text:
Shinya Tsukamoto

Shinya Tsukamoto (塚本 晋也) is a Japanese filmmaker and actor. With a considerable cult following both domestically and abroad, Tsukamoto is best known for his body horror/cyberpunk film Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989), which is considered the defining film of the Japanese Cyberpunk movement, as well as for its companion pieces Tetsuo II: Body Hammer (1992) and Tetsuo: The Bullet Man (2009). His other films include Tokyo Fist (1995), Bullet Ballet (1998), A Snake of June (2002), Vital (2004), Kotoko (2011) and Killing (2018).

In addition to starring in almost all his films, Tsukamoto has also appeared as an actor in films by other directors, including Martin Scorsese, Takashi Miike and Hideaki Anno. He has been cited as an influence on popular western filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky and The Wachowskis.

Biography
Tsukamoto began making films at age 14, when his father gave him a Super 8 camera. His cinematic influences include David Lynch, David Cronenberg, and Akira Kurosawa. He made a number of films, ranging from 10-minute shorts to 2-hour features, until his first year at college when he temporarily lost interest in filmmaking. Tsukamoto then started up a theatre group, which soon included Kei Fujiwara, Nobu Kanaoka and Tomorowo Taguchi, all of whom would continue to work with Tsukamoto up through the filming of Tetsuo: The Iron Man. One of their theatre productions at this time was The Adventures of Electric Rod Boy. At the end of production, Tsukamoto did not want to waste all the effort they had put into building the set, so he decided to shoot a film version.

Tsukamoto's early films, The Phantom of Regular Size (1986) and The Adventures Of Electric Rod Boy (1987), were short subject science fiction films shot on color 8 mm film that led to his black & white 16 mm feature Tetsuo: The Iron Man. Tsukamoto has stated he has a love-hate relationship with Tokyo, and in the end the characters (Tsukamoto and Taguchi) set out to destroy it. Tetsuo is considered one of the prime examples of Japanese cyberpunk.

Tsukamoto's next film, Hiruko the Goblin, was a more conventional horror film, about demons being unleashed from the gates of hell. He then created a follow-up to Tetsuo, Tetsuo II: Body Hammer (1992), which revisited many of the same themes as the first but with a bigger budget and shot in color on 35 mm film. As a result, the film is often interpreted more as a companion piece than a true sequel. In Body Hammer, the son of a salaryman (Taguchi) is kidnapped by a group of thugs, who then force the man's nascent rage to make him mutate into a gigantic human weapon. Tokyo Fist (1995) again dealt with the idea of rage as a transformative force (similar to David Cronenberg's The Brood [1979]). Here, a meek insurance salesman (Tsukamoto) discovers that an old friend of his, now a semi-professional boxer, may be having an affair with his fiancée. The salesman then enters into a rigorous and self-destructive boxing training program to get even.

In Bullet Ballet (1998), a man (Tsukamoto) discovers that his longtime girlfriend committed suicide with a gun, and becomes obsessed with getting a gun just like that one. His single minded behavior causes him to run afoul of a gang of thugs, especially when he shows interest in the young girl who is one of their compatriots. Gemini (1999) was an adaptation of an Edogawa Rampo story, in which a country doctor with pretensions of superiority has his life torn apart when another man who appears to be his exact duplicate enters his life. Things are complicated further by the twin taking control of his wife, an amnesiac with a criminal background. A Snake of June (2002) once again found Tsukamoto employing the formula of two men in competition for one woman, as a young lady is blackmailed into perverse sexual behavior against her husband's will—until her husband finds that he enjoys the blackmail more than the blackmailer does.

'Vital' (2004) again features a love triangle, this time consisting of two women and one man. The story concerns a young man whose girlfriend is killed in a car crash whilst being driven by him. He is a medical student and is given her body to dissect in class (whether by coincidence or intentionally is not clear). Tsukamoto also acted in and directed the short film Haze in 2005. In 2006, Tsukamoto directed the horror thriller Nightmare Detective (2006). The film centers around a vagrant with the supernatural ability to enter the dreams of others and a police officer who pleads with him to help her solve a series of bizarre murders committed by a serial killer (Tsukamoto) with a similar ability.

Tsukamoto acts in nearly all of his films, with the exception of those that he worked on as a "director for hire" (namely Hiruko the Goblin and Gemini). Tsukamoto has appeared in many other directors' films as well, such as Takashi Miike's Dead or Alive 2: Birds (2000) and Ichi the Killer (2001), as well as Teruo Ishii's Blind Beast vs. Dwarf (2001). He was the lead actor in Takashi Shimizu's Marebito (2004), and appeared more recently in Welcome to the Quiet Room (2007), Martin Scorsese's Silence (2016), and Hideaki Anno's Shin Godzilla (2016) and Shin Kamen Rider (2023).

He is also a successful voiceover artist for TV advertising in Japan. He also provided the Japanese voice of Vamp in the 2008 PlayStation 3 game Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. Tsukamoto was originally set to play the character in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (after Hideo Kojima's first choice, Kaneto Shiozawa, died before casting began) but was unavailable due to scheduling conflicts, so Ryōtarō Okiayu was assigned the role instead.

Tsukamoto was a member of the jury at the Venice International Film Festival in 1997 and 2019.

Awards
As per references:
 * The Adventures of Electric Rod Boy – PIA Film Fest (Japan) – Grand Prize
 * Tetsuo: The Iron Man – Fantafestival (Italy) – Grand Prize
 * Tetsuo: The Iron Man – Sweden Fantastic Film Festival – Audience Award Best Feature
 * Hiruko the Goblin – Fantasporto – Best Film
 * Tetsuo II: Body Hammer – Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film – Silver Raven
 * Tetsuo II: Body Hammer – Fantasporto – International Fantasy Film Special Jury Award
 * Tetsuo II: Body Hammer – 3rd Yubari International Fantastic Film Festival (1992)
 * Tokyo Fist – Sundance (Tokyo) – Grand Prize
 * Bullet Ballet – Sweden Fantastic Film Festival – Jury Grand Prize
 * Gemini – Neuchatel International Fantasy Film Festival – Best International Film
 * A Snake of June – Venice Film Festival – Kinematrix Film Award Feature Films
 * A Snake of June – Venice Film Festival – San Marco Special Jury Award
 * Vital – Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film – Silver Raven
 * Vital – Sitges – Catalan International Film Festival – New Visions Award
 * Vital – Fantasporto – Orient Express Section Special Jury Award
 * Kotoko – The Orizzonti prize at the 68th Venice International Film Festival (2011)

Filmography
Early student films

Short film

Feature film

Television

Commercials
 * MTV Japan Station - Nine Inch Nails (1993)
 * Ca'Foscari Cinema (2011)

Acting roles
Film

Television

title: Shinya Tsukamoto


text:
Talk:The New Colossus

Draft
saving a draft here, cause I'm not so sure about it. The New Colossus
 * The New Colossus is an Emma Lazarus poem, written for and inscribed in the Statue of Liberty.
 * Not like the brazen giant of a Greek fame

The allusion here is to the Colossus of Rhodes
 * With conquering limbs astride from land to land

The Colossus of Rhodes at one time was imagined to stand atride the harbour of Rhodes, but this is now felt to have been incorrect
 * Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates will stand
 * A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
 * Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
 * Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
 * Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
 * The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

the twin cities that frame New York Harbor are New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey <-- this still needs to be checked, may be NY + Brooklyn?
 * "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
 * With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
 * Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
 * The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
 * Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
 * I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (Unsigned)
 * I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (Unsigned)

 * Regarding the "twin cities" it most assuredly is a reference to NYC and Brooklyn, which were still seperate cities at the time the poem was written in 1883, but would have both been considered majo enough to warrant mention. Also, Jersey City, not Elizabeth, is the closest NJ city to Liberty Island. (Unsigned)
 * You are right about Brooklyn not being incorporated into NYC until 1894, but Liberty Island is clearly located between NYC and Jersey City, see here. On the other hand the same line mentions a "mysterious" "air bridge" ("The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame."), probably referring to Brooklyn Bridge which was opened in the same year the poem was written (4032). So it might be Manhattan and Brooklyn after all. Maikel (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or Jersey City and Brooklyn. Maikel (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising Reference
I knew this from don't remember where, and found further substantiation at Talk:Emma_Lazarus Will also edit German version --BjKa 09:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure it should be mentioned on the page...
But I was looking at the Bedtime for Democracy cover, and the lower left says "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". A shame WP can't store the whole version, it could be when the time comes for copyright off on this, no originals will be left? {sjöar}

New Colossus
What Does the new Colussus mean?
 * The old colossus is the one of Rhodes. Maikel (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comma?
Two questions regarding the missing comma...
 * Was it on purpose?
 * Why didn't they fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.yarmis (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask that. My first act as president will be to add that comma. Surely our government can offord a comma!

