keynes, UK. Seeing the national anthem in TV is not a source. --Pudeo' 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, Almost every team has the base in Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.220.200 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird though that the nationalities aren't mentioned in Formula1.com team profiles or any easily accessible FIA documents. If someone finds the official FIA documents that would atleast be bulletproof information. --Pudeo' 09:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I specifically recall Red Bull switching their nationality after running 2005 as British, although I don't have a source at the moment. IIIVIX (Talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reference to PROVE that they ever registered as Austrian? Should it not be the case that a team get its nationality, so to speak, from its home base unless solid proof may be provided to the contrary?--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that they definitely were Austrian at one point, but I think they recently changed. The anthem is the only source we have to go by so far, and I'm sure the FIA wouldn't make that sort of mistake. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I also re-stress my point. Should ANY team not be considered as the nationality of their home base unless solid proof otherwise exists? Jordan was often stated to be Irish, Honda Japanese, and Renault French. I've never heard any commentator mention Red Bull being Austrian - just the billionaire who owns it being so.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing should be assumed. Referencing is required. To assume that a team is the same nationality as their base just because there's been no refencing to their nationality is not the way things work. IIIVIX (Talk) 10:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You prove MY point! References are necessary! Where's the reference other than the Red Bull site to say it should be Austrian?! Without that what is it???--Amedeo Félix (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the owner relevant? Manchester United FC are owned by an American company doesn't make them American though. Would they be successful if they were based in Austria an run by Austrians? The UK is the clear world leader in advanced engineering as far motor sport is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.171.110 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Owner is not so relevant, but in Formula 1, licence is relevant. 83.150.91.10 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with The359 and Pudeo. Seeing the anthem on TV, combined with the F1 Sporting Regulations cited by 83.150.91.10, in my view represent a more-than adequate source. In any case, until something is confirmed beyond doubt, I'd suggest any references to nationality are removed, rather than choosing one or the other and provoking a revert war. DJR (T) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, the cloud the picture further, the BBC list them as "British and Austrian". Brilliant. DJR (T) 11:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just found a source of sorts from 2006 - suggests Red Bull were a British team at outset, but attempted to get an Austrian license. Whether it was ever achieved is dubious, given the anthem we heard today. DJR (T) 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The ÖAMTC (Austrian FIA Member Organisation) appealed on behalf of its competitor Red Bull Racing against the BrownGP diffuser [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopsch (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull's Helmut Marko now also confirms RBR have an Austrian licence and hopes next time they will play the right anthem. [2] [3] 83.150.91.10 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any sources written in English? Unless Marko gets his way and the Austrian anthem is played at Red Bull's winning GPs, it's clear that the world thinks of the team as a British team and that this is the message that the team and the FIA give to the wold. What could be a better source than their statement to the watching millions? 81.155.190.147 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This story, from the other thread you've posted in, answers your question. This really isn't very controversial. 4u1e (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Marko got his way, Austrian national anthem was played for Red Bull Racing in the British Grand Prix. 83.150.91.10 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh? It's not a matter of Marko 'getting his way'. It's just how the rules of this sport work - teams (unlike drivers) choose which country they represent. Red Bull chose to represent Austria some years ago and thus should always have had the Austrian anthem played. If the Chinese GP organisers hadn't screwed up this would never have become an issue. 4u1e (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The official Red Bull Racing website clearly states that the team is Austrian but based in the UK, therefore the team is Austrian: http://www.redbullracing.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Red-Bull-Racing-Team-Member-Profile/001242807164021 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.136.237 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 season section...

...is looking like an intidy list / diary entries. Just pointing out, as it will probably need condensing into a proper paragraph. Orphan Wiki 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian Wikipedia have SVG version for RBR logo. You can look at this link:
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:RBR.svg
F1fans (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Bulls 2011 Season

Their is not much infomation on the teams 2011 season? HRT F1 Team (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Red Bull Racing → Infiniti Red Bull Racing – From 2013 the Red Bull Racing Formula One team will officially be titled ‘Infiniti Red Bull Racing’. The page title should be updated to reflect the new team name. 193.193.188.8 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose: It has long been standard practice of the Formula One wikiproject to leave Formula One teams by generic names. Teams change names by their sponsored identities frequently. Leaving behind a mess of redirects and broken links as F1 team sometimes change their names yearly. --Falcadore (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME. For most of their existence they have been known simply as Red Bull Racing. The article has to cover both old and new and as such it makes sense to leave the article where it is. Readro (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons GyaroMaguus outlined. If might be different if Infiniti bought into the team and its constructor name became "Infiniti Red Bull", but that has not happened. They're jsut a sponsor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For the same reason everybody else has given. The existing redirect will do. SAS1998―Talk 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME. For most of their existence they have been known simply as Red Bull Racing. The article has to cover both old and new and as such it makes sense to leave the article where it is. Britmax (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nissan's contribution

