Talk:McLaren/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

McLaren naming

Shouldn't this article's title be the actual name of the team - "Team McLaren Mercedes" ? Or if the sponsor doesn't belong (since it could change - like Scuderia Ferrari, where Marlboro is left out) it could just be "Team McLaren" or simply "McLaren." The purpose of the article is to inform eve19rybody that McLaren is a racing team - the title should just be the name. Opinions? Rdsmith4 22:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well McLaren isn't just a racing team, there is also the McLaren Group and the McLaren Cars company (both of which I have created articles for). Personally, I think "McLaren" should be turned into a disambig page for all of the McLaren articles.
We need to keep in mind that although this article only covers Formula One at the moment, McLaren has also competed in Indy, Can Am and the 24 Hours of Le Mans (with the McLaren F1 GTR). The name of the article should reflect this. From their website i've deduced that in Indy and Can Am they were called "Team McLaren". I can't find their official name for their Le Mans team or the F1 team before it was "Team McLaren Mercedes", but I can't imagine that they were called anything other than "Team McLaren". Therefore, I think that "Team McLaren" is the best place to move this article. Alternatively we could move it to "McLaren (racing team)" which is just as correct but to me, doesn't seem to read as nicely. Just my opinions. SamH 11:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I now realise that you have just added some info about Indy, Can Am etc. Note to self: always read article directly before commenting on it. SamH 11:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have just made McLaren into a disambig and will move this article to Team McLaren in a moment. Thanks for your opinion. Rdsmith4 05:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The team was never called Team McLaren. When Bruce McLaren founded the company, it was called Bruce McLaren Motor Racing, the same designation it used as an entrant (until sponsorship came along, thus becoming Yardley McLaren, Marlboro Team Texaco and Marlboro Team McLaren throughout the 70s), while the racing car sales business was called McLaren Cars Ltd. This disappeared when McLaren stopped building Indycars.
When Ron Dennis bought McLaren and merged it into his Project Four Racing in 1980, the new company's name was McLaren International. When Mercedes bought into the company and had it branch out, the racing team became McLaren Racing. The entrant's name in '81 was Marlboro McLaren, becoming Honda Marlboro McLaren in 1988, and later Marlboro McLaren Peugeot, Marlboro McLaren Mercedes and now, West McLaren Mercedes (this is the official name on the F1WC entry list). Never Team McLaren, which is just a trademark for merchandising purposes.
Therefore, I propose this entry be merged with that of McLaren Racing, under that name, and that Team McLaren starts referring to that page. --Pc13 13:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and I might as well say this, McLaren never entered the Indy 500 and Le Mans with a factory team. McLaren Cars used to build customer cars for the Indy 500/USAC Indycars in the early 70s, the Penske team being the closest there was to a proper "works" effort. The orange McLaren Cars entry, as well as the Sunoco car, was run from Roger Penske's shop. As for Le Mans, the Ueno Clinic winning car from '95 was entered from Japan by Kokusai Racing, while the rest of the cars between '95 and '98 were run by Ray Bellm's GTC Racing, David Price's DPR, Fabien Giroix, Jean-Luc Maury-Laribière, BMW Motorsport (with Bigazzi and Schnitzer) and Parabolica Racing.
I'm not sure any conclusion was reached above. It seems to me that McLaren as an entity produces the Mercedes SLR McLaren and it also has a racing team known as Team McLaren. The history mentioned above is interesting, but in the present day the company is not that different to Renault or BMW, being a manafacturer and an F1 team. I think McLaren should point to the McLaren Group (as do Renault and BMW to their companies) and that Team McLaren should point to the F1 team. Anyone else got any thoughts? Tibi08 08:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Mercedes are not a sponsor, they are a part owner of the team (40% I think)
DaimlerChrysler is 40% owner of McLaren Group and hence its Team McLaren subsidiary. Mark83 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious error in these pages as there is no mention of the split between what is now called McLaren Performance Technology (of Livonia, MI-the adopted home of Bruce McLaren. See: http://www.mclarenperformance.com ) and McLaren Cars. Linamar Corp of Canada is the owner of the former McLaren Engines group established by Bruce McLaren in Livonia.

New logo?

The current uploaded logo is never used (is it even official?). I think that this logo is better: http://www.mclaren.com/mediaroom/presspack/tmm.gif ?

I agree, Wikipedia was the first time I ever saw that logo, and I've never seen it anywhere else (although I do think it looks quite good!). Perhaps it would be best to change it to the logo suggested above? doctorvee 17:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statistics table

In the 1960s/70s, works and privateers drivers and team designations are all mixed in. They should be separated. Any suggestions? I propose italics for privateers. --Pc13 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Teamwork

I've heard Kimi & David made the longest-lasting duo in F1's mod age, @6yr thru '00. Confirm & include? Trekphiler 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika and David, actually. Also, McLaren's involvement with Hugo Boss constitutes the longest-standing sponsorship deal in F1. Sbz5809 08:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Replacement

There are a lot of wrongly licenced images (GFDL claimed when clearly All Rights Reserved applies) used in the article. I've started to go through and flag some of them up. I've also replaced some Fair Use images with freely licenced alternatives, [Image:Mclaren_m7a_1967.jpg] with [Image:McLarenBruce19690801.jpg] for example. Please revert if there was a reason for using the former image, but as far as I could tell they illustrate the article equally well and therefore the freely licenced alternative seems the sensible option. Alexj2002 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Records

I have a feeling that "Records" section is incorrectly named or at least "Most" should be removed from record names since these are not the best records in F1 history.

