text:
Oppidum

An oppidum (: oppida) is a large fortified Iron Age settlement or town. Oppida are primarily associated with the Celtic late La Tène culture, emerging during the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, spread across Europe, stretching from Britain and Iberia in the west to the edge of the Hungarian plain in the east. These settlements continued to be used until the Romans conquered Southern and Western Europe. Many subsequently became Roman-era towns and cities, whilst others were abandoned. In regions north of the rivers Danube and Rhine, such as most of Germania, where the populations remained independent from Rome, oppida continued to be used into the 1st century AD.

Definition

Oppidum is a Latin word meaning 'defended (fortified) administrative centre or town', originally used in reference to non-Roman towns as well as provincial towns under Roman control. The word is derived from the earlier Latin ob-pedum, 'enclosed space', possibly from the Proto-Indo-European pedóm-, 'occupied space' or 'footprint'. In modern archaeological usage oppidum is a conventional term for large fortified settlements associated with the Celtic La Tène culture.

In his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Julius Caesar described the larger Celtic Iron Age settlements he encountered in Gaul during the Gallic Wars in 58 to 52 BC as oppida. Although he did not explicitly define what features qualified a settlement to be called an oppidum, the main requirements emerge. They were important economic sites, places where goods were produced, stored and traded, and sometimes Roman merchants had settled and the Roman legions could obtain supplies. They were also political centres, the seat of authorities who made decisions that affected large numbers of people, such as the appointment of Vercingetorix as head of the Gallic revolt in 52 BC.

Caesar named 28 oppida. By 2011, only 21 of these had been positively identified by historians and archaeologists: either there was a traceable similarity between the Latin and the modern name of the locality (e.g. Civitas Aurelianorum-Orléans), or excavations had provided the necessary evidence (e.g. Alesia). Most of the places that Caesar called oppida were city-sized fortified settlements. However, Geneva, for example, was referred to as an oppidum, but no fortifications dating to this period have yet been discovered there. Caesar also refers to 20 oppida of the Bituriges and 12 of the Helvetii, twice the number of fortified settlements of these groups known today. That implies that Caesar likely counted some unfortified settlements as oppida. A similar ambiguity is in evidence in writing by the Roman historian Livy, who also used the word for both fortified and unfortified settlements.

In his work Geographia, Ptolemy listed the coordinates of many Celtic settlements. However, research has shown many of the localisations of Ptolemy to be erroneous, making the identification of any modern location with the names he listed highly uncertain and speculative. An exception to that is the oppidum of Brenodurum at Bern, which was confirmed by an archaeological discovery.

In archaeology and prehistory, the term oppida now refers to a category of settlement; it was first used in that sense by Paul Reinecke, Joseph Déchelette and in reference to Bibracte, Manching, and Závist. In particular, Dehn suggested defining an oppidum by four criteria:
 * 1) Size: The settlement has to have a minimum size, defined by Dehn as 30 ha.
 * 2) Topography: Most oppida are situated on heights, but some are located on flat areas of land.
 * 3) Fortification: The settlement is surrounded by a (ideally uninterrupted) wall, usually consisting of three elements: a facade of stone, a wooden construction and an earthen rampart at the back. Gates are usually pincer gates.
 * 4) Chronology: The settlement dates from the late Iron Age: the last two centuries BC.

In current usage, most definitions of oppida emphasise the presence of fortifications, so they are different from undefended farms or settlements, and urban characteristics, marking them as separate from hill forts. They are often described as 'the first cities north of the Alps', though earlier examples of urbanism in temperate Europe are also known. The period of 2nd and 1st centuries BC places them in the period known as La Tène. A notional minimum size of 15 to 25 ha has often been suggested, but that is flexible and fortified sites as small as 2 ha have been described as oppida. However, the term is not always rigorously used, and it has been used to refer to any hill fort or circular rampart dating from the La Tène period. One of the effects of the inconsistency in definitions is that it is uncertain how many oppida were built.

In European archaeology, the term oppida is also used more widely to characterize any fortified prehistoric settlement. For example, significantly older hill-top structures like the one at Glauberg (6th or 5th century BC) have been called oppida.

Such wider use of the term is, for example, common in the Iberian archaeology; in the descriptions of the Castro culture it is commonly used to refer to the settlements going back to the 9th century BC. The Spanish word castro, also used in English, means 'a walled settlement' or 'hill fort', and this word is often used interchangeably with oppidum by archaeologists.

Location and type
"What was swept away in Northern Europe by the Roman Conquest was itself a dynamic indigenous culture extending across the transalpine landmass, usually known today as that of the Celts. The proto-urban Oppida – a Latin word used by Julius Caesar himself – remain one of the most striking manifestations of this pre-Roman northern European civilization."

According to pre-historian John Collis oppida extend as far east as the Hungarian plain where other settlement types take over. Around 200 oppida are known today. Central Spain has sites similar to oppida, but while they share features such as size and defensive ramparts the interior was arranged differently. Oppida feature a wide variety of internal structures, from continuous rows of dwellings (Bibracte) to more widely spaced individual estates (Manching). Some oppida had internal layouts resembling the insulae of Roman cities (Variscourt). Little is known, however, about the purpose of any public buildings.

The main features of the oppida are the walls and gates, the spacious layout, and usually a commanding view of the surrounding area. The major difference with earlier structures was their much larger size. Earlier hill forts were mostly just a few hectares in area, whilst oppida could encompass several dozen or even hundreds of hectares. They also played a role in displaying the power and wealth of the local inhabitants and as a line of demarcation between the town and the countryside. According to Jane McIntosh, the "impressive ramparts with elaborate gateways ... were probably as much for show and for controlling the movement of people and goods as for defense". Some of the oppida fortifications were built on an immense scale. Construction of the 7km-long murus gallicus at Manching required an estimated 6,900 m3 of stones for the façade alone, up to 7.5 tons of iron nails, 90,000 m3 of earth and stones for the fill between the posts and 100,000 m3 of earth for the ramp. In terms of labour, some 2,000 people would have been needed for 250 days. The 5.5km-long murus gallicus of Bibracte may have required 40 to 60 hectares of mature oak woodland to be clear-felled for its construction.

However, size and construction of oppida varied considerably. Typically oppida in Bohemia and Bavaria were much larger than those found in the north and west of France. Typically oppida in Britain are small, but there is a group of large oppida in the south east; though oppida are uncommon in northern Britain, Stanwick stands out as an unusual example as it covers 350 ha. Dry stone walls supported by a bank of earth, called Kelheim ramparts, were characteristic of oppida in central Europe. To the east, timbers were often used to support the earth and stone ramparts, called Pfostenschlitzmauer (post slot wall) or "Preist-type wall". In western Europe, especially Gaul, the murus gallicus (a timber frame nailed together, with a stone facade and earth/stone fill), was the dominant form of rampart construction. Dump ramparts, that is earth unsupported by timber, were common in Britain and were later adopted in France. They have been found in particular in the north-west and central regions of France and were combined with wide moats ("Type Fécamp"). Oppida can be divided into two broad groups, those around the Mediterranean coast and those further inland. The latter group were larger, more varied, and spaced further apart.

In Britain the oppidum of Camulodunon (modern Colchester, built between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD), tribal capital of the Trinovantes and at times the Catuvellauni, made use of natural defences enhanced with earthworks to protect itself. The site was protected by two rivers on three of its sides, with the River Colne bounding the site to the north and east, and the Roman River forming the southern boundary; the extensive bank and ditch earthworks topped with palisades were constructed to close off the open western gap between these two river valleys. These earthworks are considered the most extensive of their kind in Britain, and together with the two rivers enclosed the high status farmsteads, burial grounds, religious sites, industrial areas, river port and coin mint of the Trinovantes.

History

Prehistoric Europe saw a growing population. According to Jane McIntosh, in about 5,000 BC during the Neolithic between 2 million and 5 million people lived in Europe; in the late (pre-Roman) Iron Age (2nd and 1st centuries BC) it had an estimated population of around 15 to 30 million. Outside Greece and Italy, which were more densely populated, the vast majority of settlements in the Iron Age were small, with perhaps no more than 50 inhabitants. While hill forts could accommodate up to 1,000 people, oppida in the late Iron Age could reach as large as 10,000 inhabitants.

Oppida originated in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. Most were built on fresh sites, usually on an elevated position. Such a location would have allowed the settlement to dominate nearby trade routes and may also have been important as a symbol of control of the area. For instance at the oppidum of Ulaca in Spain the height of the ramparts is not uniform: those overlooking the valley are considerably higher than those facing towards the mountains in the area. The traditional explanation is that the smaller ramparts were unfinished because the region was invaded by the Romans; however, archaeologist John Collis dismisses this explanation because the inhabitants managed to build a second rampart extending the site by 20 ha to cover an area of 80 ha. Instead he believes the role of the ramparts as a status symbol may have been more important than their defensive qualities.