Does anyone know what Nissan (Infiniti) contribute to the team other than money? Is a major car manufacturer really contributing nothing but sponsorship money to a racing team? Is this notable for the article? 122.59.225.50 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well... Nissan supplies LCVs to the team and Infiniti cars to the drivers, but not really much beyond that, the technological collaboration is a marketing thing. The truth is Nissan sponsors Red Bull because its "ally" Renault was there (there were plans to rename the engines "Infiniti" at some point). If you find more info about the participation of Nissan in Red Bull, feel free to add it. Regards Urbanoc (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think the article Red Bull Technology can be merged with this because it's a stub and covers almost solely a controversy about the client chassis. There's no really information referred to the company and at present it is the de facto in-house design studio of Red Bull. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)-

I agree it should be moved into the Red Bull Racing article as a section as they are both under the same roof and partly the same company. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It was a good idea, and I merged it to the "Corporate Information" section, where it seems to fit best. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox heading

The infobox heading is "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" at the moment. Prior to changing it to TAG Heuer, it was Red Bull-Renault.

I want to discuss two things here:

  1. Chassis name. Is it not meant to be "Red Bull Racing"?
  2. Engine name. Is it not too early to put TAG Heuer in the heading?

Arguments:

  1. Chassis name: As far as I understand, the infobox title should follow the FIA nomenclature of "Chassis-Engine" (unless same company) which is shown on the FIA's F1 Entry List and also reflected on the on-screen graphics during a race. Now, Red Bull's cars have always raced as Red Bull Racing (previously abbreviated as RBR on-screen), and it's listed as such on the FIA's 2015 F1 Entry List and on the timesheets. So, according to my understanding, it should have been "Red Bull Racing-Renault" and not "Red Bull-Renault". Likewise, for 2016 it should be "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer", not "Red Bull-TAG Heuer". The FIA has published the 2016 Provisional Entry List, where it shows that the Red Bull chassis will continue to be known as "Red Bull Racing" in 2016. I tried editing the article to reflect this but it was undone by somebody, so I've put it up for debate here.
  2. Engine name: This is a little bit more unclear for me, but the WP:F1 Updates guidelines seem to suggest that the "future" only becomes "current" on January 1st. So if my interpretation is correct, the heading of the infobox should remain as "Renault" until January 1st at the very earliest. In fact, the FIA's 2016 Provisional Entry List still shows Red Bull Racing's engine as "TBC" so it may even be wise to stretch it until that becomes official with the FIA.

Long story short: my proposal is that "Red Bull-TAG Heuer" should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-Renault" until at least the new year, when it should be changed to "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer". Khairul Islam 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Bull Racing. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Red Bull Racing

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Red Bull Racing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RBR swap":

  • From 2016 Spanish Grand Prix: "New line-up for Spain". Red Bull. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  • From 2016 Formula One season: "New line-up for Spain". redbullracing.com. Red Bull Racing. 5 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed (I used the second one). Thanks, AnomieBOT. And hey, don't put yourself down. DH85868993 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

When we write article content we have a duty to provide full accurate and verifiable information and to maintain a neutral point of view. To those ends I changed the first sentence from "Red Bull Racing is an Austrian Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England." to "Red Bull Racing is a British Formula One racing team,[1] racing under an Austrian licence, and based in Milton Keynes, England. This change was quickly reverted by Britmax.

I believe that without the facts I added, that the article is now misleading, non-neutral and factually inaccurate in that it gives the impression that Red Bull Racing Limited is an Austrian company. The company is clearly British as it is the same company that originally raced as Stewart Grand Prix, then Jaguar Racing F1 Team. The team wasn't disbanded, the personnel were carried forward with the renamings, the company is still registered under the same ID number with Companies House and is still based in the same UK buildings, and has its HQ in the UK.

I guess the complication arises when we consider the status that having an Austrian racing licence confers upon the company. As far as I can tell, as that licence does is require them to race under the Austrian flag and play the Austrian national anthem.

