Talk:A1 Team Great Britain

Colors of the car

"The car was ... displaying a distinctive blue, red and white livery to reflect the colours of the flag of the United Kingdom." There is no information on the page as to why the car was not painted British racing green. This information should be added, I think. John Anderson 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Following my post above, I set out to find out myself, so I sent an e-mail to the A1 Team Great Britain and asked about it. So far, I haven't recieved any answer. Perhaps they haven't got any good answer to this question...? John Anderson 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant text " It is not known why the car was not painted in the traditional British racing green." It is not known why the car was not painted in pink either, but correctly, this is not stated in the article. Guinness (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The text is not irrelevant just because you say it is. Can't you at least give some reason for your opinion? The traditional colour for British race cars is green, which would make that colour the most natural choice for this car.

The English national team in soccer usually have white jerseys. If they changed to another color, I bet most people would like to know why. The choice of color on the British A1 car raises the same question, and so far noone has been able to give an answer. John Anderson 11:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not my "opinion", and Wikipedia is no place for opinion. It is a matter of fact that this text has no relevance to the article. It is startlingly absurd to pick a colour at random, and say that there is no reason to use or not to use this colour. If the colour had changed from the colour you picked, then that would be a different matter, however, it is the case that this team have, AFAIK, always used their current colours. Unless you can find a source which demonstrates that the team previously used this colour, and are refusing to explain why they have changed, then the information is in no way relevant to the article.

Your comments from last year (above), hint, that perhaps you believe that the colour should be the one you suggested, and that you may be unhappy that another colour has been chosen (that's the way i read it anyway). However, that colour is not the one which has been chosen by the team. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and it is not a place to express personal opinion. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts only. Please do NOT add such text to this article, unless you can clearly justify it's presence in the article, i.e. explain how this information improves the article and thus improves wikipedia. Guinness (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've done some additional looking around, and it is quite clear to see that McLaren, Benetton, and most if not all of these other British teams don't appear to use such a colour, or establish the "tradition" to which you refer above, or have any reference to the colour, or question over their use or lack thereof of the colour. You are going to need more than your personal assertions to confirm this tradition, before you even attempt to assert any expectation that the A1 team would use this colour, or that stating this in the article improves it. Guinness (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You must be very unaware of autoracing history, if you do not know the meaning of British racing green and the fact that all British racing teams used to have this color as their national color before sponsorship liveries were allowed. You are right that Wikipedia is no place for opinion, and that is exactly why I urge you to come up with some reason for erasing the information. I will restore it now. John Anderson 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just so you know, if you revert the page again, I might feel the need to report you for breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. John Anderson 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, that I am not aware of that aspect of autoracing history (if such an aspect exists), which is why I have insisted that you provide a source which I can check for myself. In the context it is presented in the article, it makes no sense. If there is such a context, then please feel free to provide one. If you can't come up with anything better than threatening me, to justify your edits, then it suggests that you don't have any justification for the presence of the text in the article at all.

Once again, I am going to do nothing more than attempt to keep the standard of wikipedia high, buy insisting that you provide a source for statements you add to the article, and justification that they are relevant. Guinness (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, WRT your comments on my talk page, I have already stated above, that my edits are not a matter of opinion. The information is unverifiable, and as presented in the article makes no sense. It would be equally logical to say that it is not known why the livery isn't pink, or orange, or ... ad infinitum. Guinness (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just can't understand your reasoning. Haven't you read the articles here on Wikipedia about British racing green, national auto racing colors and sponsorship liveries, that I have pointed to? When you compare with just any color, it seems clear that you are not even interested in taking in what I am saying. As long as there is any information on the color of this car in the article, I find it most relevant to have some note as to the fact that it is not using the national color of Britain.

As for the three-revert rule, that is no threat, that is just a fact. John Anderson 12:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "you must provide a source, which I and other editors can verify" don't you understand? Guinness (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which of the provided sources are you unable to read? How do one verify an abseHas nce of information? As for the sent mail to the team, which they never answered, I don't think I still have it, but I can take a look. John Anderson 12:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you have thus far provided zero sources, obviously I can read a total of zero. Also note, than any email you received from anybody would be considered original research, an not verify the information. If you are not sure how to cite the information properly, please refer to this page for further information. Guinness (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. The traditional way of noting an absence of a particular statement, in a WP article, is to ensure that the statement is absent from the article. As I have observed before, there is a total absence of information explaining why the car is not pink. This is, quite correctly, also absent from the article. Guinness (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you still ranting about pink? That makes no sense at all. The pages on Wikipedia I have pointed you to have references. John Anderson 13:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside question