While some oppida grew from hill forts, by no means all of them had significant defensive functions. The development of oppida was a milestone in the urbanisation of the continent as they were among the first large settlements north of the Alps that could genuinely be described as towns or cities (earlier sites include the 'Princely Seats' of the Hallstatt period). Caesar pointed out that each tribe of Gaul would have several oppida but that they were not all of equal importance, implying a form of settlement hierarchy, with some oppida serving as regional capitals. This is also reflected in the archaeological evidence. According to Fichtl (2018), in the first century BC Gaul was divided into around sixty civitates (the term used by Caesar) or 'autonomous city-states', which were mostly organized around one or more oppida. In some cases, "one of these can be regarded effectively as a capital."

Oppida continued in use until the Romans began conquering Iron Age Europe. Even in the lands north of the River Danube that remained unconquered by the Romans, oppida were abandoned by the late 1st century AD. In conquered lands, the Romans used the infrastructure of the oppida to administer the empire, and many became full Roman towns. This often involved a change of location from the hilltop into the plain.

Examples
By modern country.

Belgium/Luxembourg/Netherlands

 * Oppidum Aduaticorum/Atuatucorum, location undetermined, Belgium
 * Canteleux, Huissignies, Chièvres, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Cheslé, Bérisménil, Samrée La Roche-en-Ardenne, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Chession, Han-sur-Lesse, Rochefort, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Flobecq, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Gilly-Ransart, Charleroi, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Gougnies, Gerpinnes, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Orchimont, Vresse-sur-Semois, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Sinsin, Somme-Leuze, Wallonia, Belgium
 * Titelberg, Luxembourg
 * Caestert, possibly Atuatuca Tungrorum, on the Walloon/Flemish/Dutch border, Belgium/Netherlands

Czech Republic

 * Hostýn
 * , Radíč
 * České Lhotice
 * Staré Hradisko Population estimate 5,000.
 * Stradonice
 * Třísov
 * Nevězice
 * , 170 ha. Population estimate 3,400. See reconstructed model of the acropolis in 450 BC.
 * , 170 ha. Population estimate 3,400. See reconstructed model of the acropolis in 450 BC.

France

 * Alesia
 * Ambrussum
 * Oppidum d’Altimurium near Murviel-lès-Montpellier
 * Bibracte (Mont Beuvray), 135 ha
 * Bracquemont, Haute-Normandie
 * Cenabum, Orléans
 * La Chaussée-Tirancourt, Picardie
 * La Cheppe, Champagne-Ardenne
 * Corent
 * Divodurum, ancestor of present-day Metz, oppidum of the Mediomatrici
 * Oppidum d'Ensérune
 * Oppidum d'Entremont
 * Oppidum of Moulay
 * Oppidum de Nages
 * Oppidum de Marduel
 * Gergovia, 75 ha
 * Oppidum de Gondole
 * Jœuvres, Saint-Jean-Saint-Maurice-sur-Loire
 * Langres, Champagne-Ardenne
 * Montlaurès
 * Pech Maho
 * Salon-de-Provence
 * Toulouse
 * Uxellodunum
 * Vesontio, Besançon
 * Uxellodunum
 * Vesontio, Besançon

Germany

 * Alcimoennis, Kelheim, 600 ha
 * Donnersberg, 240 ha
 * Dünsberg
 * , Creglingen
 * Heidengraben, 1,700 ha
 * Hohenasperg
 * Glauberg (controversial, not dating to the 1st/2nd century BC)
 * Manching, 380 ha
 * Martberg
 * Milseburg
 * Staffelberg, known as Menosgada
 * Oppidum Steinsburg
 * Oppidum Steinsburg

Great Britain

 * Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester), England
 * Camulodunon, (Colchester) England
 * Oram's Arbour (Winchester), England
 * Nanstallon, England
 * Ratae Corieltauvorum (Leicester), England
 * Traprain Law, Scotland
 * Verlamion, England
 * Noviomagus Reginorum, (Chichester), England

Hungary

 * Budapest-Gellért Hill
 * Velem-Szentvid, Velem

Portugal

 * Citânia de Briteiros
 * Óbidos
 * Castro Culture of Portugal

Serbia

 * Čarnok, near Vrbas
 * Židovar

Slovakia

 * Bratislava
 * Devín

Spain

 * List of castros in Asturias
 * List of castros in the Basque Country
 * List of castros in Cantabria
 * List of castros in Castile and León
 * List of castros in Galicia
 * Castro culture

Switzerland

 * Basel-Münsterhügel
 * Bern (Brenodurum)
 * Mont Vully, Bas-Vully
 * Zürich-Lindenhof

title: Oppidum


text:
User talk:Honzik

Hello "Honzik" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question to the village pump.
 * Please don't keep creating pages with nothing but illustrations; they are apt to get deleted. If it's worth starting a page, please include at least a sentence (preferably more) explaining what its about.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian -- Infrogmation 19:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pssst-game1.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pssst-game1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cookie-intro.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cookie-intro.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Honzik


text:
Director telephone system

The director telephone system was a development of the Strowger or step-by-step (SXS) switching system used in London and five other large cities in the UK from the 1920s to the 1980s.

A large proportion (c. 70% to 80%) of telephone traffic in large metropolitan areas is outgoing traffic, and it is distributed over many exchanges. A non-director SXS exchange system is not suitable for these areas.

As the translation facility incorporated was similar to the register in common control systems, the director system incorporates two features of the Panel system, which was introduced in large American cities, and which were required regardless of the type of exchange system for these large areas, which would have a mixture of manual and automatic exchanges for some years. Customer stations were assigned seven-digit numbers, with the first three digits spelling out the local exchange name; this expedited call handling particularly to and from manual exchanges. Direct or tandem junction routes to other exchanges could be allocated as required, with routing independent of the telephone number and able to be altered at any time to cater for traffic growth or the introduction of new local or tandem exchanges.

Each local exchange incorporated up to eight groups of directors which translated the first three digits (ABC digits) comprising the exchange name into a pulse train of one to six digits, as required for each exchange and unique to that exchange. The translated digits were sent to the code selectors, and then the four numeric digits were sent to three switching stages in the terminating exchange (two group selectors and a final selector). Hence local calls within the exchange and busy direct junction routes to exchanges with high traffic from that exchange could be trunked via one code selection stage, which reduced both the setting-up time and the total number of selectors required in the network. Distant exchanges which did not justify direct junction routes could be called via one or more tandem exchanges; being routed via one, two or three local code selectors in the originating exchange, one or more selectors in the tandem exchange(s), and finally the numeric selection stages in the terminating exchange for the last four digits, which were stored and forwarded without translation.

Numbering plan
The telephone numbering plan for the Director System assigned seven-digit telephone numbers to subscriber stations. The first three digits were encoded as the first three letters of the local exchange name. The translation map of letters to digits was displayed directly on the telephone rotary dial, by grouping the letters with the corresponding digits. The British letter arrangement was similar to American dials, except that the letters “O” and "Q" mapped to digit 0, not 6: 1 (unmapped), 2 ABC, 3 DEF, 4 GHI, 5 JKL, 6 MN, 7 PRS, 8 TUV, 9 WXY, 0 OQ. The mapping of O and Q to 0 was to eliminate the possibility of a subscriber misdialling as a result of misreading a number.

A subscriber in Wimbledon, for example, would be assigned the number WIMbledon 1234; the first three letters, written in capitals, indicated the exchange code to be dialled. The actual trains of pulses from the subscriber's dial were 9461234. The exchange code digits dialled by the calling subscriber were the same from any telephone in the London director area, which has a linked numbering scheme. Subscribers on manual exchanges asked for a number in the format Wimbledon 1234, whether the called number was on a manual or automatic exchange.

The three-letter code was written in bold capitals if the caller should dial all seven digits. If written merely in capitals it indicated that the desired number was on an exchange which had not yet been converted to automatic working, and that the caller should dial only the initial three code digits, and wait to be connected by an operator. Later some of the remaining manual exchanges were equipped with Coded-Call Indicators (CCI) which displayed the local digits dialled by the caller to the operator, The number would be listed as for an automatic subscriber with the first three letters in bold, and automatic subscribers would dial all seven digits. If an exchange was outside the Director linked-number area, the exchange name and number was in small type, e.g. Laindon 2263.

