Talk:Toyota in Formula One

Section removed - perhaps a new article needed?

At the end of the same year, Andersson founded Andersson Motorsport in his native country of Sweden and began running a Rally program for Toyota.

The move proved to be an inpractical one and the team moved to Brussels in 1975 and was renamed Team Toyota Europe (TTE), with funding coming from Toyota dealerships across Europe. The same year, Toyota secured their first victory in Motorsport, after Finnish driver Hannu Mikkola and his co-driver, Atso Aho, won the 1975 Rally of Finland in a Toyota Corolla.

Four years later the team moved on from it's Belgian base to Cologne in Western Germany. The team enjoyed further success in the 1980s, with drivers Bjorn Waldegaard and Juha Kankkunen winning the African rallies on a regular basis. The team then moved to an all-purpose racing facility which still serves as the team's base. The team enjoyed more success in the early 90s, Carlos Sainz winning the World Championship in a Four-wheel drive Toyota Celica and repeated the feat two years later.

Toyota bought the company from Andersson in 1993, and remaned it Toyota Motorsport. Juha Kankkunen won the World Title in the same year and Toyota became the first Japanese manufacturer to win the Contructors' championship in the WRC. Didier Auriol repeated the feat for the team in 1994 but the team were caught using an illegal turbo system during the Rally of Spain; the team admitted to the usage of the system and were banned for 12-months by the FIA.

The Toyota GT-One entered by Toyota Motorsport for the 1998 Le Mans 24 hours.

The team managed to get back into the championship in 1996, but the opposition was too strong and the team were unable to re-establish the success they enjoyed during the early 1990s. During early 1997, Toyota began to recruit staff for their attempt to win the Le Mans 24 hours the following year. With a long-term aim to start a Formula One team, Toyota entered the 1998 Le Mans 24 hours with a strong driver line-up, with ex-Formula One drivers, Thierry Boutsen; Martin Brundle and Ukyo Katayama driving a Toyota GT-One. Although the cars were fast, they were beaten in the two races the team entered, 1998 and 1999, beaten by Porshe and BMW repectively.

---

That section is basically the (Brief in some ways) history of Toyota prior to the creation of the Formula One team. I'll get round to expanding it's related article after the outcome of Alain Prost's FAC. Anyway, sorry if the section was a bit too much Mark.--Skully Collins 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferrari scandal

Nothing about the scandal with the stolen data from Ferrari?

(This has since been included in the article). Lradrama 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Toyota statistics

Doesn't this section largely repeat the info box at the top of the article? 4u1e 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It may repeat it a little bit, but there is much more information in this new section of the article, which will be of major interest to F1 fans, particularly Toyota F1 fans, and those researching the team

Lradrama 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

8 of the 18 items listed are direct duplicates of what is in the infobox. I can see that some readers would have an interest in the rest of it. I would suggest removing the duplicates - it's the sort of thing that doesn't go down well if you want to get the article to Good Article standard. Cheers. 4u1e 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do just that. Lradrama 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Sections - sponsorship and drivers

I've added 2 new sections that will be of use to people looking at this page.

• A brief history list of the drivers that've raced for Toyota F1
• A bit about the sponsorship

I hope everyone likes them, and i was enspired by other F1 team pages. Expand them if you want Lradrama 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Road to FA status

My aim is to get this article to GA, and then FA status (good article and featured article respectively). Currently, this article on Toyota F1 is a B-class article. I am going to address it's problems and improve it's content.

If you have any suggestions, put them on this page, or on my talk page (User talk:Lradrama) - I'd appreciate any all the help possible.

This is an exciting project, and I hope you support it. (Please, if you think some of the content may be unsuitable, don't revert all of my work; just remove the offending text, and contact me with your reasons - constructive criticism is the foundation for success!)

Lradrama 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first task I'm going to do is to try and improve the introduction. Lradrama 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Just a suggestion, but I usually do that last - the reason is that the lead should summarise the rest of the article, so it's hard to write it well until you've got the rest of the article where you want it. :)) 4u1e 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. What do you think of what I've done though? Lradrama 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking for an opinion, the standard of writing is good - although watch out for a lack of neutrality (see WP:NPOV) and for original research (see WP:OR). The third paragraph of the lead looks like it may be your own conclusions rather than fact or the attributed views of notable authorities - if so, it should go. The second and third paragraphs cover material which is not presently in the rest of the article, which ultimately should not be the case. As I say, the third para should probably go, the content of the second para could be included in the article, if referenced. Hope that's useful, it's intended to be! 4u1e 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3rd paragraph - gone Lradrama 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess they were your own views then? ;-) Do you have a reference for the material in the second paragraph, and whereabouts in the article do you think the material should go (remembering that the lead is only supposed to be a summary)? Cheers. 4u1e 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've recently been adding as much information as I can regarding details of each season the team have competed in so far (2002 to 2007). For example, I've inputted information on Mike Gascoyne's departure in the 2006 bit. Lradrama 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm now thinking of replacing the 'drivers past & present' part with a section called 'Notable Drivers', like the version in the Fittipaldi Automotive article. Lradrama 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done this now. Remember, this is NOT a repeat of the details in the season review sections above that part, but an in-depth look into the successes and failures of Toyota's notable drivers within the team. The content would be far too detailed to feature in season reviews anyway. Some references are needed, but they can be seen to later. I was inspired to create this section after reading the Fittipaldi Automotive section, and after the previous 'Toyota F1's drivers - past and present' section was deemed unnecessary. I hope this a big improvement... after the time I spent on writing it...! Lradrama 13:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable drivers

Here are some thoughts, which you may or may not feel are useful (or right)!

