First off, we are not discussing 2015, we are discussing 2016; that much should be obvious. Second, the fact that we've always done things a certain way does not erase the possibility of improving our process. I would argue, and I'd hope you would agree, that these articles have only gotten better over time. That improvement did not happen because we sat on our hands and were content with the level of quality we had already reached. Third, I do not think Lotus/Renault and Marussia/Manor are relevant situations to each other. With Lotus, we know the Renault takeover is going to be done, and we know the name will be changed. Both have been confirmed. With Marussia, as F1 fans we know the name was only kept to keep their FOM TV rights money, and we have every reason to believe it will be changed now that Marussia is entirely out of the picture, but that's nonetheless original research that isn't fit for this article. I now agree that I was wrong to fight for the Renault name, but Lotus is equally wrong. We have no specific confirmation of the former, but we do have confirmation that it won't be the latter. So what we know for sure is very little - in fact, I believe all we know is the drivers and the engine. That that's why it should say TBA-Lotus. Additionally, think of it from this perspective: a person reads a news article announcing that the Renault takeover has been completed. They read another story from the head of Renault Sport indicating the Lotus team name will be dropped. These articles are from reliable sources and feature direct quotes. They then come here and see...Lotus. Their only reaction is going to be that Wikipedia is clearly wrong. And they're right to think that. And if you DON'T agree that reliably reported quotes from the head of organizations are good enough sources for Wikipedia, then there's quite a lot that needs to be removed from this article. You can't have it both ways.