In a Director area there were 8 digits available for the A-digit letter of the exchange name (excluding ‘1’and ‘0’), and 9 digits each for the B-digit and C-digit letters; hence there were a maximum of 648 exchange names (8 × 9 × 9), though in practice some ABC codes (e.g. 555) did not have a usable name equivalent, and by 1966 London (with 350 exchanges) was running out of exchange names. Special Service numbers apart from “0” for operator used a three-letter exchange name; e.g. TOL (toll), TRU (trunk), DIR (directory enquiries), TIM (time, the “speaking clock”), ENG (engineering i.e. faults), or UMP (for the Test Match cricket scores).

Equipment
To make a call, the subscriber's uniselector seizes a free first code selector, which in turn seizes an A-digit selector via an A-digit hunter uniselector. The A-digit selector returns dial tone, steps to the first dialled digit and searches for a free director from that group. The director includes a two-motion selector – the BC switch – which steps vertically and then horizontally according to the two BC digits. This selector has six banks to permit up to six pulse trains to be generated by the director to step the code selectors; the bank contacts are strapped via a translation field to indicate the digit required (or to a DCO lead to indicate that all translation digits have been sent). The pulse train output begins after the C-digit is received from the subscriber's telephone. This is generated under the control of the send switch uniselector as it searches for the marks provided by the translation field straps for the exchange code received. Meanwhile, the subscriber has continued to dial and the four digits of the numerical portion of the number are stored on four more uniselectors. These set up four more marks, and after completing the output of the code translation the send switch uniselector searches for them in turn in order to forward the numerical digits unchanged to step the numerical selectors at the terminating exchange.

Calls to manual exchanges (where the caller asks the manual exchange operator for the number) and calls to special service like “0” for operator or “999” for emergencies do not require any numeric digits.

The holding time of the A-digit selector and director will depend on the number (1 to 6) and length of code digits to be sent, and whether numeric digits are also to be sent, but averages 20 seconds. On a call to the operator via digit “0” which has already been received by the A-digit selector and requires no more than four routing digits and no numeric digits, the holding time will be only 2 or 3 seconds. As traffic to the operator via digit “0” is small, this level on the A-digit selector does not have its own group of directors; one or more of the other groups of directors is equipped with the necessary manual board facilities. Seizure of one of these directors via level "0" passes a discrimination signal to it which causes it to pulse out the routing digits to give access to the operator with no further dialling required by the subscriber.

For calls to manual local exchanges with CCI equipment to display the called number to the operator, the equipment required at the manual exchange and the director equipment holding time can be minimised by using storage equipment at the automatic exchange which holds the number information until manual exchange equipment is available.

The A-digit selector, BC switch and particularly the send switch uniselector of the director were worked much harder than selectors in the switching train which were held for the duration of the call, and the noise in the vicinity of director racks in the busy hour could be unbearable. An experimental “all-relay” director (apart from a motor uniselector for the translations) was developed in the 1950s to try to reduce the amount of maintenance the directors needed. Before they were replaced by electronic exchanges, some director exchanges had the director equipment replaced by electronic directors using CMOS technology which controlled the exchange selectors, with economies in space and maintenance.

Code selectors
The first code selectors had levels for local exchange calls and calls to the local tandem exchange. An exchange with up to 23 outgoing routes would require a second code selection stage on some calls, and for more outgoing routes (up to 93) some third selection stages. But as a nearby business exchange might have 50 TU (traffic units) in the BH (busy hour), and more distant exchanges might have only 2 or 3 TUs, the busy routes should be on the first code selectors and the least busy routes only via a second and perhaps a third selection stage. Hence for a hypothetical example with 30 outgoing routes, three schemes are possible with (A) three second and no third code selector groups, (B) two second and one third code selector groups, and (C) one second and two third code selector groups. The number of switches for the hypothetical traffic distribution is 348, 302 and 315 switches, i.e. scheme B is the optimum; but each exchange must be calculated individually. The busy routes should also be allocated to the lower levels on the selectors to minimise setting-up time and also the number of operations of the mechanism and hence the wear on them.

Local call metering must be done at the originating exchange, and when local calls were charged by distance it was preferable for the first code selector levels to determine the number of unit fees required. The fee was 1 unit up to 5 mi, 2 units 5 to 7 + 1 / 2 mi, 3 units 7+1/2 to 12 + 1 / 2 mi, and 4 units 12+1/2 to 15 mi.

Preparation for director service
Before director service could be introduced to any exchange in the network, all subscriber numbers were converted to the 3L-4N format, with any two- or three-digit local numbers (e.g. Tudor 432) expanded to four numeric digits. The exchange names were changed if necessary, as the same network cannot have exchanges called BRIxton and CRIcklewood, which both correspond to 274. As the first digit “0” is used for operator access, an exchange name cannot start with the letters “O” or "Q". The letter “Z” is not included on the dial, so the first three letters of an exchange name cannot include it.

In smaller director areas outside London some A-digit levels could be combined so that local director exchanges only needed three or four groups of directors instead of eight, with greater efficiency from the larger groups of directors. A hypothetical area with 30 exchanges could be served by three groups of directors serving A-digit levels 2 & 3; 4 & 7, and 5, 6 & 8. But it was not possible to have (say) exchanges called PERivale and TERminus in a director area where levels 7 and 8 were combined, and hence in these smaller areas, requirements for additional exchange names must be considered.

Before a manual exchange was converted to automatic, changes to allocated numbers to facilitate PBX hunting groups were required. In SXS automatic exchanges only some number groups have PBX hunting facility, and within those number groups the main and other numbers in a hunting group have to be in a certain order. If TUDor 2725 (say) was to be the listed (main) number subsequent numbers must be 2726, 2727, 2728 2729 & 2720; and the PBX hunting group on 2725 is limited to a maximum of 6 incoming lines (although the PBX could also have additional outgoing-only lines to the exchange). A PBX group with 10 PBX-hunting lines would commence with 2721 (say) to 2720, and PBX hunting groups requiring more than 10 incoming lines would be served by special 11-and-over PBX final selectors which could search over several (10-line) levels in succession.

In practice to save space 200-outlet final selectors were almost always used in preference to 100-outlet; the selectors switched to the alternate wipers, or not as appropriate, depending on which preceding selector stage seized them. This allowed a PBX group to have up to 20 lines without the need of 11-and-over PBX final selectors. Moreover, if these selectors were used, the PBX group could have up to 200 lines, and the final selectors in the group were arranged so that different selectors searched over the lines in a different order to reduce waiting times for callers.

Any two-party numbers also needed to be served by two-party or shared service equipment. The two subscribers on a two-party line would have separate three-letter then four digit numbers in a special number group, and had selective ringing to the party required only (code ringing with a letter suffix for the code required was not used).

The London director area
In 1927 Holborn (HOLborn), the first director automatic exchange in London, was cutover at midnight on Saturday 12 November. As it was a largely business exchange, most subscribers did not use the new system until Monday 14 November. The changeover was successful, although there were some delays as the subscribers were not familiar with using a dial phone. BIShopgate and SLOane exchanges were to follow in six weeks, followed by WEStern and MONument exchanges. The London area contained 80 exchanges, and full conversion took many years.

Holborn exchange had 9,400 subscribers (lines) and had 222 directors, each of which on average handled 72 calls in the busy hour and be held for 20 seconds. Holborn was also a tandem exchange for calls to and from local manual exchanges, so that the tandem traffic from manual exchanges was combined with traffic from automatic exchanges. Handling local calls between manual exchanges via a third operator at a tandem exchange is uneconomic, but without tandem switching each manual exchange would have required direct junctions to every other manual exchange. In London there were 73 manual exchanges within 10 mi of Oxford Circus, of which twenty had coded-call indicator equipment which displayed the number dialled to the local manual exchange operator, and the rest were to be equipped shortly.

By 1950 the London director system had 75 exchanges within a 5 mi radius of Oxford Circus and a further 65 in the 5 to 10 mi belt; and in Greater London i.e. within 20 mi of Oxford Circus there were 237 exchanges altogether. London had some exchange buildings containing two separate exchanges, as the number of customer lines exceeded 10,000; e.g. CROydon and MUNicipal in Scarbrook Road.

The rotary system had been proposed for London by Bell (Western Electric) engineers, who had developed the panel and rotary systems in the 1900s; manufactured in the United States and Europe respectively. The panel system with large switches was more suitable for a densely populated area like New York, and with outer areas of London having smaller exchanges they had proposed the rotary system (initially to be manufactured in Antwerp) for London. However the director system had the advantage of using equipment items similar to the SXS exchanges being used in smaller British cities and towns, and would be manufactured in Britain from the outset. It was also possible to convert a local SXS exchange to a director exchange.