So what can we do about it? I would like to see something similar to my sentence above inserted back into the article to restore credibility and legitimacy to the article. What do others think? -- de Facto (talk). 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Red Bull Racing Limited". Companies House. UK Government. Retrieved 20 April 2017.
Companies House do indeed show them as the direct follow on from Jaguar. Point is, can we cite them directly or do they count as a primary source? Britmax (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Britmax: there are dozens of secondary sources who analyse, re-present and comment upon data from the Companies House database. Here's a selection of them: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -- de Facto (talk). 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Great! Find one and bung it into the article. Britmax (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done. -- de Facto (talk). 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Question is, do we really need the emphasize this British nationality with which it is almost never associated in the sport in the opening sentence. Can't we simply write: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England." That's still as factually correct.Tvx1 02:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as being particularly emphasised, it is simply stated as a defining characteristic of the team, amongst others. Many of the Wiki F1 team articles start in a similar way: "Sauber Motorsport AG, competing as Sauber F1 Team, is a Swiss Formula One team.", "Scuderia Toro Rosso, commonly known as Toro Rosso or by its abbreviation STR, is an Italian Formula One racing team.", "Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited (FWB: WGF1), currently racing in Formula One as Williams Martini Racing, is a British Formula One motor racing team and constructor.", ... (all with my emphasis). So why not this team? You could argue that it is more important in this case because it might not be immediately apparent to casual readers as the team races under an Austrian flag. Each fact adds to the encyclopaedic value of an article. -- de Facto (talk). 06:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that this violates NPOV. I have seen the argument that Red Bull is British played out elsewhere on the internet, and it is always motivated by one thing: British fans trying to claim Red Bull's success as British successes. We should only concern ourselves with one thing — what the FIA says. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I find it quite telling that you consider it an NPOV violation to describe such a quintessentially British team (it was founded and is registered in the UK, has always been based in the UK and has a largely British staff) as British just because it is currently using an Austrian racing licence and yet you seem to think it OK to describe it as Austrian, with no mention of the ephemeral nature of that "nationality" (the team used a British licence when it was named Stewart Grand Prix and when it was named Jaguar Racing and for its first two seasons as Red Bull). -- de Facto (talk). 19:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It is owned by Austrians, funded by Austrians, and competes under an Austrian licences. For all intents and purposes, it is an Austrian team. Any attempt to represent it as British is misleading. The arguments about being founded in the UK, employing British staff and being based there are the favourite arguments of people who want to claim the team's successes for Britain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: if I, as a Russian, bought an English football team, would that team become Russian? -- de Facto (talk). 20:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the team has to be registered with Companies House in order to do business. After all, they have to buy things from contractors. Being registered with Companies House doesn't make their Britishness their defining quality. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: the team is only registered in the UK because it is a British company and it is in the UK. And who said that their Britishness was their defining quality? It is certainly one of their defining characteristics - they are born and bred British, as I said above. OTOH, they have no Austrian heritage at all, and only a loose relationship with Austria through their current owners. -- de Facto (talk). 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"who said that their Britishness was their defining quality?"
You did:
"a quintessentially British team"
"is simply stated as a defining characteristic of the team"
The organisation running RBR might be British, but RBR itself is Austrian. The season entry list published at the start of each year lists both the constructor name and the company name. This article is concerned with the constructor, not the company. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Show us where I said that their Britishness was their defining quality please - or are you misreading/misrepresenting where I said being British was "a defining characteristic of the team"? -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: ah, you accept that the "organisation running RBR might be British", but claim the article is "concerned with the constructor, not the company." Well the article is actually about the team, according to the first sentence, which is more than just the "constructor". Indeed it is little different to the company itself - they even have the same name! Let's not try to hide it, or pretend something different - let's be honest and give the full, neutral, unabridged data, which includes admitting that this is a British team racing under the Austrian flag. -- de Facto (talk). 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The team is owned by Dietrich Mateschitz, who chooses to represent them as Austrian. They race under an Austrian licence, appear as Austrian on entry lists, and when they win a race, the Austrian national flag is shown and anthem played. The FIA recognise them as Austrian, and so should we. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys, the company that operates the team is British, but the team is actually designed as Austrian (not British) by the FIA. In fact, both company and team are listed in separate columns on the pre-season entry lists. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a need to attach a nationality before the team name in the opening sentence. We don't actually use that formula for many team articles, particularly for teams that have switched nationality or are based in a different country to their racing licence. Easier to say something along the lines Tvx1 suggested, such as: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom, running under an Austrian licence".
The idea that there is a WP:NPOV issue is frankly nonsensical. The neutrality of this article does not change if someone says the team is Austrian or British, both are true to an extent, and it makes no difference to the way any of the real information on this page is presented. This is a question about how to formulate the opening sentence. QueenCake (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
NPOV applies if you consider the wider context if the article. Like I said, I have seen people try to claim that Red Bull is British so that their success can be considered British success.
If the issue is the opening sentence, then the solution is simple: make note of the nationality they compete under and mention where they are based. Don't try to prrsent them as British when they regard themselves as Austrian. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I won't comment on the neutrality issue (everyone here has opinions on that regard, and I already made clear mine) but I'll say stating "Red Bull Racing is a British Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, and based in Milton Keynes, England" is not the same as "Red Bull Racing is an Austrian Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England". They are contradicting claims (British or Austrian?). At the end of the day, many distinctions in Formula One are based on words alone, they're constructs, not simple facts. There was a lengthy debate on the engines used by Red Bull, mostly reduced to calling them either "Renault R.E. 17 (badged as Tag Heuer)" or "Tag Heuer (rebadged Renault R.E. 17)". The two options basically bring the same information, but the order the info was given was considered paramount and the consensus ended following the FIA and Red Bull on that. So, I'd say it's certainly a wording problem, but it's not a minor issue. Having said that, I'd have no problem with Tvx1 wording if everyone accepts it and there's no more edit warring for this. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at the wording for Red Bull Racing:

"Red Bull Racing is a British Formula One racing team racing under an Austrian licence since 2007, and based in Milton Keynes, England."

