Template talk:Renault F1

Former personnel

Should the "Former personnel" section be split into two parts (i.e. "1977-1985" and "2002 onwards") to reflect the two different incarnations of the Renault F1 team, as has been done in Template:Honda F1? DH85868993 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kubica 2011

If Kubica is still signed with the team, shouldn't he be listed in one of the lines of drivers (or a separate line of drivers; ie. "2011 other drivers" ) ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team Logo

The Team logo should be changed to the Renault f1 team logo to stop confusion to the lotus f1 team in 2012 due to the template colour chaging back to yellow and black it is more understandable or you can have a pick to show both logos.

Name Change To Renault Sport F1

I have currently changed the template name to renault sport f1 as renault is now a engine supplyer now maybe their should be a constructor section on the page and a supplyer part. 11:58, 09 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me12356 (talk • contribs)

This template covered Renault as a Formula One constructor. Their involvement as an engine supplier is far more complex and lengthy. The job of these navboxes is to facilitate navigation, not to provide a potted history of the entire organisation. Pyrop e 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Sport F1 Template Edits

I have currently edited the renault f1 template as its current status in formula one Renault Sport F1 also adding links to the teams it supplys engines to but somebody keeps deleting everything ive done and its really annoying that im putting all my time into this to make it better and somebody just deletes it all. 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me12356 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps responding to the points made above might help? Whinging about how much time you are putting into something that may well be pointless isn't really going to engender much sympathy from me. Pyrop e 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed elements

For the past few weeks, there has been continuous edit warring over various elements of this template. Let's discuss them to try to achieve consensus. Please add any views you may have and feel free to add any items I've missed. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Position of the British flag in the titlebar - to the left or right of "Renault F1"

My personal preference would be for the flag to appear on the right, because I think it looks better and for consistency with {{Benetton Formula}}. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Constructor cars" or "Formula One cars"

My preference is "Formula One cars", for consistency with numerous other F1 team templates. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Titlebar border colour: white or black

I marginally prefer black. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. No preference over the other two points, but the yellow with white border is a no-no. Craig (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer white it looks more tidy. Me12356 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a black border it would look to similer to the jordan gp navbox. Me12356 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? DH85868993 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get why we are argueing over something stupid as this! so what if the borders not black. Me12356 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing these issues because Wikipedia works on consensus. You made some changes. Someone else reverted them (indicating they disagreed with the changes). So the next step is to discuss the changes, to achieve consensus, so that the template can remain in a stable state and not change backwards and forwards every couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Grosjean

Should Romain Grosjean be added to the list of drivers as he drived for the team at the end of 2009. Me12356 (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The section is for notable drivers, not all drivers. It actually needs trimming as it is, not expanding. Grosjean drove a couple of races for Renault and was hopeless, hardly one of their notable drivers. Pyrop e 12:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter

Im stating to see that this navbox is over cluttered with infomation should some of it be cut down? Me12356 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably reduce the "Personnel" and "Noted drivers" lists to match the lists in the Renault in Formula One infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Nationalitys

I dont think their really is a need for the british flag on the Renault navbox as they where only a british team for 1 year and they where a french for a majority of their time line. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 14.01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think there really is a need for the British flag on the Renault navbox as they were a British team for 1 year. DH85868993 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Daniels Renault Sport 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a British flag because they were a British team for 1 year. DH85868993 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a valid reason? Daniels Renault Sport 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a valid reason? The Renault constructor raced with both French and British licences, ergo: two flags. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made above. The discussion is not about what everyone feels or if it may seem ridiculous to have the British flag for one season. We must be guided only by the facts, and the facts say the team ran with British license. Obviously, from the 2010 season onwards it was actually a transitional stage, but we can't create an article for each year reflecting that. The same happens with this template. Urbanoc (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]