Talk:Marussia F1

Nothing too surprising here
This was always a money-laundering operation for Russian gangsters. I hope we can say this out loud now that they are no longer around.137.205.183.114 (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much vodka there ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CtrlXctrlV (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Marussia/Manor
I'm confused on the technicalities of most of the inner workings. I know that Manor is Marussia's parent company. However, since Manor has announce that Marussia has folded, would a new team they may or may not start up in 2015 be considered a different entity, not unlike Renault becoming Lotus? As far as I can tell, we consider those two seperate teams and do not intermingle their results. Would the same apply here? I only bring this up because I have made a couple minor edits that wrap up Marussia's performance in Formula One. Twirlypen (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have withheld my edits in leiu of the final reference regarding the possibility of Marussia racing at Abu Dhabi. However, if they are rebranded and do race, would we attribute the results to Marussia or would we create/add a wholly seperate constructor to the table? I suppose ultimately it would be up to the FIA, as I realize this talk is a bit far-fetched at the moment. Twirlypen (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am guessing the way it works is that there is the FIA licence assigned to/for a particular team/constructor (i.e. Marussia) and the entity sitting behind, which is who folded under administration. In other words, it is only the owner/s that will differ. Marussia will re-emerge as is so no need to create a new constructor page. They are doing this to cash in on the 2 points scored in Monaco and keep their FIA licence, so if they were to be a different team, the resurrection would have no value at all CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Former or present team!
I think as of today (06.03.2015) Marussia F1 is not a former team, but a present one. It's incorrect the present team to be part of the "Manor Motorsport" page. As the team list was published, the whole name of the team is Manor Marussia F1 Team, which includes Manor as the first part of the name or sponsor name on one hand, and Marussia as the core name or the name of the chassis/constructor on the other hand. All these mean, as of today, Marussia F1 is the same team and is a continuous entity. It's not a renamed or defunct team. Please, undo the neccessity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Nasco (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. We are currently discussing this matter at Talk:2015 Formula One season. To avoid confusion, it would be better to bring any input over there. Tvx1 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that we merge the content of Manor Marussia F1 into this article. The reason for this is that we structure constructor articles based on the name that the FIA credits results to. In the eyes of the FIA, "Manor Marussia" does not exist; they are still "Marussia". To have a separate article would be the same as creating an article for "Infiniti Red Bull Racing" alongside the Red Bull Racing article.

Although the ownership of the team has changed, there are two recent precedents thst we should observe. When Peter Sauber purchased Sauber from BMW at the end of the 2009 season, the team continued to compete as "BMW Sauber" in 2010, and its results were credited to BMW Sauber. Likewise, when Genii Capital purchases a 75% stake in Renault and rebranded the team as "Lotus Renault GP", the team still competed as Renault for a year because the FIA credited the results to Renault.