While a director area had a maximum of 648 exchange names (8 x 9 x 9), in practice some numbers do not have a usable name equivalent; unusable ABC digits would be 688 (MUTt or MUVver?) or 555 (?). London was running out of usable names with 350 exchanges by 1965; this was one reason for the change to all-figure dialling in 1966. This problem was sidestepped to some degree by using otherwise unusable codes to give access to the fringe non-director exchanges from the director area. For example, in London callers to South Mimms were told to dial SM6 followed by the four-digit South Mimms number; callers to Uxbridge numbers were told to dial UX followed by the five-digit Uxbridge number. In this latter case the first digit of the Uxbridge number rotated the BC switch of the director and was absorbed in specifying the translation; the last digit of the translation then regenerated the first digit of the Uxbridge number.

For a list of all the local London exchanges by name in 1968, see.

Other director cities
The director system was introduced in London (1927), and then in Manchester (1930), Birmingham (1931), Glasgow (1937), Liverpool (1941), and Edinburgh (1950). While London initially included all exchanges within 12 + 1 / 2 mi of Oxford Circus, other cities initially included all exchanges within 7 mi radius from the city centre, and was then extended to include larger exchanges within 9 + 1 / 2 mi radius from the centre. Generally it was policy to install director equipment where the total number of subscribers was expected to be greater than 60,000 lines within 30 years.

In cities outside London, it was possible to avoid the installation of Coded-Call Indicator (CCI) equipment at manual exchanges by converting to automatic in stages with the issue of a new directory, e.g. converting groups of (say) six exchanges at 12-month intervals; this was done in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

In 1950 Glasgow had 35 exchanges within 7 mi of the centre of the city, several of two units, and 11 of them were within 2 mi of the centre.

By the time the director system was superseded in the UK by all-figure dialling from March 1966, London had almost exhausted all possible, usable combinations of letters (it had about 240 at that stage). While this was far from the case in the provincial cities, the crossover to all-figure dialling was still a sizeable operation in Manchester (48 exchange names to convert – including IRLam and MARple), Birmingham (43 exchanges ) and Glasgow (42).

United States
In the United States, most large cities were served by the Bell System and used the panel switch, or later the Number One Crossbar Switching System (1XB), or the Number 5 Crossbar Switching Systems rather than step-by-step equipment. Los Angeles being a small town early in the 20th century and partly being served by an independent telephone company, grew to be a major exception. Before the advent of electronic switching systems, directors were commonly used in areas of the city served by GTE.

title: Director telephone system


text:
Project A (film)

Project A (fully titled as Jackie Chan's Project A) is a 1983 Hong Kong martial arts action comedy film starring and directed by Jackie Chan, who also wrote the screenplay with Edward Tang, who produced with Leonard Ho and Raymond Chow. The film co-stars Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao. Project A was released theatrically in Hong Kong on December 22, 1983.

The film is also known in West Germany as both Piratpatrullen and Der Superfighter marketed next to Der Superfighter III (The Fearless Hyena) and Der Superfighter II (Fearless Hyena Part II). The Philippines also released the film under the title Superfly 2 and marketed it next to Superfly (Armour of God).

Set in the 19th century in old Hong Kong, Project A blends martial arts with comedy moments and spectacular stunts. One stunt in particular involved Chan hanging and falling from the hand of a clock tower some 60 ft high, tearing through awning canopies before hitting the ground, a stunt he performed three times as he was unhappy with the first two.

The film was a box office success in East Asia. At the 4th Hong Kong Film Awards, Chan received two nominations for the film (and another for Wheels on Meals), including his first Best Actor nomination, and won his first Best Action Choreography award. A sequel, Project A Part II, was released in 1987.

Plot
In the late 19th century, Sergeant Dragon Ma is part of the Hong Kong Marine Police's effort to combat pirates, who have been raiding ships for months. Members of the Hong Kong Police Force and the Marine Police, who have strong inter-service rivalries, get into a fight in a bar. Shortly after this, Captain Chi releases all of the sailors to their commanding officer, and two of the Marine Police's ships get blown up.

Gangsters Chiang and Mr. Chou meet at a VIP Club and discuss fleeing to Vietnam. As soon as Chiang leaves, he meets one of the pirates and they laugh about sabotaging the Marine Police ships. The pirate tells Chiang that his boss, San Pao wants 100 police rifles.

Dragon Ma and his squad are forced to become regular police officers. They have to undergo "hard training" with the police under Captain Chi's nephew, Hong Tin-tsu. After the police learn that Chiang is at the VIP Club, and that the guests there are not to be disturbed, Dragon and Tin-tsu go to arrest Chiang. A big fight breaks out. Tiring of the blatant corruption in the police force, Dragon arrests Chiang out and tells Tin-tsu to take the credit. That is his last official act as an officer with the Hong Kong police.

Fei finds Dragon in the street. They have a conversation and Fei reveals that someone in the police force is selling rifles. Fei tells Dragon that all he wants are the guns, and Dragon can catch the traitor. At night, Dragon and Fei interrupt a gun deal between the Army and the police Captain. After pushing everyone into the water and making off with the guns, Fei hides the rifles inside a log and marks it with a red flag. He later tries to sell the guns to the gangsters and pirates, but Dragon has removed Fei's red flag and put flags on other logs instead.

Having thwarted Fei's plan to sell the rifles to the pirates, Dragon has a conversation with the Admiral's daughter, Winnie. He learns that the Captain wasn't smuggling rifles for San pao, he was buying the rifles from the army to arm his men. Overhearing this, Fei gets into an argument with Dragon. The gangsters come after Fei, and he tells them that Dragon is to blame for the missing rifles. Dragon is forced to flee with Winnie. After teaming up with Fei, being tortured for information about the rifles, and falling from the face of a clock tower, Dragon is tracked down by the police for a for a third time, and they help him get away as they arrest the gangsters.

Having lost the rifles, the pirates take a ship hostage, the passengers including a Rear Admiral. Mr. Chou proposes an arms-for-hostages deal and the Colonel consents. Having overheard the conversation, Dragon confronts the Colonel and convinces him that the gangsters and the pirates will never fear the law if the police force are corrupt. It is agreed that Dragon will assume all responsibility for the mission to save the hostages, and the Colonel allows the Marine Police to be brought back into full force.

Mr. Chou is brought in by the police and beaten until he tells Dragon and Tin-tsu how to get to San Pao. Dragon, posing as Mr. Chou, gets on board a ship that takes him to San Pao's hideout, and they are followed by the rest of the squad. Fei sneaks aboard and poses as a pirate. After a lot of tricky undercover work, the cavalry arrives, and there is a final confrontation in the middle of the pirate's lair. Dragon, Tin-tsu, and Fei engage in a hand-to-hand battle with San Pao, eventually killing him with a hand grenade when he's rolled into the carpet. After the battle, they sail a raft to take the hostages back to Hong Kong.

Cast
• Jackie Chan - Sergeant Dragon Ma Yue Lung

• Sammo Hung - Zhuo Yifei aka Fei / Fats

• Yuen Biao - Inspector Hong Tin-Tzu (Captain Chi's Nephew)

• Kwan Hoi-san - Captain Chi

• Dick Wei - Pirate Chief Lor Sam Pau / San Pao (羅三砲)

• Hoi Sang Lee - Mr. Lee Cho-Kou

• Mars - Big Mouth / Jaws

• Isabella Wong (Wong Man-Ying / Winnie Wong) - Winnie Shih

• Tai Bo - Tai Bo

• Lau Hak-suen - Admiral Shih

• Wong Wai - Chou Wing Ling

• Hon Yee-sang - Chiang

• Ng Min-kan - Pirate

• Kwan Yung-moon - Pirate

• Chan Chi-fai - Pirate / Policeman

• Law Ho-kai - Club Manager

• Cheung Ng-long - Assistant At Club

• Wan Faat - Assistant At Club

• Wu Ma - Mahjong player

• Lai Keung-kuen - Coast Guard

• Danny Chow - Ling's thug

• Johnny Cheung - Ling's thug

• Lola Forner - British Admiral's Daughter

• Chris Li - Pirate

• Sam Wong - Pirate

• To Wai-wo as Policeman

• Chin Kar-lok - Police Coast Employee (extra)

• Steve Mak (extra)

• Frankie Poon (extra)

• A. Chau (extra)

• Rocky Lai

• Nicky Li

Isabella Wong is the only female actress with a substantial role in this film. She has film credits for cameo appearances in the sequel Project A Part II and in Police Story 2.