Watch this: ,,,,,,,,,,,, Wikipedia is over a dozen times richer than the US government! 75.118.170.35 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a "classic essay." Is it even important?
Recently added:

 * James Fulford authored a classic essay discussing the origins of the statue and how it came to be identified more with immigration than with liberty.

We have no article on James Fulford. No citation is presented indicating that a reliable source considers this essay to be a "classic," or even important. It's not clear to me who James Fulford is, other than a contributor to VDARE, which seems to be some sort of blog or web magazine devoted to opposing immigration and multiculturalism.

I don't think this belongs in the article. It smacks to me of promoting VDARE.

If there's some sort of current movement to reclaim the Statue of Liberty to its original purpose—described by Fulford as the celebration of "the participation of France in the American War of Independence, and the perpetual friendship of the two nations"—and sources can be cited to show this movement has some important, then it's worth noting, although I'd think that would belong better in the Statue of Liberty article than here. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Wondering
I'm not quite sure if this was brought up... I'm pretty sure it has been brought up before, but was anyone other than me wondering why the article was titled "the New Colossus", but didn't have the sonnet? It has history, yes, but not the actual sonnet. Just wondering if this could be fixed maybe? Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean the quote box at the top was only showing "—Emma Lazarus, 1883" and no text above, then I think I fixed that with this edit. Why an extra pipe character should cause this problem I cannot understand. 84user (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error
I'm not sure why the layout is the way it is, but the wikisource box and the image at the top of the page appear inside the Quote box, not outside of it like they are in the page code. For some reason, this causes the image and the wikisource link to be un-clickable, at least on my machine. I'm not sure of the best way to fix it, but I think it needs to be fixed. The Editor1 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Another format issue is that the poem is a sonnet so 4:4:4:2 - so the formatting should reflect that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoswami (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthem?
Why is no mention made of the Irving Berlin setting of the last few lines? Dfrankchat (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the Irving Berlin treatment in his musical "Miss Liberty" is noteworthy, there have been so many treatments of this sonnet that I fear that a separate section describing this one it would turn this page into a feud regarding which are important. Today I see the Stewart brothers (or their promoters) have taken the time to create a whole section with their treatment, and the lyrics (largely identical to Lazarus' original) painstakingly typed out. These can be included in a "Cultural References" or "Influences and Legacy" section. Grunionspawn (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

'Other uses' section
The 'other uses' section is slowly turning into a 'references' section. I'm not sure if something like that would contribute to the article. This sonnet is pretty famous and we could get an endless list of music, movies and other media referencing to it. I suggest we either stick to references that are very important, actually list its other uses or remove the section altoghter. Any thoughts? ~ Zirguezi 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If no one has any objections I'm going to go ahead and remove some references in the other uses section. ~ Zirguezi 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

New Section
There should be a comment that since 9-11 it has been the fearful and stingy voices in the US who have stridently taken center stage, making this sonnet irrelevant and nonrepresentative of the post-Bin-Laden America. Or is it America, without her ideals? Did Bin Laden actually destroy America? This sonnet stands as testimony.AtomAnt (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Songs"
Removed this section because it was entirely WP:OR, needs reliable secondary sources making these claims. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not OR, and removal is an overreaction - removal reverted. One statement is wiki-linked, another web link is to the song lyrics in question. I added another wiki-link and a cite tag. WCCasey (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "wiki-linked", Wikipedia is not a source (also one article does not mention or cite this), and lyric pages are primary sources, insufficient for Wikipedia (see WP:PST). Without secondary sources its "Oh, I saw this, let me add that in"/WP:OR pure and simple. Since nothing was done here re:WP:BURDEN I will tag the "In popular culture/trivia" problem. Clock on it, if no one cares after a while I will remove this section again, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 * What's trivia and what's not is entirely subjective. In an article about a poem, I don't think references to adaptations of that poem are trivia. On the other hand, for example, I would agree with removal of this section from the Statue of Liberty article. The question of links and sources is relevant only if you first agree that the section is not trivia. A link to another WP article is the opposite of OR, and I don't understand why additional sources are needed to prove the lyrics of a song. A lyric page found online is not a primary source - it's a copy, and therefore secondary. Are you arguing that the actual lyrics are not what is reproduced online? WCCasey (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. "proof" that something exists is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Secondary sources are not "copies", a copy of a primary source is still a primary source. Song lyrics are primary sources (see WP:PST note #3). A secondary source is some authors thinking on a primary source. What's trivia and what's not is NOT entirely subjective, Wikipedia has guidelines WP:IPCEXAMPLES and WP:HTRIVIA that spell it out pretty well. Whats missing here (and whats needed to avoid deletion) is reference to "noted authors dissertation/article/book on usage of "The New Colossus" in popular culture and literature". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a number of disagreements here: Anyway, it doesn't appear we're going to agree on this, so I suggest submitting the matter for mediation. WCCasey (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have trivia guidelines and not trivia rules shows that it's subjective. Guidelines are subject to interpretation by editors.
 * The ultimate measure of notability for a poem is whether any of its words are remembered and repeated - it's hardly trivia.
 * Quoting song lyrics is no more Original Research than quoting the poem which is the subject of the article.
 * The fact that at least one other editor disagrees with your reasoning means you can't unilaterally delete text.
 * Wikipedia operates on consensus, not individual editors' opinions.

 * WP:V and the sub WP:BURDEN are not consensus guidelines, they are policy, and article content has to meet that criteria first. Re:"you can't unilaterally delete text", please take some time to read WP:BURDEN. Claims (being made in this section) that a particular repletion of a poem in popular culture/literature has significance has to be cited to a secondary source, "ultimate measure of notability" in Wikipedia is reliable secondary sources. An editor saying "oh, I saw this repeated in a song, here is the link to the songs lyrics, this is significant" is WP:OR (and trivia for that matter), the editor citing their indiscriminate observation of the instance and putting it in Wikipedia, making their own claim of significance (instead of citing a secondary source that makes that claim).

 * I have gone ahead and re edited the section based on basic Wikipedia policy, policy is usually not a matter of debate. If it is unclear I would suggest a reading of those policies. The third paragraph (the rapper) removed because it seems to be WP:SPAM, it was put up by a one day SPA spamming a weblink over several articles. Millennial Choirs and Orchestras paragraph removed because I can find no reliable secondary source mentioning it, feel free to put it back in if you can find one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I think the whole issue is now fairly well documented here on the Talk page, and nothing will be gained by further disagreements over WP editing policy. The discussion has also led to some good editing of the article's "Influence" section - better and more complete than before. I will continue to oppose low-effort, heavy-handed editing (deletion rather than improvement) but, in this case, I'm satisfied with the eventual outcome. WCCasey (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Influence section
Is the description of the Irving Berlin song as "overly sentimental" not a bit non-NPOV? I appreciate that the editing of this section has been somewhat controversial in the past, so rather than simply deleting "overly", I thought I would see if anyone had any thoughts. Harris (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its sourced and the source says "schmaltzy". It would be a matter of following through with multiple sources that have this view. Removing it for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Engraving or casting?
The article and the plaque itself describe it as being an engraving, which is, according to the Wikipedia article, "...the practice of incising a design onto a hard, usually flat surface by cutting grooves into it." It very much seems to be a casting however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It now occurs to me that the "purpose" in the box, "Sonnet was cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the monument in 1903" is incorrect. Lazarus had no intention of that use of the poem, but rather wrote it for the purpose of fundraising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Small caps
What is the justification for rendering "Mother of Exiles" in small caps? Neither the plaque nor the manuscript seems to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 * After seeing a current back-and-forth mini edit war, I come here to ask the same question. The change to small caps was done by User:Frellthat in this diff (pinging them for a possible explanation). I thought it might be an attempt to highlight the first occurrence of the synonym/redirect Mother of Exiles (normally done in bold, see MOS:BOLD, yet maybe they felt it looked awkward, which it would), but anyway, that lemma actually redirects to the article on the statue, not to this one on the sonnet). ---Sluzzelin talk  22:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally misread: there was no edit war. I only saw someone changing it back to normal sentence case. All is good now, and the question is moot (imo). ---Sluzzelin talk  20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for including cultural references, adaptations, etc.
This question has come up periodically over the years on this page (see here, here, here), but not recently. What is the appropriate balance of including significant cultural references to this poem while not including every single time somebody out there adapts it, mentions it on a TV show, etc.? As other editors have noted above, there is a risk it would "turn this page into a feud regarding which are important" (User:Grunionspawn) or "an endless list of music, movies and other media" (User:Zirguezi).