You have a point - Ferrari have overtaken most of the ones they did hold, haven't they? I wasn't really thinking earlier. I don't really see the point of the section unless they are records. -- Ian Dalziel 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Records sections like this caused conflict on the Toyota F1 page - some of them largely repeat the info box at the top Lradrama 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Juan Pablo Montoya still on this page

I think that Juan Pablo Montoya should be removed from this page. He doesn't even race for the team anymore. Even if his contracted has not expired, he now has no relation with Team Mclaren. Baseracer 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting logic. Margaret Thatcher isn't Prime Minister anymore, so should we remove every reference to her premiership from Wikipedia? Mark83 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but you misunderstand me. I wanted Montoya of the CURRENT drivers for team Mclaren, not the past driver list. He should not be with the other two drivers on top of current drivers.Baseracer 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Last season without a win

When was the last season without a win for McLaren? 86.17.211.129 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember from last weekend's coverage 13 years being mentioned - but I could be making that up. I'll try and check it. Mark83 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


1994, 1995, 1996 was the last seasons that mclaren have not won any races in, following the departure of Ayrton Senna to Williams.Mono-82 21:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In panoramio.com have a very interesting photos gpl about the mclaren presentation 15 january 2007 in valencia, tags formula 1, valencia, nocturna

Suggested Merge

I've suggested merging McLaren Racing into McLaren. I can see that there's a technical distinction between the two, but McLaren Racing as an article (a very small stub) is unlikely to be expanded, and the info there at the moment just overlaps with McLaren anyway. The way i see it: info about racing will go into McLaren, and things about business into McLaren Group, i can't see the need for a page in between the two. What do people think? Spute 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Undoubtedly McLaren Racing (formerly McLaren International) has a great racing pedigree. However as Spute suggests, that racing pedigree is better described at McLaren. And there are two options:
  1. McLaren Racing stays a stub forever
  2. McLaren Racing is expanded to be more or less a duplication of McLaren
Neither of these are sensible conclusions. Mark83 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support' and set up redirect form McLaren Racing to McLaren. Alexj2002 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Done Spute 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

Just passing through with my two-penn'orth. Coverage is fine, covers all the F1 bases - bit short on areas outside F1?, structure wanders a bit. Extremely short on references. Hope this is of some help! 4u1e 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism?

Someone changed the numbers in the sentence "The fact that Coulthard qualified third for its first race, the French Grand Prix, gave the team hope of a better end to the season which was realised when Räikkönen took a famous victory at the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix ahead of the seemingly unstoppable Ferrari of Michael Schumacher whom won 11 of the 17 races that year" to '13 of the 18'. Could someone verify this and determine whether it's a correction or vandalism?

"13 of the 18" is correct. DH85868993 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not NPOV

"2000 was another closely-fought season, but ultimately Ferrari's Michael Schumacher prevailed."

"In 2001, Mika Häkkinen dropped off the pace in comparison with Coulthard, although neither driver could compete with the now dominant combination of Michael Schumacher and Ferrari."

"This was realised when Räikkönen won the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix ahead of the seemingly unstoppable Ferrari of Michael Schumacher, who won 13 of the 18 races that year, currently the record for most wins in a single season."

"with one source[6] even stating that McLaren had built such a strong team that the only way to increase their championship hopes was to hire double world champion Michael Schumacher"

This is clearly not a neutral point of view. They should be edited, or else deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abresas (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Go ahead and delete them. See also WP:BB --dionyziz 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
Precisely, what is NPOV POV about "2000 was another closely-fought season, but ultimately Ferrari's Michael Schumacher prevailed"? The other examples seem fairly inoffensive to me, too, although I suppose "seemingly unstoppable" might be too fawning. On the other hand, Schumacher did seem pretty unstoppable at the time in question. Shouldn't that be said? GreenGourd (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to correct silly mistake, pointed out below—thanks!) GreenGourd (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I take it GreenGourd you mean "what is NPOVPOV about..." and if so I sort of agree. The tone and vagueness is perhaps the problem rather than the neutrality. Is a 19 point gap out of a possible 170 (i.e. over 10% of possible points, or two wins with two non-scores) close? Perhaps saying that again the championship was fought between McLaren & Ferrari/Hakkinen & Schumacher but ultimately MS prevailed. 2001 was dominated by MS (60-odd point margin advantage) so I'm this could fairly easily be sourced. The last one is stated as opinion not fact, with citation, and if it were changed to say "with F1 Racing magazine even stating" would definitely be perfectly acceptable. AlexJ (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yardley McLaren in 2004?

I was looking at the Yardley McLaren picture and notice the description below was "The McLaren M19C, with its distinctive Yardley sponsorship, being demonstrated during the 2004 Canadian GP weekend." Since I don't know when the picture was really taken, I didn't edit itLinkinstreet 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The documentation for the picture says it was taken on June 11, 2004. I imagine the car was being demonstrated as a historic car, not a current one. -- DH85868993 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct, the data shows it as being digitised in June 11, 2004. It also shows it as being digitised by a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL which a digital camera not a scanner, indicating it was almost certainly originally taken at the same time it was digitised. The flickr source where the image came from says the same thing. AlexJ 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Added to that, the driver is wearing a modern, full-face helmet, and the car is running on Avon rubber, neither of which were avaiable in period. Pyrope 08:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

British or German?