Now compare that to the wording for Force India:

"The Sahara Force India F1 Team is a Formula One racing team based in Silverstone, United Kingdom, with an Indian licence."

Both teams were founded in Britain, are based in Britain, employ large numbers of Britons, and compete under licences issued by other countries. However, the wording of the Red Bull introduction emphasises their Britishness before anything else, whereas the Force India introduction only mentions Britain in the context of its base of operations. The casual reader is led to believe that Red Bull is a British team that has coincidentally adopted an Austrian identity for the time being, whereas Force India is a team that identifies as Indian, but is based in Britain. Despite the similarities, they are being presented in two very different ways, and I don't think Red Bull is being presented in a neutral manner because it implies that their success is British success despite their chosen identity as being Austrian. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I interpret those PM examples differently. The Red Bull example lays the facts bare - and makes it clear that the team is first and foremost British, in heritage as well as in geography, law and culture. But is doesn't hide the fact that the current owners have chosen to race under an Austrian licence (for the time being, yes, and they have also used a British one) which does not change anything about the underlying nationality - all it affects is the way the FIA present their results. OTOH, the Force India example comes across as attempting to deny or hide the team's real background and heritage, although it doesn't actually (falsley) claim that the team is Indian.
Having said that though, I'm much happier with the Force India style wording than the current Red Bull wording which falsely claims that the team itself is Austrian. So, in the spirit of trying to reach a consensus, I'll support using something similar to: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England and racing under an Austrian licence." -- de Facto (talk). 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"the team is first and foremost British, in heritage as well as in geography, law and culture"
All of which are meaningless here. The only thing that matters is how the team chooses to represent itself and how the FIA regard them, and the answer to both of those is "Austrian". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you're putting way too much weight on base location and registry. Even though they are bases and registered in the UK, the team has always been quite vocal about being an Austrian racing team. Most notably when the British national anthem was erroneously played following their first win. As a racing team they are registered with the Austrian motorsports authority. And this article is first and foremost about the constructor. If it had been about the Milton Keynes F1 team it would also detail its activities as Stewart Grand Prix and Jaguar Racing, which actually have their own articles. The Force India example serves to further prove that base location and registry serves little to determine a nationality. Even though that team was based in the UK during its entire existence, it never held a British identity. It started out racing with an Irish identity (Jordan), shortly held a Russian one (Midland), for an equally short period had a Dutch identity (Spyker) before finally settling for an Indian identity (Force India). Similarly the Toyota formula one team was based in Germany, yet I don't think anyone would claim it was a German racing team. Likewise, I don't think anyone would genuinely claim Mercedes is a British formula one team.Tvx1 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The team is British, in terms of it's legal standing. That the owner has chosen to use an Austrian racing licence is only relevant within the jurisdiction of the FIA - and when taking part in FIA events the anthems are controlled by them. Now, even though I may be a Brit, born and bred, I could insist on wearing Austrian dress - would that make me Austrian? Now with being an independent encyclopaedia, and not a Red Bull promotion website or an organ of the FIA, we should present all pertinent factual information about the subject of the article, and not withhold, censor, filter or refuse to host information just because Red Bull don't choose to present it that way or because the FIA don't refer to it. -- de Facto (talk). 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No you wouldn't be Austrian because your passport would still show your nationality being British. However in this case the teams' "passport" lists them as Austrian. It's the Austrian legal motorsports authority which has issued the licence which allows this entity to exist and compete in this sport. So even in legal standing they're very much Austrian.Tvx1 23:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1: exactly, my passport would still be British, no matter how I dressed. And that is the case with this team. Their "passport" is their "certificate of incorporation", which clearly shows them as a British entity. Their motorsport licence is more analogous to my dressing-up clothes - it is transient and they could adopt an alternative country licence at any time. OTOH, the team is British born and bred, born as Stewart, later renamed to Jaguar and currently Red Bull - but all just renames under the same birth and incorporation certificate. They still live in the UK, they have their HQ and facilities in the UK, they pay UK taxes, they enjoy the protection of the British government, but they currently choose to dress as Austrian when they compete in F1. I wonder what team the majority of their employees would support in a soccer game between, say, England and Austria. ;) -- de Facto (talk). 08:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This philosophical debate about what means to be British sure has its merits, but I think a point is missing here. In the past, some editors already tried to put emphasis on the bases, even suggesting to create articles "based" on that criteria. However, the consensus reached was that articles cover constructors, so the argument pointing out that the company operating the team is British and based in the UK is certainly not that relevant. If the company were the primary topic of the article, it would be about "Red Bull Racing Limited" and if it were about the Milton Keynes base it would be something like "Milton Keynes team". --Urbanoc (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
And to further prove the company isn't the primary topic, it's covered (as Tvx1 pointed out) also in another two articles: Stewart Grand Prix and Jaguar Racing which barely mention it, if at all, so obviously the "certificate of incorporation" isn't important to decide how we consider the team. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"They still live in the UK, they have their HQ and facilities in the UK, they pay UK taxes, they enjoy the protection of the British government, but they currently choose to dress as Austrian when they compete in F1."