Title
In the 1980s, Chan chose vague, generic film titles such as Project A and Police Story so as not to give the plots of the films away prior to their release. It was felt that the titles of previous Chan films such as Snake in the Eagle's Shadow and Drunken Master gave too much away about the kung fu style they featured (Snake Style and Drunken Fist respectively). Project A was originally going to be titled Pirate Patrol, but it was feared that once announced, other Hong Kong film producers would rush to copy and release films featuring pirates.

Production
On the audio commentary of the Hong Kong Legends (Region 2) DVD, Bey Logan reveals that Chan's last period film, Dragon Lord (1982), had under-performed at the Hong Kong box office in comparison to the previous one, The Young Master (1980). Logan identifies that a possible reason for the poor performance was the comparative lack of action. Edward Tang and the production team felt that a period film could still have success if it had sufficient action, and so researched the history of Hong Kong during the time of pirates for Project A.

Unlike other Hollywood period films that are set on an exact time and place, many Hong Kong films play fast and loose with their period in history. A prominent example by Bey Logan is set like this: the Hong Kong Marine Police is set up in 1846 by the British Colonial Government. The Hong Kong Headquarters is set up in 1884. The Kowloon Canton Railway Clock tower is set up in 1915. In other words, this film takes place between the 19th and early 20th century. Jackie and the Golden Harvest team employ some researchers to come up with background for this story about pirates in Hong Kong and are not really concerned at all about depicting the film in the exact era.

Project A marks the first time that veteran Michael Lai used orchestral music for a film score, instead of using library music or lifting the score from other films.

In rehearsal for the clock tower fall, Chan took a week to build the courage to drop from such a great height. During the shooting of the bicycle chase sequence, one of the stuntmen informed Chan that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was playing at the local cinema. Chan halted filming to watch the bicycle chase scene in the finale of E.T., to ensure that his scene and Steven Spielberg's scene were not the same. After watching the film, Chan became more confident, realizing that the audience doesn't really care so much about such minor details, only in watching the film and having a good time. According to his book I Am Jackie Chan: My Life in Action, Chan injured his neck while filming the scene.

After appearing in The Cannonball Run (1981), Chan liked the idea of including bloopers over the closing credits. Beginning with Dragon Lord, he has included (and directed) outtakes over the end credits for most of his films, including Project A, and they have become something of a Chan trademark. Due to the nature of his films, Chan's outtakes are a combination of comedic moments and injuries sustained whilst he and his team perform stunts and fight sequences. These outtakes were enjoyed particularly by audiences in Japan—so much so that Japanese film companies would demand the inclusion of "NGs" ("no good" shots) in the distribution contracts for all Jackie Chan films, regardless of director.

While some of Chan's comedy stunt work in Project A has similarities to the comedy stunt work of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, Chan had not seen their films at the time, as they were not available on home video. According to Chan, Project A was an evolution of the action stunt work he had already been doing in earlier kung fu comedy films since The Young Master (1980). He only became aware of Keaton later from Western critics who watched Project A and drew comparisons, after which Chan watched Keaton's films when they eventually became available on home video and realized how similar Keaton is to himself.

Release
Project A was released in Hong Kong on 22 December 1983. In the Philippines, the film was originally released as Mark of the Dragon, but First Films later rereleased it as Superfly 2 on 17 September 1992, connecting it to the unrelated film Armour of God II: Operation Condor (released as Superfly).

Box office
Project A (along with Dragon Lord) marked Chan's return to Asian cinema after his first attempt to break into the Hollywood market with a small role in The Cannonball Run and a starring role in the commercially disappointing Battle Creek Brawl. In contrast, Project A was a huge success at the Hong Kong box office, earning HK$19,323,824 (US$).

It was also very well received abroad, and particularly throughout East Asia. Reportedly, in Japan, Emperor Showa's fondness of the film and eagerness to see a sequel led Chan to make Project A Part II. At the Japan box office, Project A grossed ¥2.95 billion (US$million), becoming one of the top three highest-grossing foreign films of 1984 (along with another Jackie Chan starrer Cannonball Run II) and the year's sixth highest-grossing film overall.

In Taiwan, it was one of the top five highest-grossing films of 1984, with 369,914 admissions grossing (US$611,777). In South Korea, it was the highest-grossing film of 1984 with 396,436 ticket sales, grossing an estimated 0 (US$). In France, the film sold 200,498 tickets in 1988, equivalent to an estimated € (US$). Combined, the film grossed an estimated total of approximately US$ in Asia and Europe.

Critical reception
Project A was met with positive reviews. In his annual film guide, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Maltin rated the film 3 out of 4 stars. The film was praised by the Los Angeles Times.

The film has an 77% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 13 reviews.

Accolades

 * 1985 Hong Kong Film Awards
 * Won: Best Action Choreography
 * Nominated: Best Actor (Jackie Chan)

title: Project A (film)


text:
Estonian National Council in Sweden

The Estonian National Council in Sweden was established in 1947 and was one of the oldest and largest Estonian central organisations in Sweden. The Estonian National Council was a broad coalition of Estonian political parties in exile, which maintained close contacts with Swedish democratic political parties. The main task of the ENC had been preservation and development of Estonian national and cultural heritage in exile. The ENC consisted of prominent Estonian personalities and supporters of various nationalities, 9000 people in total.

The representatives of the ENC had participated in 1000 international conferences, working for breaking the westward advance of communist totalitarianism and preserving Estonian national identity in anticipation of the time when Estonia would be again free nation which occurred after the collapse of Soviet Union.

title: Estonian National Council in Sweden


text:
Talk:List of Formula One constructors

Alpine
Alpine constructed one formula one (or in fact 2 as the Renault F1 prototype was an Alpine chassis) but none was raced. Ericd 20:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Abarth did not race in F1~, it was associated in Cisitalia design. Ericd 20:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There was a project in 1968 to build a 3.0 V12 engine from the sportscar 2.0 V8, but nothing came out of it. --Pc13 19:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they built some 3 litre prototypes powered by a V8 but no F1. Ericd 00:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates
Can we get dates for at least some of these constructors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.224.241 (talk • contribs) on November 5, 2005

Bugatti
While its founder was Italian, Bugatti was a French, not an Italian constructor, isn't it?
 * Bugatti was a French make in Formula 1. Bugatti was first based in France, than Italy and also once in Germany. When Bugatti raced just the only one race in Formula 1 it was a French marque at the time. --Andreasu 07:32, 01 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Scuderia Italia
Should Scuderia Italia not be listed as a team that never constructed their own chassis? At present they are listed as a constructor, but for most of their existence they ran Dallara designed and constructed chassis, and one final season with a disastrous Lola design (albeit not as bad as Lola's Mastercard effort). The official F1 site lists the constructor as Dallara. 4u1e 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes definately a constructor only running mainly Dallaras as you've said here. --Jsydave 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Prodrive
The heading for this page does imply that teams planning to enter F1 should be included, so I would think Prodrive should be in, but does anyone have a view on how it should be done - simply as a new team with a brief note in brackets or a footnote maybe? --Jsydave 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * New section added to the page with the heading "Future Constructors" Jsydave 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Prodrive a constructor, actually. Dave Richards has admitted he's planning on using some other team's chassis and engine, alledgedly McLaren-Mercedes. That makes Prodrive a competitor, but not a constructor. On the other hand, doesn't the FIA consider any competitor a 'constructor' while referring to a car designer/builder as a 'make'? Lustigson 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right of course; if Prodrive use someone else's chassis, then they won't be a constructor. I think a few of us (at WP:F1) have probably realised that listing Prodrive in a section labelled "Future constructors" is, strictly speaking, incorrect but haven't bothered to change it, perhaps in the knowledge/expectation that the whole article will probably need an overhaul once "customer chassis" become legal (again) in 2008. My guess is that some of the editors who have contributed to this article over time haven't fully appreciated the distinction between "team/entrant" and "constructor" (a forgivable error, considering that the terms have been effectively synonomous for at least 10 years). -- DH85868993 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Entries
If a team enters two (or more) cars for a race, does this count as one entry? The total entries for Arrow (368) implies yes, but I feel that number of entries should be the (total) number of cars entered. Whatd do people think? Tom pw (talk) (review) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fifth column in the table is the number of races the constructor has entered, as opposed to the total number of cars entered. Both numbers can be useful/relevant, depending on the situation. If you're considering the number of pole positions or wins a constructor has scored, then the number of races is perhaps more relevant, since only one of their cars can win or score pole position in a particular race, regardless of how many of their cars are entered. On the other hand, if you're considering how many podium positions they've scored, then the total number of cars entered is perhaps more relevant, since more than one car can score a podium position in a given race. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Privateer Teams
The list of privateer teams is very incomplete. There are other many privateer teams, for example: Brands Hatch Racing (in 1980), Horschell Racing Corporation (in 1950), and more... Moeover there are many drivers who entered with their own names as, for example, Peter Whitehead in 1950. Stanza13 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * There are indeed many entrants missing from the list. However, I think to claim that many of them were "teams" is pushing things a bit. Horschell Racing Corporation was, for example, just Harry Schell, his brother and a mechanic, as was Ecurie Bleue. Similarly, Ecurie Maarsbergen was just Carel Godin de Beaufort. This is precisely why I dislike the term "team"; it doesn't really mean much pre-1980. I think, if you wanted to do a proper job, you would need to create a second List of non-constructor Formula One entrants, or similar. I know how long this table took to compile and I'm not mad keen to delve into that particular can of worms, but if you want to do it then go ahead.  Pyrop e  02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Grand Prix Nationality
Any reason why Jordan's nationality is marked as disputed?