I see some German journos and MB employees are starting to complain that the Union Flag/God Save The Queen accompanies McLaren on the podium when MB own a large stake of the team and supply the engine. Well, the team has seen engine manufacturers come and go for 30 years and has been based in England all that time. Most of the techies are Brits. The engine was initially Ilmor (British - bought by MB) and is still designed and built in Brixworth, England. The factory and all related facilities are in Woking, England. It is run and controlled by Brits. Not very German is it...? ;o) 86.17.211.191 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the DaimlerChrysler relationship is closer than any that's gone before. However all your points regarding Britishness are valid. If DaimlerChrysler were to purchase 100% of the group, they would be justified in re-registering the team (even though the car would still be a largely British effort). Mark83 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
According to what I've read, this was a none issue until Bild publish it. And AFAIK, MB personnels like Haug said that it does not matter as the team is multicountry. Considering that Bruce McLaren was a New Zealander, he did not register the team as a New Zealand team, but rather as a British team. Linkinstreet 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's based in England. The chassis is British. Ilmor is a British designed and built engine. All the technical staff are British. Not sure how it could possibly be called German. Why don't Mercedes start their own F1 team? I guess because they don't want to spend 5 years at the back of the grid!

Number of Fastest Laps

There seems to be some disagreement over McLaren's total number of fastest laps following the 2007 Monaco Grand Prix:

  • www.mclaren.com says 132
  • www.forix.com says 130
  • www.formula1.com says 129

Any confirmation for any of these? DH85868993 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Short of counting each FL and coming up with our own total, I don't know how we can confirm these with three reputable sources all saying three different things. AlexJ 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Formula One Results

Should a new page be created for McLaren's results? Years 1990-1998 were removed due to article size,yet the Ferrari page has these years under 'recent' results. chem_tom 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now being discussed on the WP:F1 talk page. AlexJ 18:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Too detailed?

I think the amount of detail for the 2007 season is far too much for this article - it should go into the 2007 Formula One season article where necessary. Perhaps some of the 2006 season detail is also excessive. Can someone prune it? I'd do it myself but it's locked.--216.82.251.227 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe the idea is that people coming here will just want to hear about McLaren in 2007, and not have to weed through the entire F1 page. Charles 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Towards the start of the season, I did pull the race-by-race descriptions out. However they're still being added by people who maybe slightly over eager to ensure that WP is totally up-to-date. The Race-by-race stuff belongs in the 2007 Formula One Season and come the end of the season anything relevant can be moved to there, and then the section can be pruned significantly to bring it in line with other seasons. AlexJ 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It gets worse! Most of the article seems to be concerned with events in the 2007/8 seasons. The only things that belong here are brief mentions, and links to other articles for: losing both championships in Brazil 2007; Alonso v Hamilton; Spygate; Winning the WDC at the death in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.48.88 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

2007 espionage - correction please

At the moment the article says McLaren has been "excluded from the 2007 Constructors' Championship". This is wrong - they've simply had their points wiped (though in effect this does mean they cannot win this season). Can someone fix this?--216.82.251.227 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong - the team has been excluded. mattbuck 15:59, 14

September 2007 (UTC)

Autosport.com says that they lost their points, not that they were excluded. It also reports that they could have points at the end of the season, which I don't think would be possible if they were excluded from the constructors championship. The BBC also refer to it as points deduction rather than exclusion. It's possible they weren't being that careful over their wording though so it might be best to check the World Motor Sport Council transcripts, which should be available midday on Wednesday, to see the official wording Kathy Giffin 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the report which you linked is the one which you are basing your comments on, but that one relates to the Hungarian Grand Prix, not to the recent WMSC judgement. Pyrope 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Autosport page I linked is the one that I based my comments on. The article is talking about the Hungarian Grand Prix but it also refers to the WMSC judgement

"The appeal, which was lodged swiftly after the penalty was handed down, had been expected to be dropped in the wake of McLaren losing their constructors' championship points over Formula One's spying affair.

However, the matter was slightly complicated by the fact that the team could have several million dollars taken off their fine if they had enough constructors' championship points to stay ahead of Ferrari at the end of the season"

Another of their pages reports the quote below though. Kathy Giffin 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds as though that article was written by the tea boy... How on Earth could they possibly have sufficient points to overhaul Ferrari by the end of the season? Pyrope 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a poorly explained explanation of how their fine works. Their fine will be deducted the prize money FOM (that's Bernie's company) would have paid McLaren if they kept, and were still eligible to get, WCC points. If they would have finished ahead of Ferrari had it not been for the exclusion then FOM will "pay" them the first place prize money (it actually will go to the FIA who will reduce McLaren's fine by the same amount). Should their virtual points total be behind Ferrari then they will have the equivalent of second place prize money paid off their fine. AlexJ 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can't score anymore points. The FIA Statement on the Formula 1 Official Web-site says, "The WMSC has stripped Vodafone McLaren Mercedes of all constructors' points in the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship and the team can score no point for the remainder of the season ." sdgjake 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the wording could be changed slightly to reflect the official press release and include a reference straight from the source, the World Motor Sport Council's press release on the FIA site. I tried to change it but I can't.

