Talk:Lotus

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

Untitled[edit]

I have amended the caption of the American waterlily photo to add 'pale form' to avoid confusion with white water lilies {[unsigned|Isaacwatts}}

But which lotus are they all named after? 212.183.136.193 01:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I moved Plants to the front of the list, and put nelumbo at the top of the Plants section. Odds are very good that people searching on "lotus" are looking for nelumbo, so that entry ought to be as accessible as possible. --SatyrEyes 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous entries[edit]

The following were pared as non-qualifying entries per MOS:DAB, as they are unambiguous:

ENeville (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Lotus[edit]

I do not think Team Lotus should be considered as part of Lotus Cars. Both entities were created in 1952 as Lotus Engineering Ltd, but have been separate brands since then. Fernandes' Lotus, on the contrary, should be part of Team Lotus as it officially came back in F1 in 2011, although not with the British nationality.

BenjF1 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that Team Lotus is part of Lotus Cars - all the entities under Lotus Cars in the list are in some way descendants of Lotus Cars or are/were connected with that company. The Malaysian Team Lotus was not connected to Lotus Cars or Team Lotus, as explained in the big court case they had. Fernandes just bought the name as a cheap stunt and used it briefly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, I never thought it might just be connection, IMHO displaying informations that way introduces a hierarchy between Lotus Cars and Team Lotus... Some people could understand it that way if I did, but then that problem is related rather to Wikipedia than to the Lotus Case. Sorry but the second part of your post is just not true, the Malaysian Team Lotus was connected to Lotus Cars in 2010 (Lotus Cars gave the Lotus name to them and there was a technical partnership), then Fernandes bought Team Lotus just like Ron Dennis bought McLaren in 1981. What he did with it does not take his legitimity away: if you sell a house, will you complain if the new owner paints the walls in pink? Plus, your saying that it is a "cheap stunt" does not look very objective on the matter. BenjF1 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A technical partnership is not the same type of relationship enjoyed by the other entities in that section, which were owned or part-owned by Lotus Cars. It was nothing like Ron Dennis buying McLaren or anyone buying a house. When Fernandes bought Team Lotus, it existed only in name - there was nothing else, no team to buy. When he bought the name, he slapped it on to his own third-rate team and tried to convince people that his team was the same Lotus team as had operated in the 60s and 70s. The official stats say otherwise. Regarding my own personal view, I didn't say I was objective - I'm not - Fernandes is an F1 no-hoper running shitboxes. I found his attempted hijacking of a much-respected team name and its heritage to be highly objectionable. If he had been true to his word and if his claim to the name had any legitimacy, his cars would still be called Lotus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so technical partnership + name + sponsorship is not enough to be related to Lotus Cars, but may I remind you that the current Lotus team has nothing to do with Lotus Cars, except the name? It was never owned by Lotus, not even partly; no partnership, no sponsorship, only a name for free, and yet it is related on Wikipedia. About Fernandes, indeed you do not look objective... Fernandes didn't only buy a name, for example when he bought the Team Lotus brand, he had the rights on the green and yellow livery in F1. He didn't pretend he was exactly the same Lotus as in the 60s, he said always said his team was a new dynasty of Team Lotus, which is an acceptable statement. "When he bought the name, he slapped it on to his own third-rate team" Well, once again, he bought it, so he could do what he wanted with it. "The official stats say otherwise." The official stats also say that the current Mercedes has nothing to see with 1954 Mercedes... Are we going to change this on Wikipedia, then? BenjF1 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you and it's not worth rehashing this discussion again when we've all been through it many times before. Maybe you have too. Fernandes did not have exclusive rights to any livery in F1 - there are no rights to colours used in F1 liveries, proved by the fact that he still uses the same livery on his woeful Caterhams. He had some merchandising rights issued to him on licence by Group Lotus, but then that was partly why he ended up in court. That's an acceptable statement? You look pretty far from objective yourself. If you want to have the Mercedes discussion again, I expect you know where to go to restart it. It sure isn't here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never said I was objective myself, but it would be more interesting to discuss this with someone who does simply not hate Tony Fernandes and his view of Lotus. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and you cannot be neutral when you arguments are saying that the team you don't like is "woeful". Fernandes did have exclusive rights to the green and yellow livery, as you can see here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2561143. If you're not happy with his painting the Caterham with that livery, complain to Group Lotus, they are allowing it as they now own TL... I don't want to have any Mercedes discussion, this case just sets a precedent. The matter is Lotus, not Mercedes. BenjF1 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I. I am perfectly capable of putting my personal feelings to one side when editing Wikipedia - I do it all the time. Nobody has ever raised an issue with any of my edits regarding Fernandes or Lotus, and I never suggested that the fact his team is crap constituted one of my arguments. His ineffectual attempts in F1 are a side-issue. Your link doesn't work, but if Group Lotus have an issue with Fernandes or whatever long-established marque he's hijacking at any given moment, I'm sure they don't need me to bring it to their attention. If you want further discussion about Lotus, I suggest starting it where somebody might read it, although I'm not even really sure what your point is. Do you simply want to slightly re-format the listings on this dab page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's your arguments, then? Do you at least agree that Fernandes bought the brand and could do what he wanted with it? Do you at least agree that Lotus F1 Team has never been owned by Lotus (same for Lotus GP/ART GP), and then, should not be related to LC here according to your reasoning? Indeed, I want to re-format the listings here, because I think they may mislead people, so if this is not the right place to discuss it and find a consensus, please tell me where it is. BenjF1 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest this is continued at WT:F1? My two cents are that the list is formatted as it should be – both Lotus F1 Team and Lotus GP are using the name on licence from Group, whereas Fernandes ended up going at it solo (in 2011). — Jon C.ॐ 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon C has it right as usual. I also don't think that this list should be unnecessarily complicated by worrying about the exact relationships between the various factions. That stuff is for other pages - this is merely a dab page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon C: Isn't this too much of a specific subject for the general F1 page? @Bretonbanquet: Well, if this list shouldn't be complicated by worrying about the exact relationships between the various factions, then Team Lotus 2010-11 shouldn't be apart, since it enjoyed a closer relationship with Lotus Cars in 2010 than Lotus F1 Team and Lotus GP currently do, and was Team Lotus in 2011. BenjF1 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's too specific for the WikiProject page, and more people will see it there. And whether the relationship was closer or not is a matter of opinion - what is fact is that it was a different kind of relationship altogether. This discussion requires more input from others if you want to get anywhere with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er... there was actually a discussion on the WikiProject page, but for some reason I had no Internet since mid-September and I now can't see it anymore. I just remember that before that, someone had suggested that all the "motor cars" elements of the Lotus disambiguation page were put at the same level. BenjF1 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of plants[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
That the articles are not yet ready to be merged, and that the more important task is to disambiguate on the SIA List of plants known as lotus, Klbrain (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Lotus#Plants lists two of the more common plants, but for the rest defers to the small list article at List of plants known as lotus. But that is effectively another dab (sub)page. Is there any reason to keep them separate? All the plants that are actually known as "lotus" should be listed in the main dab page, and any that aren't (say, complete WP:PTMs), shouldn't appear in either. So, I'm suggesting a merge. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few incoming links to List of plants known as lotus and Lotus (plant) that will need to be disambiguated. I've had that on my to-do list for awhile, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Once the links are dealt with, the list of plants known as lotus should be merged. Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There are about 190 incoming links, that will be a drudge to fix. But if they end up pointing to the dab page, then they'll promptly attract the attention of the dabfixers and the result can be variable in quality. Just today I had to go through the two dozen or so previous links to Nasturtium (genus): after the redirect ended up pointing to Nasturtium, the links were "fixed" to point to Tropaeolum, all of them, even though in about 85% of the cases it was clear that the intended target was the crucifer. – Uanfala (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The result can be variable in quality", which is why I suggested dealing with the links prior to merge. I'm not sure I'd trust the dabfixers to realize that Nelumbo nucifera (not just Nelumbo) is usually the appropriate topic in South/East Asian cultural contexts (and I did find one article about a Japanese food that has lotus root as in ingredient, but "root" wasn't part of the link). There are a few links for Egyptian cultural contexts (I'm not sure which species of Nymphaea is appropriate there), but with so many more links from Asian cultural contexts, I'm not sure I'd trust dabfixers to go with Nymphaea instead of Nelumbo for Egypt. I'll try to chip away at incoming links. Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding quite a few articles with better targets for "lotus (plant)" that aren't (and shouldn't be) listed in the dab page; lotus seed or lotus root in culinary contexts, lotus throne in Buddhist/Hindu religious contexts (and also sacred lotus in religious art). Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotus&oldid=1202626377"