These points were made years ago, but they are only more likely now, given the current political climate in the U.S. and several high-profile references to the poem by political figures for and against the current administration. There are of course Wikipedia policies and guidelines that inform this issue -- undue weight/balancing aspects; Wikipedia is not a newspaper; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and recency bias. But I'm not sure if there is complete consensus on whether these types of lists should exist and how they would be populated. Because this work is so well known and so influential right now, it seems to me it must be something more than "I have a secondary source (or a couple of them) that mentions the derivative work/reference"--that's trivial to do if it's a prominent artist/series/film in 2019. It has not gotten out of hand on this page yet, but I think there have been a decent number of recent edits going back and forth about adding stuff. For example, see this diff from this week. (pinging User:Smallbones and User:Andrew.weston for any thoughts)

This seems like it might be a good place to apply something like the 10 year test--will this reference be notable or have any significance ten years from now? This would, for example, seem to favor keeping the Irving Berlin adaptation, but cutting the reference to the short-lived Netflix show The OA. (In fact, that line is currently sourced only to a YouTube video, so I'm going to remove it now for that reason. But I'd argue for cutting it even if it had a good source.) I thought perhaps we could reach some semblance of a consensus guideline here before any kind of edit war gets started--and then, if editors (especially inexperienced ones) add things that don't belong, they can be pointed to this discussion to understand why they were reverted. Thoughts? --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm desperately trying to get out of town for a long weekend, but I'll just say that I deleted the other recent cultural reference as "trivial" because it seemed to just mention the title, not actually read the poem itself. I do support the ten-year rule here (and most places) and do think that most of the current political discussion will be very relevant in the long term. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a case for including political uses of the poem in a section other than the cultural section, similar to what was done with those insipid remarks by a Trump official where he changed the lines. Assuming the instance is noteworthy enough an evocation of the poem to be sourced.

As for cultural references, I think at minimum a ten-year test and requiring a secondary source is advisable. I recently had to delete a reference to a YouTuber's D&D game. Loquacious Folly (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli and The New Colossus
This section is biased towards falsified reporting (references 22 and 23) on his actual use of the poem in order to defame him. On the CNN interview, he did not say that the poem somehow signals that only the Europeans cannot be a public charge. Media outlets are not even stretching the interpretation of his comment. They are slapping the label on him and tracing back from there to say he's a racist. All in all, has absolutely nothing to do with this poem, and I am removing this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.215.140.108 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 * "Falsified reporting" sounds like "Fake News!" in a dinner jacket. Perhaps a video source of the interview will help. I've added one. If you can cite evidence that the video was doctored, you might consider adding that. If you feel that this article misconstrues Cuccinelli's comments by omission, you could attempt to fill in that gap. You could also cite a published counterpoint to Ron Charles's criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.21.250 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration? Bible reference?
It gives part of the reason for the inspiration of the poem, but was it this poem that I read had some sort of Bible reference as part of its inspiration? Misty MH (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Was there some other text that partly was included in, or inspired, this poem? Misty MH (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The New Colossus


text:
Australian Grand Prix

The Australian Grand Prix is an annual motor racing event which is under contract to host Formula One until 2035. One of the oldest surviving motorsport competitions held in Australia, the Grand Prix has moved frequently with 23 different venues having been used since it was first run at Phillip Island in 1928. The race became part of the Formula One World Championship in 1985. Since 1996, it has been held at the Albert Park Circuit in Melbourne, with the exceptions of 2020 and 2021, when the races were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Before that, it was held in Adelaide.

Pre-war
While an event called the Australian Grand Prix was staged in 1927 at the grass surface Goulburn Racecourse held as a series of sprints, it is generally accepted that the Australian Grand Prix began as the 100 Miles Road Race held at the Phillip Island road circuit in 1928. The inaugural race was won by Arthur Waite in what was effectively an entry supported by the Austin Motor Company, a modified Austin 7. For eight years, races, first called the Australian Grand Prix in 1929, continued on the rectangular dirt road circuit. Bugattis dominated the results, taking four consecutive wins from 1929 to 1932. The last Phillip Island race was in 1935 and the title lapsed for three years. An AGP style event was held on Boxing Day, 1936 at the South Australian town of Victor Harbor for a centennial South Australian Grand Prix before the Australian Grand Prix title was revived in 1938 for the grand opening of what would become one of the world's most famous race tracks, Mount Panorama just outside the semi-rural town of Bathurst. Only just completed, with a tar seal for the circuit still a year away, the race was won by Englishman Peter Whitehead racing a new voiturette ERA B-Type that was just too fast for the locally developed machinery. One more race was held, at the Lobethal Circuit near the South Australian town of Lobethal in 1939, before the country was plunged into World War II.

Early post-war races
In the immediate post-war era, racing was sparse with competitors using pre-war cars with supplies cobbled together around the rationing of fuel and tyres. Mount Panorama held the first post-war Grand Prix in 1947, beginning a rotational system between the Australian States, as fostered by the Australian Automobile Association. A mixture of stripped-down production sports cars and Australian "specials" were to take victories as the race travelled amongst temporary converted airfield circuits and street circuits like Point Cook, Leyburn, Nuriootpa and Narrogin before, on the races return to Mount Panorama in 1952, the way to the future was pointed by Doug Whiteford racing a newly imported Talbot-Lago Formula One car to victory. Grand Prix machinery had already been filtering through in the shape of older Maserati and OSCAs and smaller Coopers but had yet to prove to be superior to the locally developed cars. The end of the Australian "specials" was coming, but the magnificent Maybach-based series of specials driven exuberantly by Stan Jones would give many hope for the next few years.

Lex Davison, who for several years would experiment with sports car engines in smaller Formula 2 chassis, took his first of four victories in a Jaguar engined Formula 2 HWM in 1954, while the previous year Whiteford won his third and final Grand Prix as for the first time racing cars thundered around the streets surrounding the Albert Park Lake in inner Melbourne. That circuit, which for four brief years gave Australia the strongest taste of the grandeur surrounding European Grand Prix racing, was 40 years later very much modified, used to host the 1996 Australian Grand Prix as the modern Formula One world championship venue. Jack Brabham took his first of three AGP wins in 1955 at the short Port Wakefield Circuit in South Australia. The race is significant in that Brabham was driving a Bristol powered Cooper T40, the first ever rear-engine car to win the Grand Prix.

The Grand Prix returned to Albert Park in 1956, Melbourne's Olympic Games year to play host to a group of visiting European teams, led by Stirling Moss and the factory Maserati racing team who brought a fleet of 250F Grand Prix cars and 300S sports racing cars. Moss won the Grand Prix from Maserati teammate Jean Behra. That 1956 race would inspire the next great era of the Grand Prix.

Tasman Formula
The growing influence of engineer-drivers Jack Brabham and a couple of years behind him New Zealander Bruce McLaren would transform the race. Brabham, who first won the Grand Prix in 1955 in a Cooper T40 Bristol he had brought home from his first foray into English racing, would test new developments for Cooper during the European winter, beginning a flood of Cooper-Climax Grand Prix machinery into Australia and New Zealand before Brabham started building his own cars, as well as the appearance of Lotus chassis as well, finally killing off the Australian "specials". With European Formula One restricted by the 1.5-litre regulations and big powerful 2.5-litre Australian cars were tremendously attractive to the European teams and when BRM Grand Prix team toured Australia during the summer of 1962, the seed grew that became the Tasman Series.

The top European Formula One teams and drivers raced the European winters in Australia and New Zealand from 1963 to 1969 playing host to a golden age for racing in the region for which the Australian Grand Prix (and the New Zealand Grand Prix) became jewels of the summer. The popularity of the Tasman formulae was directly responsible for 1966's "return to power" in Formula One, and having spent years developing with Repco the Brabham cars and eventually the Oldsmobile-based Repco V8s in the Tasman series gave Jack Brabham the opportunity to unexpectedly dominate Formula One in his Brabhams with a ready-proven lightweight car that left Ferrari and the British "garagistes" struggling with their heavy, technically fragile or underpowered cars until the appearance of the Lotus-Cosworth in 1967.