Has this question been raised in the press at all? Has there been any sort of media speculation or other questioning of why it wasn't green? Metros (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to this Guinness (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was able to find this which states the racing green was originally planned. However, this article doesn't look like it qualifies as a reliable source. Can another article be found in a reliable source that shows this? It looks like this was announced around April 2005. Metros (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That article seems to be based on this press release: alex-lloyd.com (pdf file). Just as the artice, the press release says the car was going to have the green colour. E.G. (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that these sources meet the standards for inclusion, and it certainly is too trivial to be in the introduction section. However, this dispute has gone on long enough, over something which at face value is fairly trivial. Therefore, in order to get this one behind us, I propose that we add in the Management section the phrase "It was originally announced that the cars would be coloured in British racing green, however the blue, red, and white livery was ultimately used" (with the sources cited there). If everyone is prepared to go with that, I won't dispute the issue further. Guinness (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue might seem trivial, but some people take these things very serious. I remember when the Sweden national men's ice hockey team had been given shirts from a sponsor which were more orange than the yellow which is seen as the proper colour. The players refused to wear them and played the whole world championship tournament that year in the blue reserve kit instead.

I think your compromise seems like a good idea. However, I have not been so deepely involved in the discussion. I hope the others are OK with it too. E.G. (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs to be a summary of body text so I have removed for now. If someone decided it needs to go back in suggest they also add similar text to the Mclaren and the Williams articles too, after all these are British Teams as well and as far as i know there has been no offical explanation as to why there cars don’t race in brg. 89.240.206.155 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Until the article is significantly expanded the lead section is actually the only subject overview provided. Ideally, once the article is written up properly, the lead will indeed be a summary of the article contents, but until then it makes no sense to remove information information from an article simply because you can't be bothered to rewrite it. As for the current F1 teams, none of these profess that they represent the nation. Pyrope 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the suggestion Guiness came up with now. To me, it seems strange that an anonymous contibuter who has never done anything else on Wikipedia before can make such sure remarks about what "needs" be. 89.240.206.155 has obviously not read all of the discussion on this talkpage. If 89.240.206.155 has a point, 89.240.206.155 hasn't followed it through, since 89.240.206.155 has left the information about the present colors of the car. John Anderson 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's all resolved, hopefully will become a better article now that's ironed out. I am not sure you are correct about the Wikipedia:LEAD not needing to be a summary of the text from the body but happy to be proved wrong as there is always more to learn on wikipedia! Also not sure that Jaguar professed to represent the nation any more or less than Mclaren or Williams. However using the argument used against me, I have to ask (too lazy to look) have all the other articles on A1GP teams that don’t use their traditional nations racing colours got similar statements about there choice of colours? It would seem odd to me to single out only the British Team. btw if i don't have the same ip address today, this is 89.240.206.155 89.240.206.155 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed the information about green in the article heading, but left the information about white/red/blue. If the color of the car was not to be discussed in the lead, with the reason that the lead should be a short summary of the article as you said, then the current colors shouldn't be mentioned there either, IMHO. Also, if you should use your argument about the lead, the information should not be erased (like you erased it) but moved to another place further down in the article. John Anderson (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

McLaren race in silver in a nod to their German engine suppliers, Mercedes who raced silver (unpainted) cars in pre-war GP's. I'm not sure how Williams came to be blue & white, but a lot of their sponsors have had those colours (Rothmans in the 90's, RBS currently). Jaguar however were trying (at least according to the media) to be a British Ferrari so went with BRG. AlexJ (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As this dispute has been resolved, or is rapidly approaching resolution with the aid of the RfC below, the listing on the third opinion project page has been removed.

Please respond here if the listing should be re-instated. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: team colours/livery

Two editors (see discussion above) are in disagreement about the inclusion of a particular statement ("It is not known why the car was not painted in the traditional British racing green.") in the article introduction, and are verging on an edit war. Please help resolve this by commenting on the relevance and verifiability of the statement, in order that a consensus may be formed on the issue of whether or not the statement should be included in the article.