However, following the emergence of new evidence understood to have been provided by Alonso and De la Rosa ref, the FIA heard the case again on September 13. The second hearing resulted in McLaren being stripped of all 2007 Constructors' Championship points and excluded from scoring any more points for the remainder of the season. ref They were also fined $100 million and obliged to submit their 2008 chassis for scrutiny. Their drivers' position in the Drivers' Championship are unaffected ref.

In a press statement given shortly after the decision was announced a visibly disappointed Ron Dennis said he did "not accept that we deserved to be penalised in this way" ref. Responding to media reports during the weekend following the decision, FIA President Max Mosley maintained that "any fine had to be large enough to deter similar behaviour in the future whilst remaining proportionate to the resources of the team" ref

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy Giffin (talk • contribs) 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of points

I saw an anon removed them and I was going to hit the undo but then I thought maybe this is something that should be discussed. As it will be a huge thing if they finish ahead of Ferarri in points but don't win due to the exclusion, I think their inclusion /will/ end up being relevent (And they are getting financial credit for the points haul, after all). Whats the general view? Narson 09:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be relevant to include the points they would have won and their would-have-been constructors' position, since it's a measure of how successful the team has been over the years. Yes, they were excluded, and it should be noted that their official position was dead last with 0 points, but it will look really odd if they get a drivers' champion and have no points. Add it in ref tags maybe. mattbuck 10:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that, as their financial penalty largely depends on how many phantom points they score this season, the points tally is of interest. However, to state that they finished first is a touch disengenuous as technically they aren't even in the WCC any more this year. Maybe a footnote would be the best way forward, to state that had they still been included this total would have been enough to win. On a similar point, as they have been excluded (i.e. kicked out) their official position is that they have no official position. They aren't in last place in the WCC, as they aren't even in the WCC. Pyrope 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

while on this topic, i've amended the points to 203 points. 109 from alonso, 109 from hamilton, and deducting 15 points from the hungarian grand prix where hamilton finished first (10pts) and alonso 4th (5pts) correct me if i'm wrong :) Oahiyeel 08:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MP4/11 and MP4-12

Is there a reson for all McLaren car since 1997 having "-" instead of "/" to separate the number?Joaopais 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have this idea in the back of my head that someone (Ron Dennis?) decided that the "-" was "more aesthetically pleasing", but I couldn't point you to a reference for that. -- DH85868993 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've done some research, though. According to McLaren's official website, in the Timeline (see History) you can check out that the first McLaren with a "-" was the McLaren MP4-16 of 2001. In this article the cars start having a "-" in 1996. I'll change them. Joaopais 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The 1996/1997 change would have made sense as that's when Marlboro ended their sponsorship deal, and MP4 went from standing for Marlboro Project 4 to McLaren Project 4, however since McLaren make a clear distinction between the two in their timelines, I'm inclined to believe that they are correct in saying 2001. As a check, you could ask someone with a copy of the 1997 & 2001 Autocourse annuals to check (there's a list of people who'd be willing to check it here). AlexJ (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Martin Whitmarsh CEO?

As far as I remember, isn't Martin Whitmarsh a CEO of some sort? I think he is the CEO of the team? Thats what it says on his page. I will edit it in and await comments. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He was captioned on ITV's qualifying show today as "CEO, McLaren Formula One". I assume this would be McLaren Racing. AlexJ (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what it says on the his WP page, and he is practically team principal anyway, so we may as well kkep him there. Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be there as he really isn't a team principal. Today we just got news Ron Dennis now probably will change his role after McLaren's WDC that Whitmarsh will be the team principal, but that Dennis will stay in McLaren at some other position. When confirmed, it should be changed to Whitmarsh. --Pudeo⺮ 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the McLaren official web page lists him as filling two roles: CEO, Formula 1, Vodaphone McLaren Mercedes and COO, McLaren Group. Two minutes research and a reliable, citable source... Give the guesswork and hazy recollections a rest. Pyrope 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He's team boss now: Ron Dennis eroaa virastaan - MTV3. --"Cardinalen" (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope about "guesswork and hazy recollections" being unhelpful. And just to address one of those - Ron Dennis is keeping his post as Chairman of McLaren Group - which although centred around the racing team, has a lot of other business interests & activities. The stories today highlight the development of the new road car for example. Mark83 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

Just moving this interesting paragraph from the lead to the talk page. It may have a place in the article, but I feel it doesn't belong in the lead.