The Formula One stars of the era all visited the Tasman Series, including World Champions Jim Clark, John Surtees, Phil Hill, Jackie Stewart, Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt, while other F1 regulars Timmy Mayer, Pedro Rodriguez, Piers Courage, leading teams from Cooper, Lotus, Lola, BRM, even the four wheel drive Ferguson P99 and finally, Ferrari, racing against the local stars, Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme, Chris Amon, Frank Gardner, Frank Matich, Leo Geoghegan and Kevin Bartlett. Brabham won the Grand Prix three times, McLaren twice, Clark twice, the second was his last major victory before his untimely death, winning a highly entertaining battle with Chris Amon at the 1968 Australian Grand Prix at Sandown Raceway. Graham Hill won the 1966 race, with Amon winning the final Tasman formulae race in 1969 leading home Ferrari teammate Derek Bell for a dominant 1–2 at Lakeside Raceway.

Formula 5000
By the end of the decade, European teams were increasingly reluctant to commit to the Tasman Series in the face of longer home seasons, but also having to develop 2.5-litre versions of their 3.0 litre F1 engines. Local Tasman cars were declining as well and after originally opting a 2.0 litre version of Tasman to be the future of the Australian Grand Prix, the overwhelming support for the already well established Formula 5000 saw natural selection force CAMS' hand.

For the first half of the 1970s, the Tasman Series continued as a local series primarily for Formula 5000 racers, but by 1976, the Australian and New Zealand legs fractured apart and the Australian Grand Prix separated from the remnants and became a stand-alone race once more. During this era, the former Tasman stars, Matich, Geoghegan and Bartlett would continue on as a new generation of drivers emerged, some like Garrie Cooper (Elfin) and Graham McRae developing their own cars while others like Max Stewart, John McCormack and Alfredo Costanzo using European-built cars, mostly Lolas. Matich won two Grands Prix is his own cars before Stewart and McRae each took a pair of wins. Towards the end of the 1970s, the race again became a home to returning European-based antipodeans like Alan Jones and Larry Perkins with Warwick Brown winning the 1977 race, while in 1976, touring car racer John Goss completed a remarkable double becoming the only driver to win the Grand Prix and the Bathurst 1000 touring car race.

Calder Park
Declining economy and the dominance of the local scene by Group C touring cars towards the latter part of the 1970s saw Formula 5000 gradually fall out of favour. By 1980, the decision to replace was once again imminent; however, the form of Alan Jones in Formula One saw entrepreneur Bob Jane seize an opportunity to bring Formula One back as the Grand Prix Formula. The 1980 event held at Jane's Calder Park Raceway saw a combined field of Formula One and Formula 5000 padded out with the Australised version of Formula Atlantic cars, Formula Pacific. The newly crowned world champion, Jones swept the field aside in his Williams-Ford, but with only two F1 cars entering (the other being the Alfa Romeo 179 driven by Bruno Giacomelli).

The continuing disintegration of F5000 saw Jane concentrate the next four Grands Prix on the Formula Pacific (later rebadged as Formula Mondial ) category and importing Formula One drivers to race the locals in fields almost entirely made up of Ralt RT4s. Brazilian Roberto Moreno dominated this era, winning three of the four races, ceding only the 1982 race to future four-time World Champion Alain Prost.

Jane's attempt to bring the World Championship to Calder Park ultimately failed, as did a bid by Melbourne's other circuit Sandown (though Sandown was able to attract a round of the World Sportscar Championship to its upgraded track in 1984). As it turned out, F1 would be tempted away from Melbourne by a far more attractive option but it was listed as a reserve race in the 1982 F1 calendar.

Adelaide (1985–1995)
The Australian Grand Prix became a round of the FIA Formula One World Championship in 1985 with the last race of the season held on the street circuit in Adelaide. The Adelaide Street Circuit, which held its last Formula One race in, was known as a challenging, demanding and tricky circuit that often produced races of attrition, and the whole event was very popular with drivers, teams and fans. Whenever the teams came to Adelaide they enjoyed the party atmosphere.

The first ever Australian Grand Prix to be included as part of the Formula One World Championship was also the 50th AGP. The new 3.78 km Adelaide Street Circuit saw Brazilian Ayrton Senna on pole with a time of 1:19.843 in his Lotus–Renault. The race itself was a battle between Senna and Finland's Keke Rosberg driving a Williams–Honda for the last time. Run in oppressively hot conditions, the last race of the season ran to its 2-hour time limit, though all scheduled 82 laps were run. Rosberg ultimately prevailed finishing 43 seconds in front of the Ligier–Renaults of Frenchmen Jacques Laffite and Philippe Streiff who actually collided at the hairpin at the end of Brabham Straight with only one lap to go when Streiff tried a passing move that resulted in his car suffering broken suspension, though not bad enough to cause retirement. Three time World Champion Austrian Niki Lauda drove his last Formula One race at this event. After starting 16th in his McLaren, he made his way to the lead by lap 57, but a lack of brakes cause him to crash into a wall in a sad end to his Formula One career. Australia had its own driver in the race with World Champion Alan Jones driving a Lola–Hart. Jones, who started 19th, stalled at the start but fought his way to sixth by lap 20 before retiring later in the lap with electrical failure. The 1986 event was a three-way race for the Drivers' Championship. Briton Nigel Mansell and Brazilian Nelson Piquet in Williams–Hondas and Frenchman Alain Prost, in a comparatively underpowered McLaren–TAG/Porsche, were competing for the drivers' title. Mansell needed only third to guarantee the title, whilst Prost and Piquet needed to win and for Mansell to finish fourth or lower to take the title. Finn Keke Rosberg led for 62 laps before a puncture that caused damage to his McLaren; this was the 1982 champion's last Formula One race. Whilst comfortably in the top three with 20 laps to go, Mansell's Williams suffered a spectacular mechanical failure, with a rear tyre puncture at 180 mph on the Brabham Straight, creating a huge shower of sparks as the floor of the vehicle dragged along the bitumen surface. Mansell fought to control the violently veering car and steered it to a safe stop. Prost took the lead, as Mansell's teammate Piquet had pitted as a pre-cautionary measure, and the Frenchman won the race and the championship. Prost had to fight back after a mid-race puncture, and stopped soon after the finish so as not to waste fuel, something he had done at every race he finished since his disqualification from the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix for being underweight after his McLaren ran out of fuel on his slow down lap after crossing the line first. 1987 saw Gerhard Berger win in his Ferrari while Ayrton Senna finished second but was then disqualified for technical irregularities in his last race for Lotus; Berger's teammate Michele Alboreto was then moved up to second place to make the final result a Ferrari 1–2.

1988, the last Grand Prix of the turbo era, saw Alain Prost win his seventh race of the season from McLaren teammate and newly crowned World Champion Ayrton Senna with outgoing champion Nelson Piquet third for Lotus, giving Honda turbo's all three podium positions. The race was also the 15th win and 15th pole in 16 races in a season of total dominance for McLaren-Honda, a domination not seen before or since in Formula One. 1989 was hit by a deluge of rain and the drivers, notably Prost, did not want to start the race because of the very wet conditions, particularly on the Brabham straight. This event came after controversial events 2 weeks before at the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, where Prost had crashed into his hated teammate Senna, and Senna got going again and finished 1st on the road but after political discussions was disqualified for cutting the chicane before the pit straight at Suzuka; the repercussions of which dawned on the race. McLaren had decided to appeal Senna's disqualification; so Senna still had a chance of winning the championship. The race was delayed for sometime and there were discussions about whether the race should be started. Senna qualified on pole position, and had every intention of starting the race. The circuit was still being hammered by rain and was covered by water, but the drivers, including Prost relented and eventually they started. But an unconvinced Prost came in after one lap and withdrew; and Senna- who was still in an awful mental state from the previous race, immediately began driving as fast as he could. By the end of the first lap, due to Pierluigi Martini's slow Minardi holding up the two faster Williams cars of Belgian Thierry Boutsen and Italian Riccardo Patrese, Senna was an astonishing nine seconds ahead of Martini; the Williams cars soon passed Martini but by the end of the third lap, Senna was 23 seconds ahead of second-placed Boutsen. Yet even with such a huge lead which he extended even further, Senna continued to push very hard- taking very daring chances even for himself; the psychological dominance F1 had exuded over the Brazilian meant that he was known to take chances that most other drivers would not. Going down the Brabham straight on lap 13, Senna came up behind Briton Martin Brundle's Brabham-Judd, and Brundle decided to move over to let Senna pass. But Senna was blinded by thick spray; and the Brazilian did not lift off, causing him to hit the back of Brundle's car, tearing off his front left wheel and suspension and resulting in the Brazilian's retirement. This effectively handing Prost his third Drivers' Championship; McLaren's appeal had not been decided yet, but with Senna failing to score, he was mathematically unable to catch Prost even if his Japanese Grand Prix victory stood, and it was not only overturned but Senna received a $100,000 fine and a six-month ban, both of which were rescinded. Boutsen won the race in the unimproved conditions, with the race called after it reached the two-hour time limit.