A1GP teams seem to be split between those running in traditional racing colours (Australia = Green & Gold, as were Brabham in the late 1960s; New Zealand = Black with White/Silver, as were McLaren in their very early days; Malaysia = Yellow with White); those with a hybrid of traditional colours and national flag (e.g. Gemany, USA); those running with wholly national flag liveries (e.g. Canada, GB, Brazil); and those with general, national sporting colours (e.g. Italy, India). The point that JohnAnderson makes is and interesting and highly relevant one; I really can't see how this argument developed. Surely a single, brief sentence such as "A1 Team.GB's livery colours are based on those of the UK national flag, rather than the traditional British racing green" would suffice? Let readers decide for themselves whether this is a momentous observation or not. Just state the facts. Green is demonstrably the traditional colour for British racing cars - has been for over 100 years - and does not require citation as this is certainly not a contentious statement. I agree that the sentence as it stands ("it is not known why...") is badly worded and speculative, but to argue, as Guinness does, that because you haven't heard of something then it doesn't exist is deeply worrying for someone who proclaims to be concerned with the quality of an encyclopedia. I suggest that Guinness does a little reading (try here for starters). Pyrope 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deeply worrying? Try "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - The first sentence from WP:VERIFY

Perhaps I'm not ignoring the rules properly, but as I saw it, it was quite clear. As for "Green is demonstrably the traditional colour...," I've been a fan of motorsport in the UK for 20 years, and wasn't aware of it being a strong tradition, and would perhaps argue that is a dead tradition, but in any matter, that's a completely different argument I'm not getting into that one. Anyway, see my proposed resolution, above. Guinness (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So, having been provided with a verifiable source, not only for the original intention to run in BRG (a fact that was also reported in Autosport, but you need a subscription to find that) but also to BRG's traditional status, you are merely prepared not to "dispute the issue further"! I'm sorry, but retroactively dismissing your own ignorance as "a completely different argument" isn't going to wash. Aston Martin, Jaguar, MG and Morgan have all run cars in major international races in the last ten years, and in all cases they used green as the major livery colour. Coincidence? Britain's oldest motorsport magazine uses green as its cover colour. When it tried to change a couple of years ago there was a major outcry. Autosport runs a green cover whenever a British driver wins a major international competition. Does that sound like a dead tradition to you? From the start of this argument you have pursued an aggressive and sarcastic tone, all the time indulging in exactly the opinionated pontificating that you accused JohnAnderson of. Your assertion earlier that "It is a matter of fact that this text has no relevance to the article. It is startlingly absurd to pick a colour at random, and say that there is no reason to use or not to use this colour", quite apart from being entirely wrong, is pure opinion. You provide no sources to back up your assertions, unlike John who provided you with a number of examples right here at Wikipedia to show why you are wrong. Articles relating to the A1 team itself and a good article about BRG have now been provided for your edification, yet all you can muster by way of an apology is a sudden decision that this issue is "trivial". Pyrope 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bentley also ran Le Mans in BRG (2003 I think). I think the sentence is badly worded at present, but the fact there are sources to show initially BRG was the plan mean that can be fixed fairly trivially IMO. Perhaps leave the "it is not known" bit altogether and just state the facts we do know. AlexJ (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'source' to which you refer (and I don't think that WP itself is considered a reliable source for other WP articles), did not mention that the team had refused to explain any decision not to use BRG, or that there was any suggestion that they would, although Metros has subsequently, kindly furnished the latter information. In fact, the BRG article doesn't even state that it is traditional for British teams to use BRG, just that in the 50s and 60s, it was "regarded as semi-official". I'm still not convinced that stating something did not happen is relevant, however, I'm well aware that I'm in danger of edit warring, and have merely decided to take a step back, and ask other editors to offer their opinion, hence the RFC. Guinness (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, since I'm the only editor who has come close to reverting this change 3 times, your edit summary suggests that you believe I was the anonymous editor who reverted the change. Do you really believe that I would go to the lengths of arranging a dispute resolution, and then petulantly make an anonymous edit? Anyway, I'm sure you can find an Admin who can check the IPs I use and that that is nothing to do with me should you so wish. Guinness (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the car not being BRG ought to be mentioned but not in the way it was originally done. A short sentence stating that the car takes the colours of the Union Flag rather than the traditional BRG should suffice. As we don't know the rationale behind the decision it's probably best not to prompt the reader to ask why this is. Readro (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just by way of comment, Guinness has a point regarding the unsuitability of the original wording, but his/her insistence that there is little to no evidence that BRG would be expected for a British team is odd to say the least. It is this, apparently based on an argument from personal incredulity, together with the tone of comments, which is raising hackles. The current wording (this version is fine. 4u1e (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone totally uninvolved, jumping in having seen the RfC, I'd agree with 4ule that the current wording is fine. The wiki entry is A1 team Great Britain; it's not about traditional colour schemes after all. The verifiable, truism for Team Great Britain is that the colour scheme reflects the British flag. It doesn't really need to spill out into a war over traditional colour schemes. Minkythecat (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A1 Team Great Britain. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050803011757/http://www.a1teamgbr.com:80/ to http://www.a1teamgbr.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)