''Autosport'' judges McLaren to have "bigger, more sophisticated" technical resources than any other team and a resultant higher development rate throughout a season. However it states that "operationally it is not as slick [as [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]]], and this typically shows during moments of high stress. In such moments it's a team with a tendency to rely too much on its vast technical databank and not enough on the intuition of a single person making the call."<ref>{{cite news|last = Hughes|first = Mark|title = Why Ferrari will start as favourite|work = Autosport|pages = 7-8|publisher = Haymarket|date = 2008-02-28|accessdate =2008-04-01}}</ref>

If anyone feels like working it into the article, please feel free. On a related note, I'm planning on removing the sponsorship section from the article and working the major sponsors into the main text. Any objections? AlexJ (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Whitmarsh soon to be team principal

Just to clarify, Ron Dennis will step down as team principal on March 1, making Whitmarsh the sole team principal at McLaren. Just FYI so when Dennis' name is removed on the 1st no one starts whining about it. Eightball (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1976 season stats

Stats for 1976 season. I thought James hunt won the Chamionship that year??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.112.88 (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he did (which is why his name is in bold in the 1976 row of the table). The right-hand column in the table indicates where McLaren finished in the Constructors' Championship - in 1976 they finished 2nd (behind Ferrari). DH85868993 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

McLaren (racing) → McLaren - A reversion request really. This was obviously a controversial move to McLaren (racing) but the editor moved the article without consultation. McLaren (racing) is additionally a very bad name as racing has many meanings and disciplines and is far too generic a term to be used in this manner. The previous set up for the various McLaren links worked perfectly well and I propose a restoration to how they were set up last week. — Falcadore (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (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 naming conventions.
  • Support. I believe the racing team McLaren is the primary usage of this spelling of the name. Other entities on the disambiguation page are either spelled differently (MacLaren for the clan and the baby buggies), definitely junior to the team (the various companies in the McLaren Group etc), or definitely less significant (the various parks and buildings, and possibly the baby buggies). 4u1e (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Primary topic and WP:COMMONNAME. D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - as per 4u1e and D.M.N. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - as per User:4u1e and User:D.M.N. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCON because, in descending order of importance: (1) The majority of English speakers would most readily identify "McLaren" as a surname, (2) "McLaren" is not the official current name of the subject, (3) "MacLaren" is the official name and form of address of the chief of Clan MacLaren, literally, the Chief of the Name. All uses of the name, including variants on the Gaelic mhic Labhrainn, are derivative of the patronymic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment/question Is the spelling relevant here? Obviously all other uses derive from the name, but that's a trivial observation that doesn't really help us here (it's true for all names, which would therefore take precedence in all cases of ambiguity). Is the spelling Mc rather than Mac equally used for the clan? 4u1e (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • P.S. common names not official names are the issue here. 4u1e (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The official name changes relatively often, and the common name is the relevant term to use. I would also question that the majority of English speakers see "McLaren" first as a surname. Certainly, no-one with that surname is as notable as the F1 team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, the number of English speaking people who recognize the surname exceeds the number of motoring enthusiasts by orders of magnitude: "common name of the subject" and "common use of the name" are in conflict. I recognize that my position on the priority of venerable old surnames vs. contemporary derivative uses seems quixotic in the face of overwhelming recentism. I am quite used to being in a minority, and should Wikipedia survive as far in the future as has Clan MacLaren in the past, I am as sure the consensus will have changed as I am sure I will not live to see it. Opinion solicited; opinion given. I'll be getting my cloak now... Ningauble (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Firstly, you don't have to be a motoring enthusiast to know what the McLaren F1 team is, and secondly it's not really about recognition of the surname. McLaren isn't a particularly notable surname - no more so than any other. As someone pointed out, by this token, all words that are also surnames should have the surname as the main article at the expense of anything else, and that idea is clearly unworkable. I don't really think recentism comes into it either - just because surnames are common and generally very old, they're not necessarily particularly notable in themselves. Some people with that name may be notable, but the name itself, I would venture, is not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no need to have an argument over undoing such a controversial move. This name is certainly wrong though. As for MacLaren, that is MAC, not MC, so at best it should be on McLaren disambiguation. I support per commonname criteria. It may officially be Vodafone McLaren Mercedes currently, but it's known as McLaren. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -Hatnote to the disambig. Per 4u1e, primary topic and common name. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with a hatnote to the dab page. The supporters above echo my other sentiments. Apterygial 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support McLaren is the only name that is just McLaren. McLaren surname maybe read by mst UK users in that context but the disambiguation page is created for articles with the word McLaren in the title. McLaren is the only word for (Vodafone) McLaren thus meaning that is it's page name as no other McLaren article is just McLaren. Chubbennaitor 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • There is another request, 7 hours older, to move McLaren (disambiguation) to the plain title. See Talk:McLaren (disambiguation). Dekimasuよ! 00:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly McLaren (racing) is the wrong name for the F1 team page. What kind of racing? There is another McLaren involved in motorsport by the way, an engine tuner, which is definitely less significant than the F1 team, but needs to be born in mind. Regarding the name for the F1 team's page, we can probably come up with something better, if it is agreed that it is not the primary occupant of McLaren. Looking at the other meanings on the disambiguation page, the Clan and possibly the Baby Buggy manufacturer are notable, but both seem to be spelled differently. The other meanings seem of secondary importance to me. Is the difference in spelling enough to differentiate the primary meanings? Finally, given the sheer number of links involved and the existence of a very active wikiproject, this change should never have been made without discussion - what went wrong there? 4u1e (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There are also similar move requests being proposed for Ford Motor Company and Ducati Motor Holding to take up the common name, I fail to see how this can be considered different, its certainly not like there are other meanings for Ford. --Falcadore (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is different. The only potential reason I can see for not going back to the previous status quo is if we consider that one of the other disambiguation meanings is equally or more important. However, since the other two contenders have a different spelling, I think it's clear that the F1 team is the correct occupant of McLaren. 4u1e (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The primary meaning of McLaren is as a surname, which is attached to dozens of people. Although there is a separate disambig page for the surnames alone (justified by the sheer number of them), if you walked into a subway car full of strangers and asked, "What is your opinion of McLaren?" it is highly doubtful that a majority of riders would immediately guess that you were referring to the racing outfit (consider the same reaction if you were to substitute Ferrari, or even Ford, in the question). In any event, this is a discussion that should be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. bd2412 T 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
McLaren (surname) completely covers the surname question. Additionally McLaren as a surname in many hundreds of potential subjects, not one subject. People looking for information on someone with the name McLaren will generally have a first name to assist in that search. Might be different if McLaren surname had an article rather than a disambiguation page. I also doubt that straw polls of subway carriages are the best reasoning as encyclopedias do not pose questions to the otherwise occupied. The aim should be to provide information for those searching for it (and to optimise that search), not for those who are not. and to copy in from the other requested move McLaren in on Google the Formula One team does come up first.
The alternative suggestion is that almost any article named for a company titled for someone's surname needs to have disamibs front up. Extend it beyond companies with public profiles like car makers. Its essentially creating bueacracy. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I really think that most people looking for a person whose surname is McLaren will have a first name to go with it. If not, then a simple hatnote at the main article pointing to McLaren (surname) will more than adequately satisfy the requirements of anyone randomly trawling Wikipedia looking for people called McLaren. I am certain that infinitely more people will be looking for the F1 team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - I am just a passer by, I could vote oppose but maybe not yet. Even within the F1 world it is not so much more common that McLaren refers to the team's car, the team itself, the manufacturer, or the group. I don't know Personally my first thought would be McLaren as being the manufacturer since there is also the McLaren F1 car that is not a Formula One standard car. I noticed Ferrari is about the manufacturer so I'll suggest consistency. However, I have no idea of how prominent the other McLaren meanings in the dab page are so as to say for sure what the primary topic is. Shadowmorph ^"^ 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
In other words McLaren should redirect to McLaren Automotive, the dab page at McLaren (disambiguation) and the rest as is.Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing about the McLaren F1 roadcar is that it is an extremely low-volume supercar, built as an offshoot of the F1 activities, and as such is not as notable as the F1 team. McLaren build no other roadcars. Ferrari on the other hand have been building a relatively large range of roadcars for decades, which earns a much higher level of interest, hence Ferrari directs there as opposed to the F1 team. Within the F1 world, "McLaren" almost always refers to the team itself, not the McLaren Group. The cars themselves are referred to by their individual designations. With respect to the other arms of the McLaren Group - hardly anyone searching via the term "McLaren" is going to be looking for McLaren Automotive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Just be sure to check out the encyclopedic value of the other meanings. Also isn't McLaren Racing the full name? I am sure I've seen it as such. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this stat will help: [1], check out the "categories" percentages. Anyway, hope I helped here. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting stats. Unfortunately when people search for "mclaren f1", we don't know whether they're looking for the roadcar or the F1 team. It seems that the vast majority of stories listed there apply to the F1 team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the team's official name is Vodafone McLaren Mercedes - they've never actually been called McLaren Racing. The article itself backs that up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is the entrant name. The racing team's name as a legal entity is McLaren Racing (formerly McLaren International). --Pc13 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME though is McLaren. D.M.N. (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The article isn;t called McLaren Racing, it's called McLaren (racing), which is a very bad, and inaccurate name. But rather than go through 17 variations, I just propose a restoraion to what the article was called last week that nobody had a problem with until a single editor made a controversial move unilaterally. If you want to make a controversial move like that discuss it, don't make the move assuming you'll have approval after the fact. --Falcadore (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the face of overwhleming support for this move, and no apparent further discussion forthcoming, should we ask an admin to carry it out? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it now. Please don't bother fixing the redirects I've made pointing other articles to this one through McLaren (racing), as it is entirely possible that some future person having this surname will exceed the automotive outfit in notability, and knock this title back to a secondary status. bd2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here
51°20'45.00"N   0°32'54.00"W