And until such time as they choose to dress as British, they should be regarded as Austrian. Stop trying to claim their success for Britain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I'm not trying to "claim" anything. That much of their success is due to them being based in the UK's Motorsport Valley goes without saying. I'm just trying to ensure we have a full and accurate account of what the team is, in a neutral and fact-based way, and not biasing the content to be based solely on the team's sporting relationship with the FIA. -- de Facto (talk). 22:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want neutrality, don't call them British (especially when there are other British-based teams competing under a different licence that you don't refer to as being British). They're a team competing under an Austrian licence and based in Britain. To explicitly refer to them as a British team implies that being British is a core part of their identity—which is not reflected in the way the team represent themselves—especially when you mention their being British before anything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: "neutrality" does not mean denying an objective fact, it means balancing and giving due weight alternative subjective opinions. But as I've said elsewhere in this discussion (at 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)), in the spirit of trying to reach a consensus, I'll support using something similar to: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England and racing under an Austrian licence." And what were you referring to when you said: "especially when there are other British-based teams competing under a different licence that you don't refer to as being British"? -- de Facto (talk). 08:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But mentioning a barely used national identity in the opening sentence isn't exactly neutral either. That's just as much out of balance. Discussing it in body is giving it more than enough due weight if you ask me.Tvx1 10:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Tvx1 for clarifying that. I was certainly baffled. ;) It is a good point though, and reflected in our proposals for the new first sentence. -- de Facto (talk). 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
DeFacto, if you mean it, you should admit that there's not such a big problem with the wording as it stands as you said. The team is Austrian because it represents Austria, not the United Kingdom. There was a clear consensus to write the articles from a constructor angle, following a FIA-based perspective, and I'd say "sporting relationship" is something relevant in which is basically an article about a sports team. The UK base is mentioned, so there's not an intention to hide the British role in their success (although Red Bull money surely helped on that...). I don't see your arguments searching a compromise but an endorsement of your viewpoint, which, at least from my side, is far from happening... --Urbanoc (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: if by "if you mean it" you were asking whether I meant it when I wrote "I'm just trying to ensure we have a full and accurate account of what the team is, in a neutral and fact-based way, and not biasing the content to be based solely on the team's sporting relationship with the FIA.", then I certainly did! Which is why I fundamentally disagree with calling the team Austrian. That is a perversion of the truth. They race under an Austrian licence, that's all. I don't accept your definition of being British or Austrian as necessarily being synonymous with the nationality of the racing licence they hold. This team is a British legal entity, holding a foreign licence. -- de Facto (talk). 08:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
DeFacto Which is precisely my point: you are the only one that thinks calling the team Austrian is such a "perversion of the truth". And that's why this discussion continues. Urbanoc (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: do you really think this edit was a good idea, especially as you'd just quoted the pre-edit version as an example for here. -- de Facto (talk). 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Could I suggest we use "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom..." instead of Milton Keynes? Simply because the exact location of the team's headquarters is not important enough for the opening sentence, and using United Kingdom emphasises the fact the team is partially British a little stronger, which creates a stronger comprise between the two sides. QueenCake (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable suggestion to me. -- de Facto (talk). 16:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't agree with that. First of all, why would we need to "emphasise" its Britishness? And most teams are based in the United Kingdom, so saying it that way without indicating the exact location is not very useful even for a lede. Second, I think there are three options that are not really compatible on this issue: we can 1) Go for a non-judgmental language saying "The team is based in X City, England (or United Kingdom) and has a X-licence" and let the readers decide if they'll consider it British or not 2) Somehow highlight the British aspect, following the British press 3) Somehow highlight the Austrian aspect, following the FIA and Red Bull. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I intend that my proposed wording be: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in Milton Keynes, England.". When I noticed I had mistakingly forgotten a part I added it to my original proposal but it got reverted.Tvx1 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, your proposition is the better up to now, and the only clearly neutral, so I cast a !vote for it as it stands. I think it address the perceived pro-Austrian bias in the lede without making it a defense of British identity. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — I'm perfectly fine with that wording, although I would make one tweak:
"Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, competing under an Austrian licence and based in Milton Keynes, England."
In fact, that should probably be the way the introduction for all team articles are written.
@Urbanoc —
"why would we need to "emphasise" its Britishness?"
We don't. There is no need to do it and the team consistently identify as Austrian. I have seen the whole "Red Bull are really a British team" argument come up elsewhere on the internet, and it's always motivated by the same thing: a desire to claim the team's success for Britain. As such, I think it would be a massive violation of NPOV to depict them as British here, especially since the arguments made—that they were founded in Britain, are based in Britain, mostly employ British people and so on—are the very same arguments made by people who want to claim the team's success for Britain. It's part of a wider attitude that I have noticed among the British fans and media—that the sport owes Britain something.
I certainly don't think that calling the team Austrian equates to "pro-Austrian bias", as you put it, given the way the team identify as Austrian themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I was essentially supporting Tvx1's wording, with the only tweak being exchanging Milton Keynes for United Kingdom, in the interests of comprise and the belief that the exact location was not important enough for the opening sentence. Whatever wording that leaves out an adjective before "Red Bull Racing" will do. QueenCake (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. You are right. So I change my proposed wording to: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in the United Kingdom."Tvx1 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys: Yeah, in fact I agree with you and I don't even have a problem with saying "Austrian Formula One team" (that's not incorrect from an F1 perspective). An editor consider that a violation of NPOV, so the neutral (original) Tvx1 wording seems a good compromise. However, putting too much emphasis on the British base as it was suggested seems a contradiction of existing consensus. As far as I know, articles cover constructors, not their physical bases or the companies that operate them. That's why we don't have "Team Enstone" or "Team Brackley" articles.
I disagree with the wording changes and oppose them. I think is too much for a compromise, but if there's consensus on that. ...Urbanoc (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that we go with @Tvx1's wording, but apply it to all constructor articles:

"Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team competing under an Austrian licence and based in Milton Keynes, England."
"McLaren is a Formula One racing team competing under a British licence and based in Woking, England."
"Force India is a Formula One racing team, competing under an Indian licence and based in Silverstone, England."
"Scuderia Toro Rosso is a Formula One racing team, competing under an Italian licence and based in Faenza, Italy."

I like this because it's neutral, consistent across the articles, and acknowleges the team identity—because when you think about it, Ferrari and Williams are really the only teams with a correlation between their identity and their heritage. Red Bull Racing was founded by Britons, but is owned by an Austrian company that manufactures and distributes a product that originates in Thailand. McLaren competes under a British licence, but was founded by a New Zealander and funded by Bahrainis. Haas is owned by an American, but uses a chassis designed by an Italian firm and is based in England.

Besides, presenting a team as being of one nationality because of its history, headquarters, founder and workforce constitutes original research, especially if it competes under a different licence. What if a new team joins with a Bolivian licence, but was a) founded by a Mongolian, b) is based in Zimbabwe, c) mostly employs Latvians, and d) competed exclusively in Taiwan before joining the grid? Would that team be considered Bolivian, Mongolian, Zimbabwean, Latvian or Taiwanese? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can dictate the content of other articles from the talkpage of this one article. To discuss what happens in those other articles you need to discuss it on their respective talkpages, or at least at the F1 project page.
And the only thing dictating the legal nationality of a team is where its legal company is incorporated. The team's ethos, culture and choice of flag/licence may well be influenced by those other things though, and may well have a profound enough effect to justify being mentioned in the article, as in the case of this article. -- de Facto (talk). 08:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what you think. Most people here seem to disagree with that. A racing license is a legal document as well. And not only for the FIA. I do agree though that we shouldn't be enforcing this on all constructors' articles (remember the active one aren't the only ones we have articles on).Tvx1 10:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I think we've more or less reached an agreed compromise not to call the team either British or Austrian without qualification. They are British in one context and Austrian in another. Let's work on the final wording. -- de Facto (talk). 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
"the only thing dictating the legal nationality of a team is where its legal company is incorporated"
The problem is that you aren't making that distinction in the article lead. You're treating their British-ness as the product of their legal status and their Austian-ness as a product of their chosen identity, but you wanted the article to describe them as "a British Formula One team competing under an Austrian racing licence". Despite the different contexts of the nationalities, you're treating them the same way in the article.
"This team is a British legal entity, holding a foreign licence."
Then discuss that in the body, not in the lead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I think we've already moved on from there and reached an agreed compromise not to call the team either British or Austrian without qualification or context. -- de Facto (talk). 16:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
DeFacto, obviously we are not completely bound by other articles, but as I said, you can't simply ignore this kind of articles' primary focus as decided by the WikiProject Formula One, which is constructors; not bases, not companies and even less culture as you constantly repeat. And where did you got companies registry or base represents a nationality on such a broad sense? There're companies based on the Netherlands or Switzerland only for legal (and taxes) reasons, which doesn't mean they chose to adopt a Swiss or Dutch identity. Companies and sports teams aren't the same thing, even if they're somewhat related. The all-British description you insist on has not a supporter other than you, the consensus against it is quite clear. However, some editors are more comfortable with a purely descriptive, non-nationality language. So, to move on this, I ask to all editors involved: Who supports Tvx1 wording as a compromise? As I said, I personally prefer the original version (and I explained why), but the rest agrees with it? Urbanoc (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: yes, I think we have moved on from there, I supported a very similar compromise wording more than 2 days ago in the 2nd paragraph of this edit. Let's see if we can all agree the final form. -- de Facto (talk). 16:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
As you continued discussing the team true national identity, I thought you had backed off fom the compromise solution idea. Thanks for the clarification. Well then, let's move on indeed. I already commented on the proposals you ordered. Urbanoc (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Current proposals

