Talk:List of Formula One Grands Prix

Article title

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)

Continuing the tradition of late responses... There isn't any audible difference between "Grand Prix" and "Grands Prix", the "s" is silent. - Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Request

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

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

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 (talk • contribs)

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

New format

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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?

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?

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

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)

San Marino Grand Prix

How come in 1992 and 2000 the San Marino Grand Prix has the Italian flag and all the other years it has the San Marino flag? Mobile mundo (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the flags for 1992 and 2000 to match the others. Noting that this article does not follow the general WP:F1 convention of using the flagicon of the country in which the circuit is located. DH85868993 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that should change, seeing as the Caesar's Palace Grand Prix doesn't have a picture of Julius Caesar. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceasar's Palace isn't a country. San Marino is. And the Sammarinese Grands Prix were held under the auspices of that country's motorsport governing body, just like the Ceasar's Palace Grand Prix was held under the auspices of the US national motorsport governing body. Hence the national flags.Tvx1 11:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Crimea marked as a part of Russia

Crimea is recognised as Ukrainian territory by United Nations resolution 68/262, but is marked on the map as Russian territory. The author of the map, Cherkash, supposedly Russian, agressively disrupts any attempts to correct the error, claiming that only "de facto" status matters. Since such position results in a lot of negative responses, I would suggest substituting the map with correct one from other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.172.178 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

UPD: still enormous effort put to preserve correct map without Crimea marked improperly as Russian territory: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg I strongly recommend to remove or replace this map from another source! 192.68.51.225 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk about mountains out of mole hills, you are reading too much into these maps, this is not a political article stop trying to make it one. Besides the Crimea isn't even marked as Russia in the article.
SSSB (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would not call the dispute as making mountains out of mole hills since it is related to a major war conflict in Europe regarding Russian invasion into Ukraine that claimed over 13,000 lives already, including those perished during Crimea annexation. FIA during each TV intro shows world map which marks borders of countries recognised by international community, such as United Nations, without any notation on disputed territories. Other issues are also involved, e.g. the whole etnicity is persecuted in Crimea in a racist way. Therefore, one cannot avoid the problem of the disputed territories in a simple way. For instance, if sticking to de-facto status, other regions should be marked as a part of Russian Federation: Tskhinvali Region, Abkhasia and Transnistria. I would recommend VISIBLY mark all disputed territories (also including Nagorno-Karabakh and Taiwan) with unambiguous notation instead of current map, which definitely favours Russian violation of Internalional law. Unas964 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unas964, this discussion has moved to a centralised discussion at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map. Therefore can you (and other editors) please not argue here so as to keep the discussion central. You are of course welcome to contribute to the centralised discussion. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Races by season

I really think that we should remove the races by season section. Their inclusion is an exercise without end as new races will keep happening and slowly but surely this section will grow to be most extensive of the entire article which would be undue. But most importantly, there is only a limited amount of templates that an article can handle at a time and eventually some of them will stop being transcluded correctly.Tvx1 23:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tvx1, agreed. The section's use is really limited. I have only really used this section to see when was the last time we had such a short season. Really this section is only useful for seeing how many races each decade/season has had. And when was the last time Austria opened the season (as a random example). I really don't see the benefit of what is essentially a series of long lists.
SSSB (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

While I have found the information to be useful occasionally, I do wonder if the same general function could be maintained by providing direct links to the calendar section on each seasons' page. Rather than this:

