Talk:List of Formula One Grands Prix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article title[edit]

What was the justification for renaming? Grands Prix is the accepted plural of Grand Prix. -- Ian Dalziel 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Accepted by F1 and/or FIA? in otherwords by whom, "citation needed", it certainly isn't English, however the term is a blend on languages anyway. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't English in origin - it's French, the original Grand Prix having been the Grand Prix de France. The French form is used in English - hence "Grands Prix" - but not universally. Grosser Preis, Gran Premi and Gran Premio are also used in Europe, for instance.

The term long predates F1 or the FIA in any case, but "Grands Prix" is the plural used on the official Formula 1 website *http://www.formula1.com and on the widely referenced FORIX archive site *http://forix.autosport.com .

Dictionary.com gives "Grand Prix" as the only plural, but then it also says that the term refers to sports cars! -- Ian Dalziel 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There was me thinking it was likely to be latin - you have the better of me. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a universal agreement that it should be turned back then! For what it's worth I had a look at www.statsf1.com (a french site) and they seem to refer to Grands Prix as well. 4u1e 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be correct in French - have a look at the corresponding page on fr.wiki, although it may have been before 1990 reforms. It certainly doesn't seem to be the proper English plural either, although all the commentators use it.LRT24 (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

The following comment was added by Lgrego14 just above the "Active and past races" table:

Please add a column , how many years any Grand Prix participates

DH85868993 08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

monaco[edit]

Monaco Grand Prix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.170.139 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is unclear: If you're asking "Why isn't the Monaco Grand Prix listed?" - it is. If you're asking "Why is it Monaco Grand Prix rather than Monegasque (or Monacan?) Grand Prix?" - the answer is that (as far as I'm aware) the event has always been referred to as the "Monaco Grand Prix". DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

dont add future races[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.i have deducted 1 races from each of the current tracks.until the race takes place dont add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.201 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A good example of this is the 2011 Bahrain GP F1rocks 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 has been removed. All other sections of this page only go up to the end of 2010 so such an edit makes sense. All the sections of this page should match. 18 of the 19 article links are redirects to 2011 season as well so removing 2011 makes even more sense as it is presently giving a false result. --Falcadore (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We should keep 2011 in there, and just revise it if it changes. If needed, we could note what races are sceduled, but have not yet occured. Otherwise we will have to wait a whole year until we can add the 2011 column. Its not crystalballing because these Grand Prix have been offcially sceduled by the FIA.
No we should not. All other sections of thise page stop at 2010. It is a matter of consistency of information. Either we have 2011 races in all sections, or none of them. Applying the criteria on an arbitrary basis is sloppy editting. --Falcadore (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Then have 2011 races in all sections! In fact, this is one of the only F1 pages that does not list future races. I think we should make a note that future races are subject to change (even though it is rare). Or if you would like, we could wait the beginning of the season, then change everything to 2011; as Bernie has said that once the season has begun, there will be no scedule changes.
Or instead of having a note saying they are subject to change, don't include them at all. I believe you may be confusing Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia, with that of a news magazine that does previews of forthcoming events, which is by definition, not Wikipedia's role. Perhaps you need a refresher as to what an encyclopedia is?
You do however raise the point that there are some articles containing 2011 races that should have them removed. Which articles are you referring to which summarise Formula One's history and contain yet to be raced 2011 races? --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As an aside I would ask that you not delete anything I have typed previously when making a reply, and request that you sign all replies with ~~~~. Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One example is (List of Formula One circuits). F1rocks 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talkcontribs)

Are you "F1Rocks" or "Editadam" ? --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New format[edit]

Partly to deal with the current ambiguity with flags, and partly as an attempt to bring this list to featured list status, I was wondering what the reception would be to a change in format along these lines? Thanks in advance, —WFC— 07:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags in race titles list[edit]

