Talk:Ferrari 312T

message: I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 09:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racing car template

message: There's an overlap between this article and Ferrari 312. Could someone decide whether the two articles should be merged or fully seperated?
:I've fully separated them.Spute 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: This article makes it seem like all the cars that had "312 T" as part of their nomenclature were all of the same design - they were not.  There was a series of distinctly different chassis that share only the fact that they were called 312 T-followed by a number after the first one in 1975 - e.g. 312 T2 in 1976/77, 312 T3 in 1978, 31 T4 in 1979 and finally the 312 T5 in 1980.  All were different cars - not the same car with different body panels. --Amedeo Felix 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what this article suggests. The story of Ferrari in the mid to late-1970s is one of incremental change and development. As the Ferrari site itself points out, the T Series F1 cars were designed as an almost modular unit, so that changes could be made to one aspect at a time. The result was that mechanical, structural and aerodynamic changes tended to happen at different times, so it is quite hard to say where to draw the line between one model and the next. To arbitrarily draw distinctions based solely on the external appearance of the cars (which is how they are divided on the Ferrari site) misses the technical and engineering unity and development thread that runs through the entire series from T to T5. Put simply, although there is no doubt that the T5 was a very diferent car from the first T, it got to that point by gradual development, not year-by-year step changes. Therfore it is far better to keep the cars united under one heading. Pyrope 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please proivide a direct link or quote some text from Ferrari (which could be verified), because as far as I am concerned while the above argument may hold for the T & T2 the T3 T4 & T5 were wuite different - the T5 was actually rather different in dimension to it's predecessors so how it could be a development of a module I do not know... --Amedeo Felix 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the text at the Ferrari site? Try starting there. As for using the T5 to argue for separate identities, you rather shoot yourself in the foot by choosing perhaps the least evolved example in comparison with its predecessor! Just take a look at the bodywork, and the wheelbase/track measurements: T4 = 2700/1700mm; T5 = 2700/1700mm. I'd like to understand where you want to take this, and why you seem to think that the article would be stronger if you chopped it into separate pages. Pyrope 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's the way it is.  Each had it's separate identity.  What's hard to comprehend on that?  How is it better to have a listing for a series of cars with a naming connexion than to list each car separately?  Especially as Ferrari's public naming systems have been so bloody arbitrary, which begs this addition - that the chassis numbers should be made prominent mention of, because that's the only true measure at Ferrari of determining a separate design/build.  --Amedeo Felix 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't argued a reason for splitting them up, other than the fact that they had different names. My point is that the 312T series of cars were evolutions, and that a common design ethos and history links them on a fundamental level, no matter what Ferrari chose/chooses to call them. As such, a single article that can trace the evolution and subtle and major changes that occured is a stronger article than five which arbitrarily divide. Wikipedia is not about "stamp collecting" pages on different subjects, we are not aiming to have the greatest number of individual articles. Instead, we are aiming to make interesting and informative articles, that treat a subject as a whole. Pyrope 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth has philately got to do with it?!  Why is it OK to split the Dome into two entries then when it’s clearly one structure?  Each year there is a different car, not always of course (sometime a car has been used for 2 seasons or part of one at least – Ferrari did this fairly recently in fact on two occasions).  I see no harm whatsoever is being strict in having a page for every clear chassis number with it’s public name listed as well.  At the very least, as a compromise, I think that these pages on Ferrari “series” should be split into sections for each incarnation… --Amedeo Felix 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "stamp collecting" I mean that you tick off each type of car as you get a page on it; maybe some sort of birdwatching metaphor next time? Anyway, Dome is outside my sphere of knowlege or influence, but to argue that "one page has been done this way so all pages should done the same" is faulty logic. As for being "strict", there is absolutely no requirement that separate objects have separate pages, especially if the objects in question are intrinsically linked. I have no problem with sectioning, proper structure is vital, and it wouldn't be a great departure from the current page structure here at least. However, the principal of common names should be adhered to. The commonality of some chassis type numbers could be an interesting point to raise in the text. Pyrope 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly, by all means. But as I say, the distinctions should be drawn according to their familar, public names. Pyrope 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For informativeness the chassis numbers would be useful.  I was not suggesting that the articles be renamed using those numbers. --Amedeo Felix 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Pyrope 06:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it is agreed, in a way, that to include the factory numbers would be good.  So, when I have time, assuming nobody gets in there first who has access to that info, I shall try to dig up the numbers and add them to the articles.  I think just in parentheses at the start of each section for an individual car/year.  Sound good? --Amedeo Felix 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instinctively, I'd prefer that is was worked in using a more prosey form, but I'll wait and see how the method you propose works out before passing judgement. Pyrope 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The form may be edited at any point.  The hard part is actually finding out the chassis numbers of cars other than the few which actually used those numbers as the public name of the car - e.g. 639, 640, 641, 643 (I suspect they played a bit a bit with the naming of the 641/2 - it must have been chassis number 642 surely?). --Amedeo Felix 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling that the Ferrari site may well be guilty of a touch of revisionism with some of its precise numbers and type attributions. We really could use an independent source! Pyrope 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For sure.  I looked and frankly they just make no mention of the true chassis numbering.  Still the info musst be out there somewhere, and I'll keep my eyes open for it.  It would be good to have simply to demarcate individual projects. --Amedeo Felix 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If we  split them, surely we won't need to split the Ferrari 412T into seperate articles too?! Davnel03 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read the above discussion? As I said "to argue that "one page has been done this way so all pages should done the same" is faulty logic". Please have the courtesy to read a discussion if you fancy commenting. Pyrope 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all the same... 

message: I'm in the process of re-structuring this article. The page should predominantly be about the car(s) rather than a review of the races and seasons they competed (there are separate pages for those). I have read the above discussion and will take those comments on board as i get on with some edits. Once I'm done, perhaps it will be worth splitting the article into pages for the different versions 312T, 312T2, etc, but we're not at that stage yet. I hope people will like what I'm doing. Spute (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat major re-write