Proposed alternative to Races by season

Rnd 2010 (19) 2011 (19) 2012 (20) 2013 (19) 2014 (19) 2015 (19) 2016 (21) 2017 (20) 2018 (21) 2019 (21) 1 Bahrain Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian 2 Australian Malaysian Malaysian Malaysian Malaysian Malaysian Bahrain Chinese Bahrain Bahrain 3 Malaysian Chinese Chinese Chinese Bahrain Chinese Chinese Bahrain Chinese Chinese 4 Chinese Turkish Bahrain Bahrain Chinese Bahrain Russian Russian Azerbaijan Azerbaijan 5 Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish Spanish 6 Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco 7 Turkish Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian 8 Canadian European European British Austrian Austrian European Azerbaijan French French 9 European British British German British British Austrian Austrian Austrian Austrian 10 British German German Hungarian German Hungarian British British British British 11 German Hungarian Hungarian Belgian Hungarian Belgian Hungarian Hungarian German German 12 Hungarian Belgian Belgian Italian Belgian Italian German Belgian Hungarian Hungarian 13 Belgian Italian Italian Singapore Italian Singapore Belgian Italian Belgian Belgian 14 Italian Singapore Singapore Korean Singapore Japanese Italian Singapore Italian Italian 15 Singapore Japanese Japanese Japanese Japanese Russian Singapore Malaysian Singapore Singapore 16 Japanese Korean Korean Indian Russian United States Malaysian Japanese Russian Russian 17 Korean Indian Indian Abu Dhabi United States Mexican Japanese United States Japanese Japanese 18 Brazilian Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi United States Brazilian Brazilian United States Mexican United States Mexican 19 Abu Dhabi Brazilian United States Brazilian Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Mexican Brazilian Mexican United States 20 Brazilian Brazilian Abu Dhabi Brazilian Brazilian 21 Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi We could have this: 2010 Season Calendar 2011 Season Calendar 2012 Season Calendar 2013 Season Calendar 2014 Season Calendar 2015 Season Calendar 2016 Season Calendar 2017 Season Calendar 2018 Season Calendar 2019 Season Calendar

This has the benefit of reducing the ever-expanding tables (which are already too large for smaller screens). Additionally, the existing tables only provide the race title, and not the circuit information. Finally, linking to the calendar section can also provide more context when races get added or dropped to the calendar. The obvious downside to this approach is that it doesn't allow for a quick scan of multiple seasons at the same time. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@JohnMcButts:, all due respect but what is the point of that? What does that list add to the article apart from text? If a reader wanted to examine the 2017 season calendar he would go to 2017 Formula One World Championship and scroll down, wouldn't (s)he, in any case the ? provide more context when races get added or dropped to the calendar. - this is why the start and end years are wikilinked.

Anyhow, the templates isn't the problem, if necessary we can move those templates to a subpage and translcude it there (or am I wrong with that assumption, @Tvx1:, I am no expert). The problem from my point of view is I don't see how the current tables are encylopdic (I consider them to hit at least 1 point of WP:WWIN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, possibly more, need to take a closer look) and I don't see how sortcuts to season calendars is useful.
SSSB (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Having had time to think on this more, I think you're correct. I had simply wanted to provide an alternative to the functionality that the existing tables serve. But given the many ways that the same information can be accessed, I agree that the tables should be dropped. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Aren't they even duplication of the navboxes at the bottom of the article?Tvx1 20:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the things that changed my mind on the issue. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been up since February, and there hasn't been any opposition, I've gone ahead and made the change. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to firmly oppose this decision as taken far too hastily and without consideration for current context. For the following reasons: it provided concise and easy-to-navigate info on exactly which races took place in each season to any new or recent fans without having to navigate to separate pages. Secondly, this page is particularly relevant and helpful to readers at the moment due to the complicated and tenuous scheduling that F1 is undergoing right now. I agree with the template reasoning said above, and certainly agree that the removal will be necessary at some point in the future, but I strongly disagree that it should be now of all times.2601:4B:301:2670:8D45:556:D9AE:A162 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how these tables are any more relevant or helpful now compared to normal and I am equally confused as to why the templates at the bottom of the page are not sufficiently consice and easy-to-navigate.
SSSB (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

For newer fans, especially inexperienced with wikipedia nav. They will most likely never even see the tables now, and as to the point about concise seasons at a glance, the flags and vertical format make it visually much easier to quickly find info than a drop down chart with line after line of ISO country codes. At least to my understanding, the people who would be trying to see how previous seasons have looked (in terms of calendars) wouldnt normaly be the most experienced at navigating this article in its current format. 2601:4B:301:2670:A0AC:8749:7113:6CCF (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

People who want to see how previous seasons have looked can look at the article on previous seasons. I fail to see how this incredibly long list is of encylopedic value or it's measurable benefits over the navigation templates. I also reject that anyone could struggle with or need expirence with navigating this article. It couldn't be much easier.
SSSB (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I took into consideration the suggestion in this section, adding the information that, I believe, those who wanted that section came to see, without the inconvenience of an overly wide table. I would appreciate an explanation for why my edit was reversed.
Mj4e (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll get into why I reverted latter but let me adress a misunderstandings first. Width was never an issue. Your edit would have been a lot better if it had been wider, then it's less long.

The reason I reverted is because I misunderstood your edit summary (which is what my summary was based on). I thought your summary was suggesting that there was some consensus for this somewhere, which was simply untrue. But now I see I misunderstood and this isn't what you were saying.