The flags in the race titles list keep being changed. One user is claiming a "concensus" on this issue. I believe none exists with respect to a list of race titles. I am now initating a disucssion to establish if such a concensus really does exist.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Flags which keep being changed are the European Grand Prix from the EU Flag to Spain even through the race has also been hosted by Britain and Germany, the San Marino Grand Prix to Italy and the Luxembourg Grand Prix to Germany. This is highly misleading as it implies the flags are of those mentioned in the race title. There is a separate list for the host nations below where the flags of the hosts are used. Using the host flags in both lists undermines the first list as it is a list based purely on the race title and not on where the race took place. I say the flag of the those mentioned in the title must be retained in the list of names of Grand Prix or what’s the point of having the list in the first place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my view is that if flag use is ambiguous in certain instances, we should not use flags in those instances. A possible alternative would be to use {{noflag}}. But regardless, edit warring over flags is not acceptable. I don't know which version was in place before the dispute began, but that version should be restored until consensus is reached. Regards, —WFC— 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
WFCforLife: Consensus has been achieved on this subject, more than once before, elsewhere within Formula One articles. As an active participant on this subject it is perhaps disengenious for Lucy-marie use the same arguements that did not impress the Wikiproject participants previously.
This is highly misleading as it implies the flags are of those mentioned in the race title. No such implication is present. Additionally if the flag is only to match the name of the race then that is using the flags purely for illustrative colour, which is as I understand it, against MOSFLAGS. On that basis flags should be deleted entirely. Considering the mass of flag colour in the race-by-race tables beneath which seem to serve no purpose other than to provide some colour to the article, perhaps that is not an undesireable outcome. Certainly no additional information is gained by their presence, something which could be corrected by providing the national flag of geographic location.
It is also inconsistent with the approach of several other races in the list, for example, Abu Dhabi, Pacific, Pescara, Detriot, Dallas, Indianapolis 500, and inconsistent with the usage of flags for the representation of non-championship Grands Prix and Formula One races as exampled in several of the 1950s and 60s season articles. Arbitrarily applying a standard you've made up and called 'common sense' is not what Wikipedia is for. --Falcadore (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Abu Dhabi, Pescara etc. races are not claimed as separate Legal Personalities (yes EU is a Legal Personality as it can sign international treaties under the Lisbon Treaty) To claim a different flag under the race titles list is misleading if it different to the one in the title e.g. having the Italian Flag for the San Marino Grand Prix is misleading. If flags are that much of a hassle and that unnecessary then just remove all of the flags from the entire article and then all the arguments are solved. Either have a consistent approach and use the flag as in the title of the race or get rid of all the flags in the entirety of the article. Just stop being so rigidly misleading with a strict over interpretation which only furthers one point and does not benefit the article as a whole--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The ability to sign treaties under international law is utterly irrelevant to Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. I see a number of reverts here within 24 hours, including three by Lucie Marie within 16 hours. This is unacceptable behaviour and further reversion will result in a block. Please note WP:3RR which I'm sure all participants are already aware of. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
May I ask about the ignoring of consensus? Surely we do not have to re-visit this again, for the same editor. --Falcadore (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, WP:BRD allows us to revert to the status quo, and then initiate discussion on talk pages, project pages etc, rather than continually edit war in the mainspace. I would advocate a return to the situation before the edit war began, and ask all interested parties to discuss the situation here (or at the F1 project). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been done, more than once previously. Why is it necessary to revisit? --Falcadore (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Controversial changes need consensus. Consensus is not formed quickly with just a couple of editors. Revert the page to the pre-edit war state and start a discussion, including all relevant parties. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It was not formed with a couple of edittors. It was not formed quickly. This is a topic which has popped up on WP:Motorsport on multiple occasions and consensus has been formed over a period of months, been re-examined and re-iterated more than once. I advise that you may wish to examine the Wikiproject archives, rather than imply this was an arguement concocted this week. --Falcadore (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The dispute mainly centres about the use of Flags in the race titles list and not in the Hosts list. This is because the two lists are separate and the use of the host flag is not under dispute for the host list. This was settled with the current table formatting for the race lists in the main articles such as the 1999 formula one world championship. There has though never (to my knowledge) been a settled consensus over the use in the results tables or in the race title list (of this article) which is what is being discussed here. As Falcadore said, it is not like we two editors came up with this all by ourselves on a whim, please see the archives and a consensus has been formed over certain portions of the use of flags but not all of the issues regarding the use of flags. I would also like to make abundatly clear the two of us have been here for some time and know all about the revert rules and were not violating that rule.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All I'm really interested in here is to prevent the on-going edit warring and the fact that some editors here are close to breaking WP:3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the settling of the previous discussion does not continue through to here. There is additionally the clear double standard I have mentioned previously where as some ambiguously named races have nation-correct flags, and others do not. The standard of application is not consistent, and, again referencing similar non-championship races in 1950s/60s F1 articles, not applied consistently. Flags are no supposed to be used illustratively, by displaying euro flag for the European Grand prix all it is doing is illustrating. You say that applying the Spanish flag to the current European Grand Prix would be confusing. What do you do when presenting with confusing facts, do you ask more questions to determine why? In asking why this might be the case the reader may then learn that the race takes place in Spain, it is additional information. When a flag is presented next to an athlete it provides additional information, we don't put a symbolic image representing that specific athlete. Having the Union Flag next to Lewis Hamilton is not considered confusing, yet seeing as it is not illustrative of the name of the article, eg an icon sized picture of Hamilton, it could be considered confusing.
An additional question then, do we apply US flag to Detrio, or Japan Flag to Pacific Grand Prix - is that because there is not an illusttrative flag that corresponds? No. The city of Detriot has its own flag and there is a Pacific community flag. However by discussion these flag were considered inappropriate, and for good reasons. So the flag of the host nation was used. Why is this standard not applied universally?
We have one standard for some races, and another standard for other races. This is clearly not an ideal solution. If a Spanish flag seems to contradict the word European, the first instinct should not be to replace, but to ask why this is so. In the answer lies the reason. --Falcadore (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In this instance and in this article specifically there are two separate lists one list refers directly to the official name of the race and the second to the hosts’ nations of grand prix. In the official name of the race list it is appropriate to refer to the name in the official name in of the race as such the European grand prix or San Marino grand prix because that is what the list is focusing on. In the host nation list the list is focusing on the host nation itself and as such the host nation flag should be used as the host nation is the direct subject of the list. In the first list the European, San Marino and Luxembourg flags should be used as they in the official race title and the official race title and not the host nation is the focus of the list. In the second list the German, Italian, British and Spanish flags should be used as they are the hosts and are the main focus of that list.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The official name of the race has little bearing on the larger issue. Flags should not be used illustratively, and you have not addressed the issue of the inherent double standard, or of the standard used across all non-championship other Grands Prix. The focus of two different lists has no bearing. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to draw attention to the use of Flags in Motorbike racing articles. An example can be found here--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is an even greater misuse of flags. But one issue at a time. With regards to Formula One this is an issue already consensus achieved. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Concensus has been acheived in some but not all areas as demonstarated by these two lists.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No exceptions were mentioned in the consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The original discussion only really got as far as the Lists of Grand Prix in a season in the main articles tables and never really finished by clearing up the other areas where flags are used, such as other tables or in infoboxes. I think we need to now go through the othe areas where flags are used and finally hammer this to death and be done with it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussions resulted in these tables being the standard but never went any further after that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