66.50.228.119 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. BrainMarble (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference 3: "McLaren In Formula 1" on McLaren's website

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but how can we use this reference when the link is dead? Surely it has to be removed?--86.171.97.248 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps more usefully, updated, found on the Internet Archive, or replaced. 4u1e (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I found some other references, but by then somebody had already re-inserted the dead link. Do we have to keep it? These are what I found: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=2245239106 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7867320.stm http://www.jeffdacombe.com/a_standard.asp?cid=66772578&aid=-521543180

--86.171.97.248 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the dead linked reference as that was where the information came from originally. It may not be accessible any more, but that was the source used for making the statement in the first place. That's what a reference does, we aren't providing links to further information, just telling people where we got the information. Think in terms of ancient manuscripts. If someone writes a history of some minor king and their major reference (say, a unique, hand-written diary of some minor court noble) is burnt to a crisp in a fire, you don't then go through subsequent editions of the biography and remove all mention of the original source. If you want to add in an additional reference with a live link then by all mean go ahead, but obscuring where the information was sourced from originally is not on. Pyrope 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with replacing the original reference with one more readily available - given that the info is only the date of McLaren's founding and their first race and should be available in any number of places. Despite the efforts of the Internet Archive and similar projects, web-based info seems massively less likely to survive for any length of time than Imhotep's to-do list (1. Betray Pharaoh, 2. Wash socks...). For that reason, it might be even better to ref it to hardcopy. I completely agree that just deleting it is wrong, wrong, wrong. 4u1e (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is the same as 4u1e's. If an equally reliable or more reliable source (i.e. not Facebook or a personal site) is available, there is no problem replacing another source, providing of course it references everything the original did. Deleting a source without replacement is not good practice however, as it reduces the chance of someone finding an archive. On the subject of archiving, anything that looks likely to disappear off the web shortly should really be Webcited, to try and preempt this occurring. AlexJ (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea what that means, but I found it on an archive, so I hope that solves the problem. --86.171.97.248 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Splitting racing history