1. Some editors seem to feel that using a heading of 'Notable drivers/races/whatevers' is not a valid approach, although it is one that has been used quite a lot in motorsport articles. See Blungyen's comments in Monaco Grand Prix's recently (failed!) Featured Article submission. I'm not completely persuaded by his arguments, but I have some sympathy for them (and have edited that article to try and address them).
2. Watch out for original research. The first para (beginning "Olivier Panis was could be classed as Toyota F1's first notable driver......" - spot the redundant word, by the way!) looks to be your assessment of the situation, not a referenced position. The style you have used is 'argumentative', by which I don't mean that it's stroppy ;-), but that you are stating that X is true and Y is true, therefore Z is true. You could probably replace this with a brief description of what criteria you have used for inclusion - for which 'race winning drivers' is probably the easiest.
3. Also on style you probably also need to continue to keep an eye on neutrality: Terms like 'great results', 'bad luck', 'bounced back', 'a cruel term', 'disappointing' etc will be seen as projecting a certain point of view. I know you're a Toyota fan, but for Wikipedia you need to keep the language used neutral (and display your enthusiasm for the team through the quality of the article!).
4. And the section is unreferenced, of course! For a modern team like this there should be a fair amount of online material available to reference this section.
5. I think the content you have written for this section is mostly relevant. If I were writing this from scratch now I think I would probably include the material at the appropriate points in the 'racing history' sections, but I don't see a particular problem with keeping it as a separate 'Notable drivers' section if you feel that is a better way of presenting the information.
6. Can you get any more on Toyota's approach to its drivers? They've been pretty hard-nosed about firing drivers so far, and as a personal point of view, I wonder whether they've hurt themselves by changing them quite so frequently early on.

Hope that's helpful. On balance, if you think the section's a good idea, I'd be inclined to keep it, but it does need some more work. 4u1e 17:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll see what I can do! Lradrama 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say the same stuff as 41ue after reading the article, it could potentially be a good section but the points need to be addressed first. You could probably do with finding a source defining R. Schumacher and Trulli as notable drivers. I do have concern over the title Notable however, I know what you're trying to say but I feel if a driver wasn't notable, in the Wikipedia world he shouldn't have an article. All drivers who've taken part in an F1 race are considered notable enough to have an article. I'm not sure if successful is POV, perhaps a source can be found for that to be used as a heading. AlexJ 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for sharing your views. I'll get round to it. Lradrama 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, the main things needed now are the references, and removing anything else that seems to be POV, and also if we can improve the 'Notable drivers' header to something a little more acceptable for everyone. Much as it aggravates me to do so, I will be absent from Wikipedia for a week at most, but I'll be back have no fear, to tackle the remaining issues.

After that, the sponsorship section needs seeing to. www.toyota-f1.com could be useful for that. See you all in a bit! Lradrama 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

• Lack of sources in the second half of article
• Use of contractions in the article
• Apparent OR is determining RS and JT as "notable drivers" and not the others
• "After a rather lacklustre 2004 season with the Grove-based team, a need for change was felt and Ralf joined Toyota. Many an eyebrow was raised at this transition, for the Japanese team had yet to mount the podium, let alone win a race." Should probably note that Williams wanted to give RS a pay cut because of his performance and he refused, and went to a weaker team for pay increase. There was a lot of comment about his motiviations in going to Toyota. Persistent refs to "Ralf" and not "Schumacher". Ditto for "Jarno"
• hyperbole "Qualifying 6th on his Toyota debut in Japan was a sign of great things to come from this new partnership" - other examples exist
• many unsourced subjective comments about driving ability

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

These are being seen to. Lradrama 11:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As you have mentioned relisting, I thought I would chip in with a few comments. You really ought to spend a couple of hours reading through most of the WP:MoS guidance, as there is plenty in there that will help you improve this article. The most serious issue I would raise here is that of the prose tone, seconding Blnguyen's comments above. As it stands, this article is far too magaziney in tone, with too many unsubstantiated comments and POV asides. As a secondary concern, you really need to get a grip on desirable levels of detail. Many of the sections in this article are overlong, with information that veers off-topic by quite a distance. Be aware that there are both Toyota and Toyota Motorsport articles already extant, and you should not duplicate too much of their content. The section on 1957-2002 could be far shorter, for example. Similarly, both of the drivers discussed have reasonable personal articles, and there is little justification for the length of their entries here. And I know that recent events always seem more significant, but do we really need so much on the current season? It is starting to sound more like a blog than an encyclopedia entry. I'll be happy to give specific editorial comments if you like, but it might take a few days before I have time! Pyrope 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Pyrope, and yes, further help will be gratefully recieved. :-) Lradrama 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Chipping in with a passing thought: In cutting down on the 1957 - 2002 section, I'd suggest concentrating more on cutting material from the first para than from the second, since the second is about the actual origin of the F1 team. 4u1e 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. Lradrama 11:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