←Gee, I hate to disturb your back-and-forth bickering, but as an outside observer, I can see why this article is in dispute. The basic problem is that there is no legend or other kind of explanation to inform readers what the flags actually mean. A reader will see the "By race title" table first, and then the "By host nation" table second, and since the flag usage has different meanings between the two tables (!), the numbers don't add up the same way. Perhaps you need to step back and think of the casual reader's experience when they browse this article, and not think as an editor who spends a lot of time working on these articles. What is implicitely understood by editors of WikiProject Formula One isn't necessarily going to be clear to others. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Frankly, the page is a complete mess, the misuse and overuse of the flags is obvious and entirely unnecessary and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleting them works fine by me. --Falcadore (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree. I need to understand what benefit the reader gets from the continual overuse of these flags. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Apart from the "By host nation" section, it's not clear what the flags even mean. —WFC— 08:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if the meanings change then it's a clear abuse of WP:MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Despite my comment above, I actually think there is some value in flag icons here. For example, if I'm scanning the table rows, the flag icons make it easier to see that the Brazilian Grand Prix has moved from near the beginning of the race calendar to near the end. It is also easier to see when races are added to the schedule and when races are removed. Yes, you can discover all that by looking at the text alone, but the icons certainly make it easier. Having said that, I re-assert my objection from before: icon usage must be consistent within a page, and it must be explained to the casual reader (by a table legend, for example). The current article fails in both respects. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
A legend for the application of those flags would fail, because they have not been applied by any consistent criteria. Some have been applied Geographically, some Illustratively, and the reasons for each would need to be detailed individually, which makes the legend neccessary to cover it all cumbersome and with at least three explanatory notes. This inconsistency is been the source of my point. When I bring this up, I am told it is better to do at as it has been written because of an undefined form of common sense. A common sense which is additionally only applied from the 1980s F1 articles onwards, and not apllied to 1950s and 1960s F1 articles. But it is common sense. How can I argue against something which appears to have no definition other than one that is impied without basis? --Falcadore (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Request - Wet races[edit]