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to move the Can-Am and Indy history into a separate section, like in the Brabham article, or does it flow better all being in one section?--86.171.97.248 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

F1 results table oil column

I'm trying to find a source for the column saying which make of oil McLaren used during each year. Does anyone know where this information might be found and if not, should it be removed? SamH|Talk 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That info is available at FORIX which is a subscription site. Anyway, I think the make of oil used is way, way beyond the scope of a table like this and should be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the details are also available at ChicaneF1 as well. However, I'd also agree with Bretonbanquet that this is trivial in the scope of this table. Unless someone can prove that the brand of oil and fuel used made a material difference to the performance of the cars (highly unlikely as fuel has been tightly regulated since the early days of the WDC) then it should be removed. Pyrope 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. If there are no objections I'll probably just remove it then. SamH|Talk 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Does anyone know of a reliable source for what McLaren's budget is, especially in comparison to other F1 teams? SamH 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Dieter Rencken has written an article on budgets. Sorry, don't have a direct link, but just search for his work on Autosport+. Cheers. Azx2 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Britain`s fastest open supercar

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: McLaren has today released official photos of the fastest supercar in the Britain open Spider version of MPC-12C. New Spider uses a V8 twin turbo engine of 3.8 liters power 625 Ks. Up to 100 miles per hour requires 3.1 seconds and up to 200kilometers per hour 9 seconds. Automatically stops acceleration at 329 km/s. McLaren openned a list of orders and delivery of the first car in November 2012th year. It`s the Britain`s fastest open supercar. 78.2.75.20 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And now there's also the McLaren P1 - quite the impressive vehicle line-up and good to see the company and team and associated businesses creating stuff that will keep us editors busy! Azx2 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

I propose we set-up automatic archiving of this article's talk page, which can be done using any one of a variety of bots or manual processes, once consensus has been established. While I will wait some time to allow other editors to express their support for archiving the talk page, I do want to go ahead and propose that we use either MiszaBot or ClueBot III to automatically create cut-and-paste archives for the discussion page. They'll move sections to a subpage after they have received no comments for a specified period of time. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or User:ClueBot III#How to archive your page for instructions on setting this up and more detail.

But yeah, I'm officially putting forth the request to begin archiving the talk page here, and am hoping to establish consensus to move fwd with this. Cheers! Azx2 16:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Although I note that there have only been 2 new conversations in the past 3 years, so a one-off manual archive might be just as effective - do whatever's easiest. DH85868993 (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point, it might be just as effective and easy to manually archive things. Azx2 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
So I went ahead and added the archive-bot code to the Talk page here, and I guess we'll see if it worked, once the bot completes its next-scheduled run! Azx2 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Archiving is set-up, archive 1 created - everyone take a look and lmk know if everything renders correctly for you or if there are any problems. Thanks for all the feedback! Cheers! Azx2 05:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • External links tool to the right shows at least 4 dead links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Dab links tool shows a couple of issues outstanding.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Many of the issues from Talk:McLaren/GA1 have been addressed. Certainly the last three seem to have been addressed. I will evaluate the indented bullets as the review progresses (as I read the rest of the prose). The issues from those bullets were as follows:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is almost wholly concerned with the results of the racing team. It does not discuss things such as
    • Budget
    • Structure of the team and roles of the technical staff in the team, especially as the engineering is bigger component of the success than any driver can be these days
    • Team politics, whether drivers are allowed to race freely etc
    • Information about the team's factory, research facilities, wind-tunnel, supercomputers etc, staff
    • Fan following/merchandise etc
WP:LEAD
  • I am of reasonable intelligence and do not know where or what surrey is. I am guessing by its placement in the sentence it is a county/province, but please link this municipality.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What is a constructor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What is a constructors' championship?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • With the statement that they last won in 2008, I am left to wonder how active they are. Would it be difficult to maintain something like in the last completed season, the team won x races? Saying you have not won a series in 5 years makes it difficult for a reader to assess the current state of the operation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Origins
  • Aren't there links for types of engines such as 1.5-litre Formula One-specification engines instead of the 2.5-litre motors?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
1960s
  • 'C' version on the M7 seems like it should have its own article or at least be named M7C or be described as the C version of the M7A.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
1970s
1980s
2000s
2010s
Can-Am
  • What is the Can-Am Series? If this thing is important enough to have its own section, you should provide a link like the one in the caption to the right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The following year Robin Herd purpose-designed the Chevrolet V8 powered M6A, delays with the Formula One programme allowing the team to spend extra resources on developing the Can-Am car which was the first to be painted in McLaren orange." seems ungrammatical. Maybe runon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "With Denny Hulme now partnering Bruce" seems to be missing a with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Politics
Sponsorship, naming and livery
Formula One World Championship results
External links
  • Merge all succession boxed for the same topic (see Barry Bonds #External links]]).
Image comments

I am failing this due to the lengthy list of issues above in addition to the largely unresolved breadth issues stemming from the prior review (mentioned at the top of this review).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

More finishes than starts?