1990 was the 500th World Championship Grand Prix ever held; and it came after yet more controversial events at Suzuka. Senna had crashed into Prost at the very first corner on the first lap of the race; and he won the Drivers' Championship for the second time. The Australian Grand Prix that year was an incredibly exciting race: Senna led for 61 laps, but crashed near the entrance to the permanent race course because of gearbox problems. The race then turned into a dead-heat sprint between Nelson Piquet in his Benetton-Ford and Nigel Mansell in his Ferrari. Mansell charged through the field and repeatedly broke the lap record in pursuit of his former Williams teammate. This almost ended in disaster when the Ferrari almost hit the Benetton at the end of the Brabham Straight in a last-ditch overtaking move on the last lap. Piquet won from the Ferraris of Mansell and Prost. There was pre-race controversy when Prost refused to take part in both the annual end of season drivers' photo and the special photo shoot with the World Champions in attendance (including legendary five-time champion Juan Manuel Fangio, three-time champions Sir Jack Brabham, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, and Nelson Piquet; and other world champions James Hunt, Alan Jones, Denny Hulme and Senna), as Prost was still disgusted and angry did not wish to appear in the photos with Senna following their controversial first corner crash in the previous race in Japan which gave the World Championship to Senna.

The 1991 race was notable for being held in extremely wet and tricky conditions and the race was eventually stopped after 14 of the scheduled 82 laps and Ayrton Senna was declared the winner. Prost had been fired from Ferrari for making unsavory comments about the car after Suzuka; he did not compete in this race. The Drivers' Championship had already been decided in Senna's favour; but the Constructors' Championship was still yet to be decided between McLaren and Williams. Senna's victory plus his teammate Gerhard Berger's third gave McLaren its fourth consecutive Constructors' Championship; Williams (which was behind McLaren in points) drivers Mansell finished second (but crashed near the race's end at the chicane after the pits) and Riccardo Patrese finished fifth. This race held the record of being the shortest ever Formula One race as it only lasted 52 kilometres (33 miles)/24 minutes. It would eventually be surpassed by the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix, which lasted three laps, but was classified after only one official lap. Triple World Champion Nelson Piquet, who finished fifth, retired from Grand Prix racing following the race.

1992 saw Senna drive very hard to try to stay with new world champion Mansell's dominant Williams; this ended in Senna running into the back of Mansell at the last corner. Mansell retired from Formula One and went to compete in CART in the United States; Senna's teammate Gerhard Berger won the race. 1993 saw Senna win what was to be his 41st and final victory and final race for McLaren ahead of Alain Prost, who was competing in his final Formula One race in a Williams before he too retired. Senna embraced his once extremely bitter rival Prost on the podium. It was announced around this time that the Australian Grand Prix would be moving to Melbourne for 1996.

The 1994 was to see yet another memorable weekend. Following his win at the Japanese Grand Prix, Damon Hill was now one point behind championship leader Michael Schumacher. Nigel Mansell, returning to Formula One in place of the late Senna, was on pole but a poor start resulted in the two championship rivals Hill and Schumacher battling for the lead. But on lap 36, Schumacher went off the track, a result of oversteer, and this allowed Hill to catch up with Schumacher and take the inside line for the next corner. Schumacher turned in on Hill's Williams (whether on purpose or accidentally remains unknown) which sent the Benetton up on two wheels and into the tyre barrier, Schumacher retiring on the spot. Hill came out of the incident with a broken wishbone on his front-left suspension, he pitted and retired from the race, handing the title to Schumacher. The sister Williams of the 41-year-old Nigel Mansell went on to win the race, becoming the oldest Grand Prix winner since Jack Brabham in 1970.

In 1995, Mika Häkkinen suffered a tyre failure at the early part of the first qualifying session at the high speed Brewery Bend between Jones and Brabham Straights, which resulted in him crashing heavily into the outside wall. He was critically injured in the crash and was saved only due to an emergency cricothyroidotomy that was performed by the side of the track by Sid Watkins. This incident forged a strong bond between Häkkinen and team principal Ron Dennis, and also sent forth a new movement for extra safety in the sport. Luckily, Häkkinen recovered fully and was fit to race again in 1996, thus missing only one race. Häkkinen climbed back into a Formula One car at Paul Ricard three months after the accident. The final F1 race at Adelaide was won by Damon Hill in a Williams, with almost all of his main rivals including Schumacher retiring, and Hill finished two laps ahead of second-placed Olivier Panis.

Melbourne (1996–2019, 2022–present)

In 1993 prominent Melbourne businessman Ron Walker began working with the Kennett government to make Melbourne the host of the event. After the government of Jeff Kennett spent an undisclosed amount, it was announced on 17 December 1993 (less than a week after the South Australian election) that the race would be shifted to a rebuilt Albert Park Circuit in Melbourne. The race moved to Melbourne in 1996. The decision to hold the race there was controversial. A series of protests were organised by the "Save Albert Park" group, which claimed that the race turned a public park into a private playground for one week per year. Additionally, they claimed that the race cost a great deal of money that would be better spent, if it were to be spent on motor racing, on a permanent circuit elsewhere. Finally, they said that the claimed economic benefits of the race were false or exaggerated. The race organisers and the government claimed that the economic benefits to the state, although unquantifiable, outweighed the costs, and highlighted that the park's public amenities have been greatly improved from the World War II vintage facilities previously located at Albert Park; the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre (scene of many Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games events) being the centre piece and best known of the revitalised facilities. Opponents of holding the race in the park point out that the Aquatic Centre adds nothing to the Grand Prix, is effectively closed for weeks surrounding the event and could have been built independent of the car race.

Bernie Ecclestone, the then president of Formula One Management, the group that runs modern-day Formula One in conjunction with the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), once famously said that it took 10 minutes to do the deal with Melbourne that would see the Victorian capital host the Australian Grand Prix from 1996. It was thought that Melbourne's unsuccessful quest to stage the 1996 Olympic Games, and the subsequently successful bid by northern rival city Sydney to host the 2000 Summer Olympics, was a driving force behind Melbourne's motivation to wrest the Australian Grand Prix away from Adelaide. The Australian Grand Prix at Adelaide in 1985–1995 was always the last event in the Formula One calendar – but from 1996 onwards, it has usually been the first event or was held early in the season.

Albert Park, within easy reach of the Melbourne central business district, became home to the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne. A 16-turn circuit, which measures 5.3 km in its current guise, it was built utilising a combination of public roads and a car park within the park. The circuit is renowned as being a smooth and high-speed test for Formula One teams and drivers. Its characteristics are similar to the only other street circuit set in a public park used in the Formula One World Championship, the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal which hosts the Canadian Grand Prix. The promotional theme for the first race in Melbourne was "Melbourne – What a Great Place for the Race". Some 401,000 people turned out for the four days leading up to and including the first race in 1996, which remains a record for the event. The logistics of creating a temporary circuit and hosting an event of the magnitude of a Formula One Grand Prix from scratch were not lost on the international visitors, with Melbourne winning the F1 Constructors' Association Award for the best organised Grand Prix of the year in its first two years (1996 and 1997).

It took just three corners for the Australian Grand Prix at Albert Park to gain worldwide attention. On the first lap of the first race in 1996, Jordan's Martin Brundle was launched into the air in an enormous accident. Footage of the crash, and Brundle's subsequent rush back to the pits to take the spare car for the restart, ensured the first race in Melbourne gained widespread coverage. The race was won by Williams's Damon Hill. The 1997 race saw McLaren, through David Coulthard, break a drought of 50 races without a victory. The next year was a McLaren benefit, with Mika Häkkinen and Coulthard lapping the entire field en route to a dominant 1–2 finish. The result was clouded by controversy when Coulthard pulled over with two laps remaining to allow Häkkinen to win, honouring a pre-race agreement between the pair that whoever made it to the first corner in the lead on lap one would be allowed to win. Ferrari won its first Grand Prix in Melbourne in 1999, but it was not with team number one Michael Schumacher. Northern Irishman Eddie Irvine took his maiden victory after the all-conquering McLarens of Häkkinen and Coulthard retired before half-distance. Schumacher broke his Melbourne drought the following year when he headed a dominant Ferrari 1–2 with new teammate Rubens Barrichello. The 2001 event, also won by Michael Schumacher, was marked by tragedy when 52-year-old volunteer marshal Graham Beveridge was killed after a high-speed accident involving Ralf Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve on lap five. Villeneuve's B.A.R. rode up across the back of Schumacher's Williams and crashed into the fence, behind which Beveridge was standing; Beveridge was hit by a tyre that flew off of Villeneuve's car.