I suggest someone make a list of which grands prix were wet or dry. This could be on this page or a new one. A lot of people would be interested in this, I think. The simple version is to list the races which were declared wet. The other version I had in mind would have 5 categories: dry race, race mostly dry, race mostly wet, wet race (the whole time), and wet race where safety car was deployed or the race was red-flagged due to heavy rain (and not because of an accident). There are pages of each grand prix, some of them indicates if it was a wet race, but most of them don't, so I can't make a full list. For me, it would be enough to list the last 10-20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talkcontribs) 10:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you define what races are mostly dry, and what are mostly wet? Where is your boundary? And why stop with just five categories? --Falcadore (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, maybe we don't need "mostly wet" and "mostly dry" categories, they can one category: races that were both wet and dry (drivers used both dry and wet tyres during the race). These 4 categories are sufficient, no need for more, even 2 categories would be satisfactory (dry/wet). Categories are not so important, the most important thing would be to gather the information about which races were wet (and how wet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talkcontribs) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Or you could read the relevant race articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be collected lists of trivia. --Falcadore (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This kind of thing has been discussed several times in the past: here, here, here, here and here, and historically there hasn't been a great deal of enthusiasm for it. DH85868993 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request - San Marino[edit]

WHo thinks San Marino is in Italy, it is a separate country and therefore should not be counted in the Italian section, please remove and recalculate the number of races actually held in Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.153.212 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that arguement is that the San Marino Grand Prix has never been held in San Marino. It has always been held in Italy. The fact that San Marino is a separate country is essentially irrelevant. To suggest those races were actually held in San Marino is a complete falsehood. --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By venue section[edit]

Does this article really need the "By venue" section? Virtually the same information is presented at List of Formula One circuits. DH85868993 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Add in race winners / new page?[edit]

Would it be possible to take the races by season section, add in a detail for the winner of each race, and create a new page, so that viewers could plot driver's careers and rivalries more easily. 86.175.43.13 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not really in the scope of this article. It would also blow out the size of this article considerably. --Falcadore (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

300km?[edit]

It mentions in the lead section of the article that a race needs to be at least 300km in distance to be entitled a GP. I am very confused by this, considering the current Monaco Grand Prix is only 260.5 km in distance - it has been this way (78 laps) for decades. It seems contradictory to me, to have the Monaco GP listed so many times in the article, with this in the lead section. There are also no references to back this up, and I notice it has now been marked as dubious. Would anyone disagree with me removing this? Bigdon128 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is correct. Monaco is just granted an exemption from the rule. It's been often quoted, particularly by Martin Brundle in telecasts that races go one lap beyond 300 km. Finding a reference to back this up should be easy. --Falcadore (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks I think I did find a suitable source.Bigdon128 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Total number of Grands Prix[edit]

Can I request a clarification on the total number of Grands Prix that have taken place. The article intro says 855, yet each of the three main tables, as well as the season tables, totals up to 856. Seems like someone missed one, no big deal. But the List of Formula One Grand Prix winners totals up to 859. No way 856 races were won 859 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.188.72 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It actually does, because in the 1950s it was possible for two drivers to share the same car. I refer you to the 1957 British Grand Prix and the 1955 Argentine Grand Prix as examples. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the count in the lead to 856. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)