They ran under an Irish racing licence, and the Irish national anthem and flag were used in any podium events. Laylaholic (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But, notice this British flag at this picture: http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * A photograph with a garage in the background is not a reliable source. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagle, Penske, Shadow and Wolf Nationality
Could anybody resolve problem of nationality of these teams ? I tried to find it out but I found no convincing evidence of their nationalities. It would be the best if someone has some video from races which were won by these teams to hear what national anthem was played for winning constructor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * No it wouldn't, that would be original research. We need references that explicitly state these teams' nationalities to comply with WP:V. Finding them is the hard bit, which is why they are listed as they are.  Pyrop e  14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagle, Penske and Shadow were American teams that had manufacturing or other facilities in the UK and mostly ran their team from the UK. Wolf, on the other hand, were UK in all respects except that the owner was Canadian (or Austrian-Canadian to be exact). If Wolf is "disputed" then look also at Theodore who were entirely UK-based but had a Hong Kong owner. So yes, I can resolve the problem but amusingly you can't use this because it's original research. I have to put it on my website (OldRacingCars.com) first and then you can take it from there. Funny old world, isn't it? Allen Brown (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 * 'Tis indeed, but them's the rules. Wikipedia lives by an odd axiom that is isn't the truth that counts, but verifiability. Your website is indeed a very reputable source and we use it often for verifying facts, but the say-so of one individual simply isn't sufficient, after all we have only your word that you are indeed the owner of OldRacingCars.com and not some troll.  Pyrop e  15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wolf would have been british team, then e.g. Jordan or Force India are british as well. Their owners are Irish and Indian respectively, but both teams are based in the UK. I think that the only key to resolve this problem is not matter of nationality of team´s owners nor location of team´s headquarters but only the statement of team´s nationality clearly written in the Super Licence issued by the FIA. The question is, if such licences existed in the '60s and '70s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Quite so. There was no such strict licencing system in the 1960s and 1970s, certainly not in the way that you have now.  That only started to emerge after 1982.  So for 1960s and 1970s teams there simply isn't a definitive answer to this question.  I have seen an entry list that says Shadow were a UK team but I would guess that's only because the cars were coming to that GP from the UK.  Shadow's Can-Am team was run out of the US and Don Nichols was based in the US but when the F1 team was formed it was headquartered in Northampton.  Nobody was ever asked to fill in a form stating the nationality of the team but I'm sure Nichols regarded it as American.  Magazines at the time referred to it as an American team.  Compare that with Wolf which was a takeover and renaming of an existing British team (Williams) by a man born in Austria at a time when it had been annexed by Germany, brought up in Yugoslavia (modern Slovenia) and West Germany (modern Germany) who later earn his fortune in Britain and became a naturalised Canadian.  So that makes the team what nationality?  Allen Brown (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that pictures of Wolf or Shadow cars could partially help to us. Website http://www.racesimulations.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=20378&start=510 shows a lot of F1 cars including Wolf and Shadow car. We can notice Canadian flag painted on Wolf car ( driven by Jody Scheckter from South Africa) and US flag painted on Shadow car ( driven by Jean Pierre Jarier from France ). If flags do not represent nationality of drivers, what is obvious, then they must represent nationality of the teams, Wolf as Canadian team, and Shadow as American team, though both teams were based in the UK. By this way, we managed to resolve nationality of these teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of lack of any relevant informations about Shadow and Wolf nationalities from official FIA source, in my opinion the only means how to find out their true nationality are pictures of their F1 cars on which there are painted US flag and Canadian flag respectively. See http://forums.autosport.com/lofiversion/index.php/t82034.html and http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardipus/3646450337/ as a proof of american nationality for Shadow and canadian nationality for Wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I appreciate where you are coming from with your reasoning, unfortunately what you are talking about is primary research and inference. Please go away and read WP:V before you spend any more time on this. We need secondary sources that state, unambiguously, that each team was of that nationality. Fora, blogs and photos, especially modern photos (because, lets face it, vinyl stickers are cheap, aren't they Allen? ;-), are not suitable. This sort of research has been shown in the past to be flawed, and definitely contravenes the MoS. For that reason I reverted your edit. If you are hell-bent on sorting this out I suggest a trip to your local library.  Pyrop e  12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Monza-1976-09-12e.jpg or http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Watkins_Glen-1978-10-01e.jpg ?? Are that suitable sources for wiki articles ? These sources clearly state both Wolf and Shadow as british teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 * They are certainly much better (see my comments on the topic below).  Pyrop e  16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 * These issues have now been resolved - see below. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eifelland
Sticking bodywork on a March 721 does not make one a constructor. Eifelland would not have owned the intellectual property of any other bit of the car. Allen Brown (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Rules on what does and doesn't constitute a "constructor" change through the years, and at times the criteria were extremely flexible. You only have to look at how poorly BRP were treated by the other teams to see that a constructor judgement was, pre-1980, an extremely mutable beast. As I said above, we are bound by Wikipedia's remit to use only secondary sources, so we rely on relating the opinions and conclusions of others. Eifelland are listed as a constructor by many other reputable sources and they appear on entry lists as Eifelland and not March. Admittedly the official organ of FOM lists Stommelen's entries as being March-Fords, but they are in the minority and have been shown on previous occasions to be a surprisingly unreliable source for most things historical. However, we are well aware that Wikipedia's Formula One coverage is an imperfect resource at present, and we are working to rectify that (e.g. the source used for Rolf Stommelen's career results summary used an "Eifelland" source, while the 1972 Spanish Grand Prix page used a "March" source) so hopefully this will come together in time.  Pyrop e  15:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The treatment of BRP was more because a newly-formed club were sniffy about a team who had rather blatantly tried to copy the Lotus 25 chassis (combined with Lotus 24 suspension) rather than doing their own design. The same sort of copying happened often - the Tyrrell 009 and 010 were blatant copies of other designs and the Rebaque, like BRP, copied the chassis of one car and the suspension of another.  It's a fine motor racing tradition, especially in Indy car racing.  On the other hand, there is also the case of a team building an exact copy - with or without permission - and entering it under the original constructor's name: for example the Parnell team's Lotuses 24s or BS Fabrications' McLaren M23.  Or even building a variation on a design and entering under the original constructor's name, such as Parnell's "VR" in 1961.  When Grant King built a precise copy of the 1972 Indy Eagle but entered it as a Kingfish, the world accepted him as the constructor but I would guess Dan Gurney asked him not to do it again.  Similarly when Tyrrell built the 009 there were probably some sharp words behind closed doors but nobody tried to claim Tyrrell's constructor's points.  However, when a private company was commissioned to build a car (Lec by Pilbeam, Ferrari by Thompson, BRM by Terrier), you follow the intellectual property, not the man holding the rivet gun.  It is possible to construct rules, you just need to work through these cases and make sure your rules hold.