The start of the 2002 race saw pole-sitter Barrichello and Williams's Ralf Schumacher come together at Turn One in a spectacular accident that saw 11 of the 22 cars eliminated before the end of the opening lap. Michael Schumacher dominated thereafter to post a third straight Melbourne win, but his achievements were overshadowed by the fifth place of Australian Mark Webber on his Formula One debut. Webber, in an underpowered and underfunded Minardi, had to recover from a botched late pit stop and resist the challenges of Toyota's Mika Salo in the closing stages, and took to the podium after the race with Australian team owner Paul Stoddart in one of Melbourne's more memorable Grand Prix moments. The next year, 2003, saw Coulthard again win for McLaren in a race held in variable conditions. Normal service was resumed in 2004 with the Ferraris of Schumacher and Barrichello running rampant – within two laps of Friday practice, Schumacher had obliterated the Albert Park lap record, and sailed to a crushing win. In 2005, the race was won by Renault's Giancarlo Fisichella after a storm during Saturday qualifying produced a topsy-turvy grid. Barrichello and Fisichella's teammate Fernando Alonso came through the field from 11th and 13th on the grid respectively to join pole sitter Fisichella on the podium.

In 2006, Alonso took his first Australian win in an accident-marred race that featured four safety car periods. In 2007 Kimi Räikkönen won in his first race for Ferrari, while rookie Lewis Hamilton became the first driver in 11 years to finish on the podium in his F1 debut, finishing third behind his McLaren teammate Alonso. Hamilton won the 2008 race which had three safety car periods and only six finishers. In 2009 Jenson Button took the victory, driving for debutant team Brawn GP, which was having its first race after Ross Brawn had bought the team following Honda's withdrawal from Formula One. The team was formed from the remnants of Honda Racing F1 who had withdrawn from the sport following the 2008 season. The race ended with Button, who had led from the start, leading the field over the line after the safety car had been deployed with three laps remaining following a crash between Sebastian Vettel and Robert Kubica, who had been fighting for second place. This promoted Button's teammate, fellow Brawn GP driver Rubens Barrichello, to second, marking a historic 1-2 for the team. Toyota's Jarno Trulli was given a 25-second penalty for passing Lewis Hamilton for third place under yellow flags during that safety car period, which promoted Hamilton into that position. However, Hamilton was later disqualified and docked his points for "deliberately misleading stewards", with Trulli reinstated in third. The results earned by Brawn, Williams, and Toyota were awarded, despite an appeal being held two weeks later against a ruling on the legality of the teams' diffuser design. The outcome of the appeal was in favour of the teams, their diffusers were declared legal under the new rules and there were no changes to the results of the race.

2010 again saw Button win at Melbourne. Starting from fourth, he gambled on an early change to slick tires under drying conditions that let him move up to second place after losing several positions at the start. Sebastian Vettel retired with mechanical issues after qualifying on pole and leading until his retirement, handing Button the victory. The 2011 race saw Vettel take victory in the Red Bull, with Hamilton second and Vitaly Petrov third for Lotus. This was the first ever podium for a Russian Formula One driver. 2012 saw Button win for the third time in four years at the circuit. 2013 saw a surprise victory with Raikkonen in the Lotus winning from Alonso and Vettel. The reintroduction of V6 turbo hybrid engines for saw a dominant performance from Mercedes's Nico Rosberg at the Grand Prix, who took the victory from the McLarens of Kevin Magnussen and Button, both of whom were promoted due to the disqualification of Daniel Ricciardo in the Red Bull post race for illegal fuel flow. 2015 saw Hamilton take the victory from teammate Rosberg, with Vettel completing the top three.

In 2020, it was planned to hold the Grand Prix despite the coronavirus epidemic in the country. Ferrari and AlphaTauri as teams based in Italy, the most coronavirus-infected country in Europe at the time, expressed concern about the possibility of leaving the quarantine zone. One of McLaren's mechanics got flu-like symptoms when he arrived in Australia, his coronavirus test returned positive and the British team withdrew from the race. Later, a photographer was also confirmed to have coronavirus. It was announced that the Grand Prix would still take place, but without spectators, however two hours before the first practice started the event was cancelled.

After a two-year absence as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Grand Prix returned in 2022. Unlike previous years, when it was the opening event of the season, the 2022 Australian Grand Prix was instead the third event of the season. In the months before the Grand Prix, in consultation with drivers, the circuit underwent several significant revisions, which were the first and most significant changes since the inaugural 1996 Australian Grand Prix, including the first track resurfacing since then. Turns 9 and 10 were completely redesigned; where they formed a right–left chicane with a heavy braking zone on the approach, the redesign saw them removed. This was done to raise the approach speed for old turns 11 and 12. Several other corners were reprofiled to encourage overtaking, most notably the old turn 13, which was widened to create additional racing lines. Positive camber was also added to allow drivers to carry more speed through the corner. The main straight and pit lane were also redesigned, with the pit lane wall moved two metres closer to the circuit so that the edge of the circuit sat directly next to the wall. The 2022 Grand Prix saw Ferrari's Charles Leclerc achieve his first career grand slam, having started in pole position, set the fastest lap, led every lap, and won the race ahead of Red Bull's Sergio Pérez and Mercedes' George Russell. It was the first grand slam for an individual Ferrari driver since Fernando Alonso's at the 2010 Singapore Grand Prix. The 2022 edition set a new attendance record at the circuit for the weekend, with a reported 419,114 attendees, including 128,294 on race day; these figures made the 2022 Grand Prix the highest attended Grand Prix ever held in Melbourne and one of the most popular sporting weekends in Australian history. The 2023 edition, which saw Max Verstappen win his maiden Australian Grand Prix, would break the record with 444,631 attendees, and would also break a Formula One record; the race, which ended with twelve cars left running, is the first ever to have three red flags throughout the session. This came after a chaotic race that saw many incidents; the Formula 2 and Formula 3 races, held the same weekend, had a similar outcome.

In June 2022, Melbourne's contract to host the Australian Grand Prix, which was due to expire in 2025, was extended to 2035. The new contract stipulates that the Australian Grand Prix will be one of the first three rounds of the season over the contract period and will host a minimum of five season-opening races over the 13 years between 2023 and 2035. From 2023, Formula 2 and Formula 3 races will form part of the race weekend schedule.

Calendar change
The move of the Australian Grand Prix to Melbourne saw a change in the time of year that the F1 teams and personnel made their annual voyage to Australia. Adelaide, for each of its 11 years, was the final race of the F1 season, usually in October or November, while Melbourne has been the first race of the season in 22 of the 27 times it has hosted the Grand Prix. As such, the Albert Park circuit has seen the Formula One debuts of many drivers. 1997 World Champion Jacques Villeneuve made his race debut in Melbourne's first year of 1996, and became one of three men to secure pole position in his maiden Grand Prix. Other prominent names to debut in Melbourne are seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton (2007), three-time World Champion Max Verstappen (2015), two-time World Champion Fernando Alonso and one-time champion Kimi Räikkönen (both in 2001); former Australian F1 driver, Mark Webber, also made his debut there in 2002.

As part of celebrations for the tenth running of the event at Albert Park in 2005, Webber drove his Williams F1 car over the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a promotional event, and the Melbourne city streets hosted a parade of F1 machinery and Supercars, Australia's highest-profile domestic motor sport category. For over thirty years, Supercars have competed in the Supercars Challenge non-championship event at the Australian Grand Prix. In 2018, the event was contested for championship points for the first time, and was known as the Melbourne 400.

The 2021 event was originally scheduled to open the season in March, but moved to November due to ongoing COVID-19 restrictions and travel disruptions, then cancelled on 6 July. It was also going through several changes to make the track faster.

Economic impact
An issue that is frequently debated amongst both supporters and opponents of the Australian Grand Prix centres around the event's economic impact for the state of Victoria; proponents of the event claim that the event increases tourism, creates jobs and generates millions of dollars for the state of Victoria, while opponents dispute the event's economic benefits and cite the cost on taxpayers to host the event, as well as the disruptions generated by the event. In 2014, the Victorian government claimed the annual economic impact of hosting the Australian Grand Prix was between $32 million and $39 million, with the event generating significant economic, social and cultural benefits including job creation, industry development, inward investment and tourism, while opponents of the event claimed that the event cost Victorian taxpayers over $50 million to host.