On the Formula One WikiProject, we have a policy of following the FIA's lead on these issues. We recognise that the FIA is the highest authority on these subjects, and that we should structure articles accordingly. With this in mind, the FIA recognises the team as Marussia, not Manor Marussia; therefore, the articles must be merged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Understanding that no two situations are identical, I can actually see it both ways on this one. On the support side, they are viewed by the FIA as Marussia as you indicated in your position - and there is precedence for that. On the other, they are identified as Marussia purely on a technicality that Manor is basically forced to use the name in 2015 to inherit the prize money earned by Marussia in 2014. The Marussia name will almost surely be dropped for 2016 if the team indeed participates. Marussia F1 was basically liquidated, and the entire staff dissolved/made redundant before Manor Motorsports came in to rebuild the team (and the cars, literally not in time for the first round). So I can see the arguments both ways - yes, they use the same name and the FIA recognizes it and we have precedence in these situations before, but also seeing as it really is a new team built from one that was basically defunct up until February 2015 and none of the previous examples were built from organizations that were literally being prepped for the auction block. If my arm had to be twisted, I would say weak oppose. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 00:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support With more time having passed since the creation of this article, it has become clear that the current management are still running the constructor as Marussia. The most clear evidence of this fact is that they themselves refer to the car as the Marussia MR03B. We should treat this the same way as we did with its earlier transition from Virgin to Marussia (its first year as Marussia Virgin is credited to Virgin). To adress Twirlypen's concerns, if they change their constructor name for 2016, that's when a new article will be created similar to Renault and Lotus.Tvx1 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I know we will cross that bridge when we get to it. I was just pointing out that the use of the Marussia name is strictly political, and the connection between teams is simply the use of the name and that alone it seems. I did not mean for it to be taken as an excuse to merge or keep them separate. It is unlike the Renault & Sauber instances noted above in that sense, while at the same time, it is similar in that they are using the same car, which carries the former name. My weak opposition is about as weak as a non-neutral vote can get. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not strictly political. It's a sporting issue too. If they were to score one or more points this season, they would be awarded to Marussia, not an entity called Manor. Tvx1 02:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I had thought that was why they used the Marussia name to begin with - because Marussia did score points in 2014 - to have access to Marussia's prize money. It was to be believed that if Marussia did not score in 2014, then the name would have been dropped, or even worse, the team could not have been saved at all. So in hindsight, I do suppose Manor owes them to use the name after all. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 02:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I seem to recall reading somewhere (probably when Genii bought Renault) that it's a means of preventing someone from buying into a team, claiming the prize money, and then selling the team off. So although the team is known as "Manor Marussia" for the sake of convenience, the FIA recognise it as "Marussia". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Marussia has always been the F1 division of Manor Motorsports, so this makes sense. But shouldn't we do it the other way round and merge Marussia into Manor? Considering that Marussia was always a part of the Manor company, that would make more sense and people would find the article under the current team name? In cycling, that it how it is done, where you always find a team under its latest name such as HTC-Highroad, which was Team Telekom/Team T-Mobile for most of their existence. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; there is a difference between team names and constructor names; team names are the names teams use to refer to themselves, whereas constructor names are the names the FIA uses and to which all results are credited. Team names can change from year to year, but constructor names tend to be more permanent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I cant see any problems with how the articles are now, Manor Marussia is a whole new entity from what was formally Marussia F1 the only thing retained was the constructor name due to using the old car and prize money rights. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how we distinguish our articles. We write about constructors, not teams. And the 2014 and 2015 season results are being credited to the same constructors. Having two articles for the same constructor is incredibly confusing when we can easily put the data in one and cover the transition between the entrants in it. Tvx1 16:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A problem could of course arise when the next car is being called a Manor MRxx... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not by any means. If the constructor name changes we create an article for the "new" constructor results are credited to. Similar to Renault/Lotus, BAR/Honda/Brawn/Mercedes, Lotus/Caterham, Virgin/Marussia,... Tvx1 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at. It appears to me however, that referring to how F1 officially sees constructors is not really helpful. For instance, the F1 website counts Mercedes as being Tyrell, not as the Mercedes works team of the 50s as we do... so we are not in line with the FIA here, at least at times. I guess we are more correct than they are themselves... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * F1 website ≠ FIA. That site is from FOM and FOM does not credit results. Tvx1 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So, at what point do we make a decision on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that the subject needs more time for opinions, or the community at large just doesn't consider it a priority. We've got three supports based off of previous instances of team takeovers keeping the same constructor name, and we've got two opposes (including my own weak one) based off of that this instance is not like the others - previous instances did not involve bankrupt teams facing auction being rebuilt from the ground up. Perhaps appealing to WP:Motorsports? Or posting a reminder on WP:F1? Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 10:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Just read the manual. Tvx1 11:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think this case is really all that different. Sure, the circumstances might be unusual, but then the BMW/Sauber and Lotus/Renault situations were equally unique in their own way. And the FIA handled all three exactly the same way. The argument "what the FIA says, goes" is being used elsewhere on the project, even when people argue that it is inconvenient; if nothing else, we need consistency. I don't see why it is any different here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:ALLORNOTHING actually discourages too much consistency based off of previous discussions. That's why we take these things on a case-by-case basis. While it's written for AfD, it's principal point fully applies here as well. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And with that in mind, we cannot go inventing our own rules as to who is and who isn't a constructor. There may be some merit in separating Marussia and Manor Marussia on an individual level, but it has wider implications for the WikiProject. How many articles would be affected by such a change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If it merits a discussion, then we will have the discussion. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Lazy merger
I don't remember that we came to a conclusion through the merger discussion but it apparently did and might I add that it was pretty sloppy merger. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A merger isn't finished in the blink of an eye. Instead of criticizing the executor, you could have simply helped improving the merged article. Tvx1 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I do the best I can with what I've got. And considering that I have never done a merger like this before, you're lucky I got as much done as I did. Like said, you're free to pitch in any time you like.