 * In sorting this out, you are allowed to use primary sources, you're just not allowed to do original research. However, this is more to do with applying a consistent approach and it appears that you are allowed to be original when it comes to deciding organisation structures.  Convention is a great thing, but sometimes consistency has to trump it.  There are other examples similar to Eifelland, where a team modified somebody else's car - usually just in the bodywork - and entered it under their sponsor's name.  The Apollon was a second-hand Williams with new bodywork by Fly Studio and the Boro was a second-hand Ensign.  Curiously, the Apollon is listed on Wikipedia as a Apollon but the Boro as an Ensign.  I am at a loss to understand why they would be treated differently.  I think it is fine to list the car in results as an Apollon/Eifelland/Boro because that's how those cars were entered but when you get to a list of constructors, you really have to omit these three and list them under Williams, March and Ensign respectively. Allen Brown (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that you are right, unfortunately. The great advantage that you have with ORC is that you set the ground rules and can set up the sort of deductive logic model that you suggest, while Wikipedia is ruled by the MoS which was developed to cover the whole project, not just racing entries. I'd be interested to know what you consider a primary source. We most certainly can't go digging up original works chassis records and interviewing guys who were on the shop floor at the time these cars were built, we have to wait for third parties to do that and then we can then reference their material. As I stated above, we rely on secondary sources and we have to follow what is verifiable in these, not necessarily what is factually accurate. This does result in inconsistencies (as I have already pointed out) as not only do some records get referenced to one source and others to a different source, but even some of the more reliable sources do occasionally treat similar situations differently. It also is certainly not up to Wikipedia editors to make the sorts of judgement calls that you are suggesting - if the secondary sources list a car as having been built by a certain "constructor" then that is what Wikipedia will say. Even in your note above you contradict yourself a number of times on this issue; on the one hand you can't see why Apollon and Boro are treated differently, but at the same time you suggest that we should treat the 009 as a bona fide Tyrrell. Also, you want us to treat a car one way in one set of records but another way in another set. This won't wash. As you note there is no absolute line between an entirely original vehicle and one that reuses parts, designs, or simply ideas from another. Put simply, if the FIA were happy to register a car to a certain constructor then this is how it will be listed here and in driver records, race results, season summaries and so on. Then at least we are consistent in how we treat our sources. Had Rolf scored points March wouldn't have benefitted in period and it isn't Wikipedia's job to rectify what Max and Robin's lawyers didn't set straight at the time. Details about how a car came into being are more suitable for prose entries on that car's own page or the main team/entrant/constructor page.  Pyrop e  15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 * If I appear to contradict myself it's only in pointing out the many variations that exist. Rules can be constructed but it's certainly not easy!  To answer your question, I would regard a primary source as an entry list or a set of organiser's results, either of which would be a fair source for Wikipedia if you happened to have them, but I also include a magazine or newspaper report as primary in that it is the account of a reporter who was actually there.  That said, the results within his report are probably secondary.  If you had access to an original entry list (http://www.oldracingcars.com/Images/entrylists/EntryList-I73.jpg) you could use it couldn't you?  You wouldn't have to wait for someone to republish it if it had already been published once before in a race program.  I realise that talking directly to people whose fragile memories may be regarded as primary sources are out of your scope.  A secondary source - to me - would be the Formula 1 Record Books or a website such as ... actually, I won't name one ... that works from primary sources or from other secondary sources.  You say that "Had Rolf scored points March wouldn't have benefitted in period".  Are you sure of that?  From the point of view of the constructors' title, I thought it was a March-Ford.  But even the entry in the constructors' title is no certain guide - the 1973 Williams cars were entered as Iso-Marlboros and probably got points as Iso-Fords but are now regarded, quite rightly, as Williams.  Sorry if I'm throwing up random examples; I'm just pointing out that order does need to be placed on history and, at the very least, Wikipedians can choose whichever source best gives you that structure.  If you use ORC, for example, you can lose Apollon and Eifelland from your list. Allen Brown (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The status of an entry list very much depends on where it was published. If it appears in the race program or has since been republished by another source then it actually forms a secondary source. If it just a banda-copied piece of paper found in an old driver's log book then it is primary. Similarly the results; if they were official results published for public consumption then they are secondary, if you are talking about a guy watching a race then using his lap chart, that is primary. Fragile memories are definitely primary sources, and for this reason we can't give weight to comments on chat boards or to what you or I might think. Secondary in Wikipedia terms generally means that the editor themselves didn't do the research and that the data has been published by a reliable source. On that point we pretty much agree. Where sources disagree then Wikipedians can step in and use judgement and discuss which to go with, and it is possibly at this point that some sort of standard protocol could be adopted. In the case of Eiffeland the only source that unambiguously treats them as a March is Formula1.com. However, WP:F1 tends to be a bit leery of that source because we have found so many flaws in it in the past, despite it's seemingly "official" status. On the flip side some respected journalists - such as Joe Saward - have compiled Eiffeland as a separate or at least distinct entity. Iso cars are, as you rightly state, commonly regarded as Williams machines, although I note that Williams themselves (when they celebrated their 30th year as a constructor) only start the count at the FW01 for model names, and the FW06 in terms of the present Williams GPE constructor entity. Yes, another contradiction. One major problem we have is that it we decide, for whatever reason, that one source should be regarded as canonical for a given set of data we then get accused of copyright infringement... which I believe you have some experience of. Hence we have to apply some degree of judgement, and where there are humans involved this isn't always a consistent process.  Pyrop e  13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kojima Engineering

The article Kojima Engineering has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Does not seem to meet WP:N and fails WP:V, tagged as unreferenced for 4 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sorting bug?
In the table of Former Constructors' Statistics the PP column sorts alphabetically rather than numerically, unlike the other columns. Is this because there are non-numbers in that column? PeterGrecian (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Do you mean "Pts."? PP has only got number isn and sorts fine, but Pts. and WCC both have "n/a" fields which has, yes, broken the sorting.  Pyrop e  16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationality of arguable constructors definitely resolved
I tried definitely to resolve the nationality of important constructors (= constructors which achieved at least one race victory) whose nationality was disputable. That means the nationality of Eagle, Penske, Shadow, Wolf, Jordan, Benetton. Prior to the 2000s, the FIA did not issue the official Entry list with explicit statements about constructors nationalities. At disputable constructors therefore I was forced to look for other solution. I found some explicit statements on the internet. Website http://www.racingsportscars.com/ helped me very much. It provided original authentic Entry lists for many races in the 1970s and thus it helped me to resolve of nationality for Penske, Shadow and Wolf. Nationality (and change of nationality for Benetton) for Eagle, Jordan and Benetton was resolved by explicit original statements made by their owners Dan Gurney, Eddie Jordan and Luciano Benetton. I provided all links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Nice work, well done.  Pyrop e  18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Benetton at first British, then Italian, then British again
See the discussion at Talk:Benetton Formula/Archive 1. DH85868993 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect info in "Races" Column
The info in the "Races" column is incorrect. A quick audit has revealed the following discrepencies when the table was up-to-date as of the 2016 Italian GP:
 * Ferrari are listed as having entered 922 races: as of that date, Ferrari had entered 924 races and had started 921 of them.
 * McLaren are listed as having entered 794 races: as of that date, McLaren had actually entered 797 races and had started 794 of them.
 * Williams are listed as having entered 652 races: as of that date, Williams had entered 651 races and had started 650 of them.
 * Sauber are listed as having entered 417 races: as of that date, Sauber had indeed entered 417 races, but had only started 414 of them.

I obviously didn't audit the entire list, but the info if terribly inconsistent. Some teams have their starts llisted intead of their entries, some teams have their actual entries, and some teams have incorrect info. Do we want starts or entries? Or create yet another new column to have both starts and entries (my vote)? Real tlhingan (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Formula One constructors. 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/20110804222124/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149730155__2007_F1_SPORTING_REGULATIONS.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149730155__2007_F1_SPORTING_REGULATIONS.pdf

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) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Total entries of current constructors
I would like to know how the total entries of the current constructors as of 2017 are calculated, because to be quite honest, I can't do the math. If someone can elaborate and explain to me how it works, it would be greatly appreciated.RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From memory, at one point someone went through and counted the individual number of entries for each constructor, and then they just get incremented by the appropriate number after each race. For modern teams like Haas, the number is usually 2 x number of races entered, but of course teams like Ferrari and Mercedes sometimes used to enter 3 or 4 cars per race back in the 1950s. DH85868993 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, it's clearer for me now.RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are big problems with this section. So far as I can see, the numbers there don't match with any of the more established stats sites out there. When I went through and tabulated all the defunct constructor stats (many moons ago...) I specifically and intentionally didn't go near the current data precisely because I knew it would end up a dogs' breakfast. Philosophically (and bearing in mind WP:NOT and WP:OR) I am not at all sure that we should be maintaining databases such as these in the manner that we are doing, but trying to persuade people that it is a bad idea for a community wiki with pretty weak oversight to be maintaining relatively complex live stats is like pushing water uphill so I generally haven't bothered. Sadly, I no longer have a Forix subscription so I can't check against that, ChicaneF1 has gone seriously downhill of late, StatsF1 has always been a bit wayward, AllF1 was last updated in 2015, Motor Sport's database doesn't include detailed constructor stats, and the previously excellent Autocourse stats website went the way of the dodo when Crash Media sold the title. I haven't had time to check the reliability of many other F1 stats aggregators out there so I can't comment on them, but I think this whole section really does need sourcing to a good WP:RS rather than us tallying numbers for ourselves. Pyrop  e  05:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it's misleading and maybe not that accurate I propose that the total entries by the current constructors be deleted from the database. I think that the rest of the database is interesting and gives accurate informations.RafaelS1979 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So rather than fix it, destroy it? That doesn't sound very productive to me. If it is annoying you that much, how about putting in the digital legwork to cross-check with reliable sources? Pyrop  e  18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only making a suggestion, nobody has died in case you didn't notice.RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may have read too much into my comment. Pyrop  e  15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
I propose this compromise wording to include a link to the F1 constructors and still comply with MOS:BOLDAVOID:

The following is a list of Formula One constructors. Constructors are entities that build Formula One cars and have competed or plan to compete in the FIA World Championship.