According to a 2022 economic impact assessment conducted by Ernst & Young, the 2022 Australian Grand Prix generated an estimated $92 million of direct spending in the Victorian economy and boosted Victoria's Gross State Product by an estimated $171 million, with the Grand Prix also credited for driving up hotel occupancy and stimulating patronage for hospitality businesses. This mirrors a 2011 EY report commissioned by Tourism Victoria, which found international exposure and tourism spending stemming from hosting the Grand Prix generated between $32.04 million and $39.34 million for Victoria's Gross State Product during the period in which the Grand Prix was held, while also generating between 351 and 411 full-time equivalent jobs. According to an Economic Impact Assessment conducted by EY, the 2023 Australian Grand Prix contributed an estimated $268 million to the Victorian economy, including $144 million in direct expenditure and the creation of 1,149 full-time equivalent jobs, with $128 million of direct investment contributed by 81,000 international and interstate visitors who attended the event.

However, a cost-benefit analysis of the Australian Grand Prix done for the Auditor-General in 2005 revealed a net economic loss for Victoria, with the estimated costs of the event exceeding the benefits to Victorian taxpayers by 5 per cent, a 2007 auditor-general's report found costs to host the event exceeded benefits by $6.7 million, while a 2012 report commissioned by Economists at Large for Save Albert Park estimated that the 2012 Grand Prix resulted in a net economic loss to Victoria of between $48.8m and $66.7m, with a mid-range estimate of $60.55m. The 2007 Australian Grand Prix ran at a $34.6 million loss, while according to Crikey, the Australian Grand Prix made losses of $59.97 million in 2014, $61.7 million in 2015, $61 million in 2016 and $57.1 million in 2017.

Over the decade preceding 2022, the Australian Grand Prix collectively cost Victorian taxpayers $537.5 million to host, with the 2022 Australian Grand Prix alone costing Victorian taxpayers $78.1 million to host; the 2022 event generated $75.1 million in revenue but cost $153.2 million to stage. Victorian taxpayers have contributed more than $527 million to host the event since 2015, including $100.6 million in 2023.

Spectator attendance since 1995
Following the move of the Australian Grand Prix to Melbourne, spectator attendance peaked at 452,055 in 2024, but has never reached that of the last Adelaide race in 1995.

In 2009, the global financial crisis, higher unemployment and a snap public transport strike were cited by Victorian Premier John Brumby as a reason for a slight drop in crowds. Attendance numbers improved in 2010 to an estimate of 305,000 – the largest since the 2005 race.

In contrast to other major sporting events in Australia such as the AFL Grand Final, the Melbourne Cup, the Australian Open and the Boxing Day Test, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation does not release precise crowd figures for the Australian Grand Prix, citing security concerns; the Australian Grand Prix Corporation believes that crowd figures are sensitive from a security and safety perspective, and disclosing it has the potential to affect the security of Victoria by assisting the operational system of possible threat actors.

Official attendance numbers, which are inexact and have been challenged by the anti-Grand Prix lobby group Save Albert Park as gross overestimates, have been as follows:

 * 1995 (Adelaide) – 520,000 (210,000 on race day)
 * 1996 (Melbourne) – 401,000 (150,000 on race day)
 * 1997 – 289,000
 * 2004 – 360,885 (121,500 on race day)
 * 2005 – 359,000 (103,000 on race day)
 * 2006 – 301,800
 * 2007 – 301,000 (105,000 on race day)
 * 2008 – 303,000 (108,000 on race day)
 * 2009 – 286,900
 * 2010 – 305,000 (108,500 on race day)
 * 2011 – 298,000 (111,000 on race day)
 * 2012 – 313,700 (114,900 on race day)
 * 2013 – 323,000 (103,000 on race day)
 * 2014 – 314,900 (100,500 on race day)
 * 2015 – 296,600 (101,000 on race day)
 * 2016 – 272,300 (90,200 on race day)
 * 2017 – 296,600
 * 2018 – 295,000
 * 2019 – 324,000 (100,000 on race day)
 * 2022 – 419,114 (128,294 on race day)
 * 2023 – 444,631 (131,124 on race day)
 * 2024 – 452,055 (132,106 on race day)

Repeat winners (drivers)
Drivers in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season.

A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

As of the 2022 edition, four-time World Drivers' Champion Alain Prost remains the only driver to win the race in both World Championship and domestic formats. Prost won the Australian Drivers' Championship 1982 race, driving a Formula Pacific Ralt RT4, before winning in Adelaide in 1986 and 1988 in Formula One.

Australian driver Lex Davison and German driver Michael Schumacher are the most successful drivers in the 86-year history of the event taking four wins each, while Ferrari has been the most successful constructor with fourteen victories.

Repeat winners (constructors)
Teams in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season.

A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

Repeat winners (engine manufacturers)
Manufacturers in bold are competing in the Formula One championship in the current season.

A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.

* Between 1997 and 2003 built by Ilmor

** Between 1968 and 1993 designed and built by Cosworth, funded by Ford

By year
A pink background indicates an event which was not part of the Formula One World Championship.
 * * From 1932 to 1948, the winner was determined on a handicap basis.
 * + The 1937 event was staged as the "South Australian Centenary Grand Prix" on 26 December 1936.
 * # The 1928 event was officially known as the "100 Miles Road Race".

title: Australian Grand Prix


text:
Nice Côte d'Azur Airport

Nice Côte d'Azur Airport (Aéroport Nice Côte d'Azur) is an international airport located 3.2 NM southwest of Nice, in the Alpes-Maritimes department of France. It is the third busiest airport in France and serves as a focus city for Air France and an operating base for easyJet. In 2023, it handled 14,189,965 passengers. The airport is positioned 7 km west of the city centre, and is the principal port of arrival for passengers to the Côte d'Azur.

Due to its proximity to Monaco, which is located 20 km away to the northeast, it also serves as that city-state's airport, with helicopter service linking the principality and airport. Some airlines market Monaco as a destination via Nice Airport.

Facilities
The airport covers an area of over 3.70 km2 partially reclaimed from the sea, with 2.70 km2 used by its two parallel runways and the 14 passenger terminals and freight terminal. The airport's theoretical capacity is 14 million annual passengers and 52 movements (26 landings) per hour. Terminals 1 and 2 are linked by a tram service. The route stops at the airport and connects with the city centre via the "Jean Médecin" station, and with the port via the "Port Lympia" station. Buses that also connect the car parks with the terminals.

Terminal 1
Terminal 1 features 25 gates on a space of 52000 m2. It features flights to domestic, Schengen and non-Schengen destinations and has a capacity of 4.5 million passengers per year. A business center is located at Terminal 1 containing eight rooms and a conference room with a capacity of 250 people.

Terminal 2
Terminal 2 is the newer and larger facility and is equipped to handle flights to all destinations. There are 29 gates on a space of 57800 m2. The terminal has a capacity of 8.5 million passengers per year.

Business Aviation Terminal
The Business Aviation Terminal, located next to Terminal 2, covers an area of 1500 m2. Opened in 2010, this terminal contains the operations rooms, VIP lounges, crew lounges and offices of several business aviation companies.

Passenger
The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights to and from Nice:

Ground transportation
The airport is located on the western end of the Promenade des Anglais. Since December 2018, Nice tramway line 2 connects the airport to the Port of Nice (Lympia Port) via the Grand Arénas interchange (where additionally the relocated regional train station Nice-Saint-Augustin is situated), replacing two former bus routes (98 and 99) to the airport. The tram runs every 8 minutes during the day. There's also tramway line 3 which runs from the airport to the western suburbs. Additionally, bus route 12 connects the airport with Promenade des Artes via the old town.