References

As you may probably have seen, I'm beginning to insert the required references into the article. Many thanks to 4u1e for his help with this, and providing links to the best sites to use. This process will take some time, but at least we're addressing another of those points on the failed GA list. Lradrama 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments removed - no sources... :-(

Hello. If you've been looking on the Toyota F1 article hostory recently, you'll have noticed I've removed two comments (anyhow, I put them there in the first place).

The first one was a comment saying that Ralf Schumacher bonded better with Jarno Trulli at Toyota than with Juan Pablo Montoya at Williams.

The second was one which stated Tsutomu Tomita saying that Toyota's 1st podium result (Malaysia 2005) 'was the best day' in his life.

I know these were done or said (the latter was stated in the Autosport magazine - but that can't be used as a reference). But on looking through records on the internet, I can't find anything that would act as a reference for them.

I've thus removed them to ensure the quality of this article - it failed its GA application due to unsourced statements mostly.

If anyone can find any references for these true claims, please say so - either on this talkpage, or on my talkpage please. Thank you, Lradrama 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lradrama - Glad to see you're still at work! There's no reason that you can't use Autosport as a reference; it's a respectable print publication. There is no requirement that references be available online and something like Autosport probably carries more weight than some online sources. 4u1e 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes! That could be a good idea! Thanks 4u1e for the 'tip-off', although, how would you do that? It's just I've never done that before  :-). Lradrama 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the first question would be: Do you have a copy of the Autosport magazine in question? I kind of assumed you did from your comment above. Or do you just read them in WHSmith's like me ;-). If you have a copy, then you could use the template {{[[Template:Citation|Citation]]}} '''newspaper''' (or '''magazine''', '''journal''', '''periodical''') from Wikipedia:Citation_templates. See ref 3 from Monaco Grand Prix for an example in practice. Drop me a note on my talk page if you get stuck. 4u1e 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics Section - YES / NO?

When this section was first created, it raised a few issues, and it is proving to make the article a bit messy I think. We have the infobox, and that automatically gets updated by users, but the Statistics section remains stagnant. Do people think it should stay or go? Should we have both, or should we just stick to the infobox? All views will be gratefully recieved. Lradrama 18:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You should keep it if you are capable of proseify it (lists are bad), and source every single statement. Also, I think this will soon be good to go to GAC once you source everything in the 2005-2006 part, and in the end also. One more advice: Once it passes GAC, it will be very close to FA level, given its coverage, layout, and sources. But two things might hold you back, so you might as well think about it now. One is the need for print references; online refs are good, but FAC reviewers generally expect at least two or three (the more the better) hard copys. These include books (I see you have a self published series, hard to defend, and an encyclopedia, not as reliable as a secondary source), but also magazines (always provide an ISSN to look serious). The other advice I would give is to have as much people as you can find to come and copyedit the article thoroughly. You can never have enough of that before goint to FAC (criterion 1a: prose should be of a professionnal standard). My advice is to go to the different projects this article is involved with, and start knocking at doors. Try people who made F1 FAs, and then everyone else.

Any way keep it up and happy editing!--SidiLemine 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your help. I am going to put the odd magazine ref on the article shortly, and I'd also like to thank 4u1e with his help with that particular task. Your comments are gratefully valued. :-) Lradrama 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comments from SidLemine. One minor concern though: The Autocourse refs are not 'a self published series', which I take to be the implication, but an independent season summary (and a failry well regarded one at that). I wonder if the chapter headings ('Panasonic Toyota Racing') are causing the confusion? I don't think this is a major issue, but if it's really causing a problem then I suppose the chapter headings could be removed. 4u1e 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what got me confused. It looks much better now. Keep it up!--SidiLemine 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reusing this article for LMP program?

Toyota's entry in the World Endurance Championship is running under the title of Toyota Racing. Should this current article be restructured to reflect Toyota's sports car efforts, both in the late 90s and now, since they are under the same title? Or would it be better managed under Toyota Motorsport GmbH which has run all three programs (GT-One, F1, TS030)? The³5₉ (Talk) 07:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WEC entry belongs to the Toyota Motorsport GmbH article, Toyota Racing is just a trading name. Actually, I'd rather say this F1 article should be a subsection of TMG article because the F1 entry was a TMG activity. But, the F1 entry may have been so notable that it deserves an own article. --August90 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toyota Racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061122051352/http://www.toyota-f1.com/public/en/motorsports/evolution/tf101.html to http://www.toyota-f1.com/public/en/motorsports/evolution/tf101.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)