Reading back through the discussion, and extracting what I believe are the latest suggestions from all who have made a suggestion, I think we have the following proposals (in chronological order):

1. "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom, running under an Austrian licence" -- QueenCake 21:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
2. "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in Milton Keynes, England and racing under an Austrian licence." -- DeFacto 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
3. "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in Milton Keynes, England." -- Tvx1 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
3b. "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team based in the United Kingdom, racing under an Austrian licence" -- Tvx1 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
4. "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, competing under an Austrian licence and based in Milton Keynes, England." -- Prisonermonkeys 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please correct me if I've got it wrong. What shall we use? -- de Facto (talk). 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea, actually. I personally have no big problems with 2, 3 and 4. There're small emphasis differences that make me prefer 3 and 4, but nothing really that objectable. I would go with 4 simply because it avoids the "Racing... racing" duplication in the same sentence. I object 1 because I think if we go for the descriptive compromise there's no need to first be specific and then vague. However, as I said, if the rest of the editors prefers it I'll accept it. Urbanoc (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Erm, no that's wrong. My proposal is the same as #1 with running being replaced by racing.Tvx1 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Tvx1, I must have missed that one. I've corrected the list above now. -- de Facto (talk). 07:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really care. All four fix the disputed content. And to be blunt, I feel that this entire conversation has been unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with the original wording and the perceived need to mention Britain created significantly more problems (all of them) than it solved (none). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What was wrong was as you say, the original wording was disputed. Now we seem to have reached a consensus on an agreed wording, which proves the value of this conversation, in my book. I'm not sure any problems will remain now, with the first sentence, which means we've solved all of them! -- de Facto (talk). 17:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The only one disputing them was you. Consensus is unanimity.Tvx1 12:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That isn't what it says in WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... -- de Facto (talk). 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I meant. The omission of not was a typo. Consensus is not unanimity.Tvx1 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. But as we also know from WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not the result of a vote either. In fact, that policy tells us this: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And that is surely what we did, I thought. -- de Facto (talk). 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As no-one seems to be objecting to any of these four the last three proposals, and as more than one commenter supported Tvx1's proposal, I have implemented that, the 3b proposal from above. -- de Facto (talk). 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, good thing this ended. But I'll have something to say about DeFacto's closing comments.
As no-one seems to be objecting to any of these four proposals
I have been troubled by this remark. At least one editor clearly objected the chosed proposal and that was me. I opposed 1, and gave my reasons. Which I said is that I was ready to drop the stick if the consensus was against me. 3b, the version I suppose is endorsed by the majority, is basically 1 using one different word and, significantly, with "United Kingdom" and "Austrian licence" order changed compared to the Tvx1 proposal. Acceptance doesn't really mean agreement and consensus doesn't mean unanimity.
On the usefulness of all this excesively lenghty debate about one sentence, I'm more inclined to agree with Prisonermonkeys. It looked to me like a wording that stood for years was changed because one editor was really opposing it and others prefered to go for an alternative solution because of that, not because they thought the previous wording was really that bad. Consensus is the tool we have to tackle divisive issues, but that's the only good thing I think we can claim about the previous discussions. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: on your first point, that was clearly my careless mistake, sorry - I meant the last three, and I have now corrected it above. It doesn't affect the conclusion though, thankfully. -- de Facto (talk). 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Very well, then. So, the "United Kingdom" and "Austrian licence" swapping was also a careless mistake? Really, my good faith assumption is really stretchted here. But I don't question the result, if that's your concern. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: swapping, where? -- de Facto (talk). 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Well, the Tvx1 actual proposal is this, not the one you included as "3b", and I quote (the actual Tvx1 proposal bolded): "Indeed. You are right. So I change my proposed wording to: "Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in the United Kingdom."Tvx1 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Tvx1 is actually OK with that change (at least it seems from his words "is the same as 1"), but you actually changed it. And if you simply made an insignificant change to 1, you should admit that at least one person was opposing to 3b. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: I merely reacted to Tvx1's reprimand here after I added #3 as their proposal, I assumed they knew what their proposal was, so took them at their word, and made this edit in reaction to that - following Tvx1's instructions exactly - and replacing "running" with "racing". If you think Tvx1 was mistaken, please take it up with them, not me. And who opposed 3b? -- de Facto (talk). 20:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Me, because 1 and 3b are exactly the same minus a word, either you admit it or not. If you don't admit it, that's OK, but it's obvious. You decided no-one was opposing before I commented again, but it's was clear I'd be still opposing a mere copycat of the wording I was opposing before. You re-ordered the proposal, not Tvx1, and you could simply go backwards in the discussion to see how really it was. If you'd say "Oh, OK, I mean a clear majority seems to agree" I'd be OK. But you're trying to deny basic things. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: I note your comment, accept your criticism, but plead innocence and hope you can see it was good faith incompetence, and nothing more, on my part. I assumed Tvx1 had found a mistake in my summary, so corrected it in accordance with their instructions without realising the impact that had on your previous comment. Please accept my apologies. -- de Facto (talk). 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto:: Well, as you're apologising, I have no other option that accept you were acting in good faith (or ending as the biggest Wikipedia jackass). In my experiency, editors acting in bad faith rarely apologise, if at all. So, let me also apologise for badly interpreting a good faith, non-intentional action as something more. I'm human, after all. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: thanks for your gracious response, and yours accepted also. -- de Facto (talk). 06:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my proposed wording was indeed the one Urbanoc quoted. But clearly I also supported the original wording introducing them as Austrian.Tvx1 12:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not what you said it was most recently then, at 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC): My proposal is the same as #1 with running being replaced by racing., and that I used verbatim to correct what I had originally given? I'm even more confused now. -- de Facto (talk). 17:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Because the order wasn't an issue that. But since Urbanoc asked for clarification, my proposal is the order of words Urbanoc quoted.Tvx1 18:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that Tvx1 has confirmed that their apparent later correction/confirmation of their proposed wording was in fact misunderstood, I guess we need to adopt the originally proposed and now re-confirmed wording, that is: Red Bull Racing is a Formula One racing team, racing under an Austrian licence, based in the United Kingdom. -- de Facto (talk). 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Have we got it right now? -- de Facto (talk). 20:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red Bull Racing. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Red Bull Powertrains Limited"