Are these numbers inverted or just wrong. Or am I missing something? 

Races competed	752 (746 starts)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boaworm (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The first number is the number of races McLaren have entered. We should possibly consider changing "Races competed" to just "Races", given the ambiguous nature of the word "competed". Also note that the field originally contained just one number; the number of starts in parentheses was a later addition. DH85868993 (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Team principal

I'm not saying a change for sure needs to be made, but the listing of Ron Dennis as team principal should definitely be open for discussion. When Whitmarsh was at the team he was clearly team principal, as both CEO of McLaren Racing and racing director. However, those responsibilities have now been split up, with Eric Boullier as racing director (head of trackside, day-to-day operations) and Jonathan Neale as interim CEO (more of a long-term, organizational leadership role). Ron is the chairman and CEO of the McLaren group and doesn't actually hold a position at McLaren Racing. I would argue that Boullier best fits the traditional job description of a team principal, but for the time being Ron should still be listed, at least until he fully turns things over to Boullier and the new CEO. Eightball (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, F1.com lists Boullier as "team chief" and Goss as the sole technical chief: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/5/ Eightball (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does make more sense to put Eric Boullier as "team principal". The actual job title is not important, just their position in racing team. QueenCake (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that our infobox uses the term "Team principal" not "Team Principal". The distinction between ordinary and proper noun is important, as the former merely indicates the principal decision-maker within the team (who may actually be called "Grand Poobah of the Gilded Radio Headset", or whatever), while the latter is a formal job title. Pyrope 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and Management.

The stock ownership figures in this section don't add up. Daimler is no longer an owner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_Group#F1_Partnership_with_Mercedes_.281995.E2.80.932009.29). Nigelrg (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Nigelrg (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I don't feel obligated to research this, and am getting tempted to delete the offending numbers. According to this section (11+25+50+25)% = 100%!!!Nigelrg (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Name

There is no reason to why the company of McLaren Racing Limited aka Mclaren Honda should have the contracted name of simply "mclaren" this will be easily confused with any other Mclaren company with the same branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackolees (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Our long-standing convention on team article naming is to avoid using full names which include sponsors and partners, which by its very nature are transient, and are often not in common usage. We instead use the common name, the name the team is usually referred to, or if that is to ambiguous for Wikipedia then we try to find a permanent full name. In McLaren's case, the team has been referred to as "McLaren" since Bruce founded his own team in 1966; it has only been titled "McLaren Honda" - and even then only in press releases - since the start of 2015. QueenCake (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Then McLaren Racing Limited appears to be a suitable name- it's official trading name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackolees (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
McLaren Racing Limited is not the WP:COMMONNAME . . . McLaren is the common name so that is the title used on Wikipedia. Bahooka (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

'McLaren' is often the name used for McLaren Automotive, a totally separate company, as well as McLaren Technology Group ect. Therefore, to simply shorten the company name to McLaren is confusing. This name shortening is also undertaken with the car company, though the article name is McLaren Automotive? Jackolees (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The F1 team is the primary topic – we've been through this a few times at some length. When people search for McLaren, they are usually looking for the racing team, and this way they find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fastest laps

I saw a lot of back and forth on the FL issue, but I think the note should be changed to "Excludes John Surtees' fastest lap in the 1970 South African Grand Prix in a non-works McLaren" (change in italics). Another option would be to change the FL number to 155 and keep the note as it is. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better for the infobox to say "155" (and keep the note as is), if for no better reason than to make the number in the infobox consistent with formula1.com, ChicaneF1 and StatsF1, i.e. to stop well-intentioned editors unaware of the issue/this discussion from continually "correcting" the number. I've boldly made the change (normally I would wait until the discussion has played out), so that the article is at least internally consistent. DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I didn't think about it. And, as no one said something against, I suppose it's OK. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McLaren. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Team principal/Technical director titles

I removed Gil de Ferran and Andrea Stella as team principals, leaving just Zak Brown, since they fill subordinate roles that we don't consider "team principals" on any other F1 team article. I think it made since to include both Brown and Boullier previously, since they co-led the team, and Boullier's status as Racing Director made him a quasi-team principal. But since Boullier resigned, and Zak Brown was appointed CEO, it's more accurate to list just Brown as the sole leader. I left Fry and Prodromou as technical directors because Fry was explicitly appointed as Engineering Director and Prodromou is the most senior engineer listed on their management page, but I think when Key joins next year we should either list only Key (since his title will be Technical Director), or list Key and Fry (since I imagine they will be peers in the McLaren organization). Just wanted to jot down my reasoning here. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Making another change here - there's been some interviews with Zak Brown recently where he's specifically named Pat Fry and Andrea Stella as the people in charge of designing the new car, so I'm going to replace Prodromou with Stella. Also, there's been some rumors of Porsche's Andreas Seidl coming in to replace Boullier, and if that happens I think we should include him alongside Brown as "team principal." Wicka wicka (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tyler Alexander (baseball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McLaren/Archive_1&oldid=1137000453"