A second alternative more based in regulations:

The following is a list of Formula One constructors. Constructors are entities that have the intellectual property of Formula One cars and have competed or plan to compete in the FIA World Championship.

Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 * That looks like a good, uncontroversial compromise. I'll implement it on the page with a couple of minor tweaks for flow. Pyrop  e  15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree and I don't want to be harsh, but I'm not quite sure that the user who has reverted my changes knows what he is doing and if it continues, I'll report him for irrelevant removal of content. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I don't understand what you agree with, as you reverted who implemented an improved version of the compromise wording. The IP was basically right from Wikipedia's guidelines perspective. As I said in my self-revert, I missed its MOS:BOLDAVOID comment in one of its previous edit summaries (the fact that he/she edited from an IP registered in the UAE and then one in the Netherlands didn't help), which was a valid concern. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Urbanoc I meant that I agree with the compromise and my apology for reverting ' version it wasn't my intention, I reverted the wrong version. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I reverted back to 's version. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for clarifying that. I was a little perplexed, but I also make mistakes when editing. And you're a very active (and good) contributor, so the chances to "mess up" are there. Keep up the good work. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistenties
I noticed some inconsistenties regarding the list of Formula One constructors and the template that list all Formula One constructors.

The MBM is listed in the template but not in the list of Formula One constructors while it was entered for the 1961 German Grand Prix.

The Greifzu appears in the list of Formula One constructors but it does not in the template.

The Modena team is refered to as Lambo in the list of Formula One constructors and as Modena in the template.

And for some reason Delahaye is listed in the template but they did not compete in or entered any World Championship Grand Prix.

Is there any reason for this? Or are there just a few mistakes here and there. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think the inconsistencies are intentional; I think the list and template have just become unsynchronised over time. Further, I believe MBM, Greifzu and Lambo should be in both the list and the template, and Delahaye should be in neither. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I will re-synchronise the lists and delete Delahaye from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Cosworth is also listed in the template. Cosworth does not appear in the list of Formula One constructors but they did enter (or at least appeared on the initial entry list) the 1969 British GP. Should we list them in the Former constructors' statistics? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that their entry was withdrawn, and they're not listed at 1969 British Grand Prix, I'd be tempted to remove them from the template instead. But I don't really mind either way, as long as the template and the list are consistent. DH85868993 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll remove them from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Double wins
It would be good to add double (1-2) win statistic in the table if that stat is available. That stat shows the dominance of a team in a way that is less dependant of a (one star) driver. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm, personally (and this is nothing more than an opinion) I feel that this would risk violating WP:NOSTAT. Take the profiles on the Official F1 website (linking to Ferrari's), they don't mention this stat and I therefore think we shouldn't either. the more appropriate place for this is at List of Formula One records (where it incidently is)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. Mercedes are significantly more dominant but have less have competed in less races, but I suppose this is true of all the listed
 * statistics.
 * But, this is just my opinion though and I am open to further discussion. SSSB (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. You read statistic in a wrong way. Ferrari has 1-2 win every 12 races, Mclaren every 18 races, Mercedes every 4 races. This shows dominance. Of course it's not perfect but it's not off the mark as you mentioned.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different statistic. That statistic would be "rate of 1-2 finishes", not "1-2 finishes". Rate of 1-2s can be deduced when combining this stat with others (namely race starts, or entries), but its not what the 1-2 finshes stat shows. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. You read statistic in a wrong way. Ferrari has 1-2 win every 12 races, Mclaren every 18 races, Mercedes every 4 races. This shows dominance. Of course it's not perfect but it's not off the mark as you mentioned.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different statistic. That statistic would be "rate of 1-2 finishes", not "1-2 finishes". Rate of 1-2s can be deduced when combining this stat with others (namely race starts, or entries), but its not what the 1-2 finshes stat shows. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus to maintain the current title. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Formula One constructors → List of Formula One chassis constructors – Now that there is a List of Formula One engine constructors page, the current name of this page does not unambiguously define the topic of the article as per WP:PRECISE. Constructors are comprised of both chassis and engine (see Lotus-Climax, Lotus-BRM and others in 1963 for example), so naming this page as a list of constructors is inaccurate as this page only covers chassis constructors. While the term "constructor" is quite often used to refer to just the chassis, such use of the term is generally somewhat negligent without really thinking or knowing what the term actually means. Then having a page title based on casual use of the term can cause confusion when the terms are used accurately like here for example. Besides, WP:COMMONNAME states that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I think naming this page "List of Formula One chassis constructors" is the best solution to avoid confusion. Carfan568 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Okay, so your major problem here is that you are misrepresenting the truth. The combination of a car's chassis and engine names is considered a "make", not a constructor. I see that in the current 2021 technical regs, the FIA doesn't use the term "constructor" at all. Anywhere. In the sporting regs the definition is that "a constructor is the [entity] which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6." Those listed parts are (or were, before Appendix 6 was superseded by Article 22 of the tech regs... which replaced the concept with LTCs, which are outlined in Appendix 4 of that document, but they didn't update the sporting regs, it's all a bit confused!) the survival cell, the front impact structure, roll structures, bodywork, and air ducts. Article 22 specifically states that all power unit components are not considered LTC, and Appendix 4 adds cooling components to the list. Note the lack of anything to do with the engine on those lists. In the past the two have usually been differentiated as a chassis constructor and an engine manufacturer. I'd argue that the article name at fault in this circumstance is the engine one. It should be List of Formula One engine manufacturers. Pyrop  e  19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The current sporting regulations do mention that "The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." That section used to state "The constructor of an engine or rolling chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual property rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." The race entry lists also list the chassis-engine combination as the constructor. Carfan568 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I did say it was a bit confused. However, the Constructors' Championship is only awarded to chassis makers, and in general usage you don't talk about 'constructing' an engine. Pyrop  e  20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The entities that are classified in the Constructors' Championship include the engine maker though, they just (currently) award prize money etc. for the chassis maker. Carfan568 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Per Pyrop. They're constructors, not chassis constructors. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not reason for us to move this article, and again per Pyrop, it's the engine article that's possibly misnamed. What do you want to do here, move it, then delete all the privateer teams, which then wouldn't belong in the article? How is any of this serving the reader? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sporting regulations and entry lists, and sources like this, have clearly mixed both engine and chassis in the explanation of a constructor. How would the privateer teams not belong here if "chassis" is added to title any more than they currently do? Carfan568 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose The article is not about just chassis manufacturers, as seen by the definition given by the article if the chassis and engine are made by different entities, the constructor comprises both...—blindlynx (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposal seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the established conventional usage of the term "constructor" in a post-1981 Formula One context. The engine article should be moved to "List of Formula One engine manufacturers". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that an entrant needs to make their own chassis after 1981 affect this? Look at 1983 with McLaren-Ford and McLaren-TAG for example. Carfan568 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The constructor is both together according to the article and the 2018 regs cited in it—blindlynx (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you contributed to the debate when you opened it by making the proposal. Can I suggest that attempting to rebut every other contributor is a bit counter-productive, and you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied to try to better understand their reasoning. For example, you made a statement that I think does not affect this discussion. Carfan568 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose if the engine article has a problem then move that one. But this is a sensible, WP:CONCISE name for this article. And please don't WP:WALLOFTEXT this reply like you have every other reply. I have read the whole discussion before posting, so I don't need to be retold why you think I'm wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Firstly, I want to stress that I agree with all the opposes above. Secondly, my specific reasoning is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When sources use "constructor" they almost exclusivly refer to the chassis:, , , without refering to the engine part of the team. As this source shows, sources use engine suppliers or manufactorers, not constuctors. I agree with the above that the list of engine constructors is incorrectly named. SSSB (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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.
 * Comment page move discussion opened at Talk:List of Formula One engine constructors. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, this is a list of constructors, which are distinct from chassis constructors. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Formula One constructors