 * As for the conclusion, it was pretty cleat that there was a consensus. Even the editors who opposed it acknowledged that it was a weak oppose and that there was merit in support of keeping it. As per the guidelines for merging, if the discussion makes no progress after a week, then a merge is not inappropriate.


 * And to be perfectly honest, the "Manor Marussia F1" article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. All it did was cause more problems than it solved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, discussions should never be closed by discussion participants, and never ever be closed by the editor that initiated it. As far as concensus, you've misappropriated the weight of editor's opinions to favor your argument. I counted two people who opposed and three (including yourself) who supported. That is hardly "clear concensus" by any stretch of the imagination. However, despite the lack of strong overwhelming support, the opposition was indeed weak. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think your a bit overzealous there. Discussion can be closed by discussion participants and even initiators. But on only one condition. It is not contentious/there is unanimous support for one action. Therefore I do agree that Prisonermonkeys', the initiator, closure was inappropriate. If you want you can always challenge it. I don't agree with your assessment of the discussion, though. But most importantly, you, just like me and Prisonermonkeys, are a discussion participant and none of us should not aim to make an assessment of a discussion were mixed views were presented. Tvx1 13:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing names to Manor F1
Hi All,

We need to change the name to Manor F1, from Marussia, as the company have now changed their official name.

Ideas?

(hosgeos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosgeorges (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need to change anything. The constructor was still listed as Marussia throughout last season and are still listed as such on the first entry list for next season which has been published. I can't find anything about a name having been changed in the sources. Even if they change the name, we still don't change anything to this article, but rather create a new one for the new constructor. Tvx1 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC).

I have just updated this to the Manor Racing name, as the team have confirmed that they have changed their name source: https://twitter.com/ManorRacing. The company is not changing it's ownership or limited company name, so therefore can remain on the same page. Their new logo will also need to be updated.

--Hosgeorges (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By common practice of "WikiProject:Formula One" whenever a team changes its "constructor" name we create a new article for that constructor, Marussia should have a separate article from Manor. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Although it's when a constructor changes names. On those ground I have reverted the page move and updated the article to distinguish between the constructors Marussia and Manor. Now the redirect that has resulted from this should be expanded into a full article for Manor Racing. Tvx1 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , Are you saying the Manor Racing article should be changed from a redirect into a full article? Wording is a bit confusing. Eightball (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that is completely right, . Tvx1 22:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK good because I already started it, lol. I have Photoshop on my other computer so I can clean up the logo, looks like crap atm. Eightball (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good thinking, wise changes made. Thank you all. Hosgeorges (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marussia F1. 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/20141006153113/http://autosprint.corrieredellosport.it/2014/10/05/preoccupazione-per-dramma-bianchi/19381/ to http://autosprint.corrieredellosport.it/2014/10/05/preoccupazione-per-dramma-bianchi/19381/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113214022/http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2015/07/17/jules-bianchi-dies-at-age-25-his-family-confirms/ to http://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2015/07/17/jules-bianchi-dies-at-age-25-his-family-confirms/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marussia F1. 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/20131105194900/http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31242:f1--glock-no-formula-1-kers-kit-or-big-jump-for-marussia-virgin-in-2012&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157 to http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31242:f1--glock-no-formula-1-kers-kit-or-big-jump-for-marussia-virgin-in-2012&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402083846/http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36498%3Af1--marussia-consider-2014-mercedes-or-ferrari-formula-1-engine-supply-option&catid=1%3Af1&Itemid=157 to http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36498:f1--marussia-consider-2014-mercedes-or-ferrari-formula-1-engine-supply-option&catid=1:f1&Itemid=157
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007171102/http://live.autosport.com/commentary.php/id/788 to http://live.autosport.com/commentary.php/id/788

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)