There should be a section created under "corporate information" for "Red Bull Powertrains" -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As the article on it no longer exists, you can be bold and create a subsection for RBP yourself. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

2022 Drivers

Request that Max Verstappen is placed above Sergio Perez, this is due to Verstappen electing to use car number 1 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Horner contract extension

Hi all, I just browsed motorsport.com and found an interesting read. On 22nd of December 2021, RB apparently extended Horner's contract 'at least until 2026'. Is this notable enough to include in this page? Thanks. Klrfl (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably something more fit for Horner's own article, in my opinion. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added team logo as it seems like this is the only F1 team page without its logo. If there are any copyright violations, please replace the image but there needs to be a team logo image. The current image is from the team website redbullracing.com itself. Thanks Vinrpm.p6054 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Simply put; no Wikipedia page, F1 or otherwise, "needs" images or logos. Certainly not when those images violate a very clear copyright. DragonFury (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Vinrpm.p6054: No it doesn't ″need″ it, as DragonFury said above. If you can find a non copyrighted image then use it, but you're ripping the image straight from their site and violating copyright, despite several warnings to stop. Since you apparently are incapable of following Wikipedia policy despite being warned multiple times you can expect an ANI notice as soon as I have time to write up a report. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Another one of those typical admins on wikipedia. And why not there needs to be a team logo? It is a sports team, so ask yourself why not. And if you have so many problems with me adding the team logo here, why don't you insert one yourself from a legal source? Vinrpm.p6054 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Vinrpm.p6054: I don't understand why "there needs to be a team logo image." I get how it can be a good addition, but needs? Secondly, if you want something to be included, the onus is on you to a find a non-copyright way of doing it, not anyone else. SSSB (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the diference between File:Oracle Red Bull Racing logo.png and File:OracleRBR.png? They both seem like the same copyright-violating image to me; they're the same size (7 KB), they have the same dimensions (328 x 154 pixels), and were both sourced from the same website. I'm confused. Does simply adding a proper explanation to File:Oracle Red Bull Racing logo.png make it valid for use on Wikipedia? --KingErikII (Talk page) 08:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The Commons file is, indeed, identical. It cannot be hosted at Commons as it is non-free. It will be deleted from Commons in due course.
The en.wp file can be hosted and used locally here, because we have WP:Non-free content exceptions which Commons does not.
Using a logo to identify an organisation is one of those exceptions, with which this file complies.
It may only be used here for that purpose - i.e. you can't use it in templates, on other pages etc... without a valid rationale.
This is explained at WP:NFC. Begoon 08:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ooooooooooooh, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! I'm sorry for my wanton revertion of your edit; I should have assumed good faith and re-read some Wikipedia policy. I had forgotten Commons and WP:EN have slightly different policies regarding copyright... --KingErikII (Talk page)
No problem. You're not the first person to be confused by complex image licensing issues, and I'm sure you won't be the last. Begoon 09:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Bull_Racing/Archive_1&oldid=1194158548"