However, even if I had understood your summary I would still have reverted. Your edit added a table which showed how many races each season had but such a list is outside the scope of the article. This is list of Formula One Grand Prix. Your edit added how many races were in each season and such information belongs (and is included within) List of Formula One seasons.
SSSB (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont really know why everyone is trying to remove the races by season. Just because you do not find it necessary doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Cianbryyy (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Then why is it necessary?
SSSB (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it is necessary as the title says 'List of Formula One Grand Prix' and I think having a race by Season page is just as necessary as the race by country and venue Section Cianbryyy (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Or at least having it's own page which I think could be a compromise Cianbryyy (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Season changes

Most of the Foriegn-language articles on the 2020 season use the Styrian flag and the F1 logo for the Styrian and 70th anniversary GPS-should we do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.113.94 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The policy of this wikiproject is to use the flag of the host country. This is because several name sales don't have corresponding flags (the Pacific Grand Prix for example) so as to allow for some kind of consistancy. Although this does seem to abounded here with the use of the Luxembourg and San Marino flags. Not sure why.
SSSB (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

See the discussion in progress at Talk:2020_Formula_One_World_Championship#Potential_calendar_update. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Belgrade Grand Prix

The Belgrade Grand Prix is a former grand prix from the Grand Prix motor racing era - precursor to Formula One. It was held on the streets of Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia (today Serbia). Only one championship event was held, on 3 September 1939. This race saw 5 drivers take part - two Mercedes-Benz in their Silver Arrows, two Auto Unions (modern Audi) and a Bugatti, which finished 19 laps down - and was won by Tazio Nuvolari.[1] The Kalemegdan Park circuit is no longer operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barserbz (talk • contribs)

@Barserbz: Thank you for the information. However, this article only lists Grands Prix which were part of the Formula One World Championship, from 1950 onwards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Atlas FAQ

I'm not very happy about adding the Atlas F1 FAQ as a source. It's out of date, describing the three litre formula and referring to Formula 3000. Atlas F1 was taken over by Autosport about fifteen years ago. Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Formula 1 all over the world-2021.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Future/returning Grands Prix

I think it would make more sense for the Qatar and Saudi Arabian Grands Prix to be identified as "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)" and for "Future/returning Grands Prix" to identify races which will join/rejoin the calendar in future seasons, i.e. the Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese and Singapore Grands Prix - as is done in Template:Formula One Grands Prix. What do others think?

Or if the idea is to identify races which haven't ever been held yet (i.e. to explain why the "Years" column is empty), then the key should just be "Future Grands Prix", not "Future/returning Grands Prix". DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @DH85868993: When I redid the article at FLC, I had the view that I wanted to identify Grands Prix that have not been held yet MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the system we use at List of Formula One circuits should be adopted here. We identify circuits that are due to/have hosted in the current season. And ones that are due to host in future season. I'm interpreting MWright96's arguement as being "I want to explain why Qatar and Saudi Arabia are listed as current GP, but have an empty year column", but then shouldn't Abu Dhabi be green as it is identified as hosting a 2021 race, but 2021 isn't included in the years column? To me those two examples come from the same point of confusion.

    However, The problem we have with this article (currently), that needs rectifing regardless of what we agree on, is that we identify "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)", but Qatar and Saudi Arabia are instead identified as "Future/returning Grands Prix". You could describe Qatar and Saudi under both categories, identifing it as a "Future/returning Grands Prix" implies that it isn't a "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)", espically as Abu Dhabi isn't green (see previous paragrapgh). This problem is avoided at the circuit list by better defining what is meant by "Future/returning". Becuase without a clearer definition, my immediate interpretation leaves me wondering why Saudi and Qatar aren't being identified as "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)" and why Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Miami etc. aren't listed as "Future/returning Grands Prix". SSSB (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"was held in" notes

In the "Race" column of the "By race title" table, are the "The XXX Grand Prix was held in <country>" footnotes really necessary? Except for the European Grand Prix (which is a special case), there's a "Country" column immediately to the left showing what country the race was held in. If the purpose of the footnotes is to provide an anchor for the reference to confirm that the race was held in the specified country, couldn't that reference just be placed next to the country name in the "Country" column? DH85868993 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @DH85868993: I'm inclined to agree with this view MWright96 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the race title table deals with countries at all. We have a seperate table for host country, which identifies the race titles that a country has hosted. So we don't need to identify the host country in the "by race title" table. SSSB (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)