Société Naviplane Ferry
In 1969 an experimental and short-lived ferry service utilized two N.300 Naviplane hovercraft. The airport was connected to Cannes, Saint-Tropez, Monaco and San-Remo.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 9 April 1949, SNCASE Languedoc P/7 F-BATU of Air France overran the runway and was damaged beyond economic repair.
 * On 3 March 1952, SNCASE Languedoc P/7 F-BCUM of Air France crashed shortly after take-off, killing all 38 people on board. The cause of the accident was that the aileron controls had jammed. The aircraft was operating a domestic scheduled passenger flight from Nice to Orly Airport, Paris.
 * On 11 September 1968, Air France Flight 1611 en route from Ajaccio, in the island of Corsica, to Nice, France crashed into the Mediterranean Sea off Nice, killing all 95 on board. A memorial is located near the airport.

title: Nice Côte d'Azur Airport


text:
Talk:Kimigayo

GA nom on hold
— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 02:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Access date in refs 1, 3 need to be wlinked
 * "and is also one of the world's shortest national anthems in current use. [1]" - Don't need a space between the full stop and ref
 * "Kimi ga Yo was considered to be a symbol of the imperialism and the militarism in wartime. [1]" - And again....
 * The "Lyrics" section should use a table which includes (as headers) the language that you're writing in
 * "The change of the lyrics occurred during the Kamakura period. [3]" - Ref placement
 * "In 1869, around the start of the Meiji Era," - 1989 doesn't need to be wlinked here
 * "Not only this is where Fenton was based as a military band leader, the Myoukoji Shrine serves as a memorial to Fenton." - Perhaps reword to "As this is where Fenton was based as a military band leader, the Myoukoji Shrine serves as a memorial to him."
 * "In 1880, the Imperial Household Agency" - Don't wlink 1880
 * "there has been criticism of the anthem for its association with militarism and the virtual worship of the emperor as a deity" - Need a source for this criticism
 * "and fined 200,000 yen (about 2,000 dollars)," - wlink the respective currencies here
 * "English lyrics as they can allude to comfort women.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" - 6 refs...can't these be spread throughout the paragraph or something?
 * "towards Kimi ga yo when it is being" - Shouldn't it be Kimi ga Yo? (also at "are required to sing Kimi ga yo while facing the Hinomaru", "Kimi ga yo, however, is commonly played")
 * How about placing the recordings inline throughout the article?
 * "(modified to resemble the Kimi ga Yo)" - name should be in italics right?
 * I hopped I snagged everything. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A few things still to do - I'll put 'em in bold. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Passed — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kana script
The fifth line of the lyrics should run as いはほとなりて in the time-honoured traditional script which could be transcribed as "i`a`oto narite". Here the grave accent stands for medial 'h'. Both the medial 'h' and the letter 'w' are separators which are realized as a bilabial semi-vowel only when immediately followed by the 'a' sound. Particles used not to be separated from the preceding word. "いわおとなりて" is a result of prepocessing applied to the original script to make it conform to the romanization system synchronically conceived in the Meiji period. Talk:Romanization of Japanese is a panchronic system and does not need preprocessing. It is a transliteration system of the full set of Kana syllabary including ヂジ and ヅズ. Hepburn did not think it necessary to differentiat this affricate/fricative pair and provided only for affricates. So instead of ジ and ズ, ヂ and ヅ should have been given priority in Present-Day Kana Usage. You can see other examples of this system at [懐かしい唄の数々]--Kmns tsw (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Emperor never sings Kimi-ga-Yo in public
Zscout370 told me that the source should be showed. []

Because of the nature of this song, it is so natural that this is not the matter that is often mentioned. Every summer, on 15th August (JST), you can watch it on TV. Everybody who attends the end-of-the-war-memorial ceremony sings at him, and the Emperor, with his mouth shut, listens to the song.

I found an article about this. Is this enough? --Griffin in a Door (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally got the encoding to work so I can see the text. Keep in mind that I am in the US, so I do not see the ceremonies on television like normal Japanese could. Anyways, I think with this source, we can make a one sentence statement saying "By tradition, the emperor doesn't sign the lyrics of Kimi ga Yo during public functions" and cite the URL. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That page uses Shift_JIS-coded character set. If your web browser has Shift_JIS encoder, you can try to correct Mojibake by selecting Shift_JIS. The key shortcut for the menu is....
 * Windows Internet Explorer 6 / 7: [Alt ][V][D]
 * Firefox 1.5 / 2.0: [Alt ][V][C]
 * Griffin, you had better at least say "written in Japanese" when you set a link to a Japanese page on an English page. Even IE 7 for Japanese installed to Windows XP (on my PC) failed to encode that page, resulting in Mojibake. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Back to the subject, well, I think we cannot expect the present Emperor to sing Kimi ga Yo especially at official peace memorial ceremonies in August, because this anthem has history of being used by militarists with propaganda to inspire people to 'war for the Emperor' in early Shōwa period. Don't you know that the present Emperor, for example, had memorial foreign visits to former battlefields including one called "Banzai Cliff"? And, I remember the late Emperor Shōwa acted faithfully both to the pacific constitution (平和憲法) and the Imperial House Law (皇室典範). Besides, Emperor of Japan customarily doesn't use in public honorific words, like traditional "kimi" in Kimi ga Yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpty-Humpty (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have failed to mention that Wayback Machine of Internet Archive has an unfavorable feature. The machine always incorrectly tells your browser that the char-set of the document is utf-8, no matter what it really is. So you need to set the char-set manually every time you get a non-alphabetical document.
 * Now Back to the subject. The point I think to be mentioned in wikipedia about Kimi ga yo is that "Kimi ga yo is the anthem that the head of the state never sings." or "Kimi ga yo is the anthem not to be sung by the head of the state." I think this fact implies much and is very important. --Griffin in a Door (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, now that I think about it, it is not important to add. So what if a head of state doesn't sing their national hymn. It happens a lot, so I don't think it is worthy to add. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems a bit NPOV. Granted, I feel criticism should be included, but it seems like it was written with the sole purpose to weasel-word in piles of criticism. It's like writing five sections on the imperialism of "God save the Queen," or the Star Spangled Banner, which has had controversy over baseball fans being arrested for going to the bathroom during the song. Each of those much larger articles has no controversy section, so the large and pretty irrelevant criticism sections seem disproportionate. Nvgton (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation?
The Japanese page gives the translation as: A thousand years of happy life be thine! Live on,my Lord, till what are pebbles now, By age united,to great rocks shall grow, Whose venerable sides the moss doth line. But this page gives it as: May your reign Continue for a thousand, eight thousand generations, Until the pebbles Grow into boulders Lush with moss And the Japanese page gives it [in Kanji and Kana] as: 君が代は 千代に八千代に さざれ石の 巌（いわお）となりて 苔（こけ）のむすまで While this page gives it as (which appears to be correct per the government page): 君が代は 千代に八千代に さざれ石の いわおとなりて こけのむすまで Could someone give a more accurate translation to either the Japanese page or this one?  moo cows rule talk to moo 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Whether this is more accurate is debatable, but it's more literal:
 * May your reign last
 * 1000 years; for eternity
 * Until the pebbles
 * Become boulders
 * Covered with moss
 * Exploding Boy (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * May your reign continue for a thousand, eight thousand generations,

Can this sentence be translated as "for infinite generations", "forever" or "for all eternity" (like the one above)? According to the Kami page, in Japanese the number "eight million" (八百万) is often used to imply infinity. And a thousand of eight thousand is exactly eight millions. -- DTRY (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the article's title
I suggest we change the title to "Kimigayo" as it is spelled in Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Kodansha Ltd., 1993, p. 780 or in most Japanese English-language newspapers, f. ex. or. --Mycomp (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not certain why this title was used, unless it had something to deal with the kanji used in the title. I'm not particular bent on what title is used; I just want to be sure we get it right. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * It's at this title because it's three words, not one. "Kimi" is a pronoun, "ga" is a particle, and "Yo" is a noun. Kimigayo already redirects here, too. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. Then, keep it at this title please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the "kimi" in Kimigayo is not a pronoun, it is a 名詞 (noun), meaning "ruler", "sovereign". And why do you think the sources I mentioned above write it in one word? Because Kimigayo is simply the romanization of 君が代 not of 君　が　代. In Japanese, unlike in English, words are not separated, and Kimigayo is not English it is just the romanized version of the Japanese title. Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia uses "Kimigayo", The Japan Times does, Donald Keene does, Reischauer does, The Daily Yomiuri does, The Japan Times does, Asahi.com. does, etc. Google (I know, it is not always the best source) has 65.800 for "Kimigayo", and 23.500 for "Kimi ga yo". Which authoritative sources, if I may ask, do you have for "Kimi ga Yo" being the correct romanized spelling? (Why capital Y, by the way?)--Mycomp (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, that's what I meant. Noun. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of places that use all sorts of romanizations which we don't here (such as "syo" instead of "sho"). We have a manual of Style on purpose, to cover instances such as this. It specifically says to romanize a word using capitalization rules used in English. "Yo" is a noun, and therefore it is capitalized in the title. If you have an issue with how romanization is done on Wikipedia, then you need to take the discussion to WT:MOS-JA. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I give/gave you several reliable sources where the spelling is "Kimigayo", like the 12.000-article Japan, An Illustrated Encyclopedia (with advisors such as Donald Keene, Edwin Reischauer, Eleanor Jorden etc.), the Japanese Foreign Ministry, The Japan Times , the BBC , The Daily Yomiuri , Asahi.com The Japan Policy Research Institute  etc. What are your reliable sources for the "Kimi ga Yo" spelling, except for the Manual of style? Why is it then not "Hi no Maru" but Hinomaru? --Mycomp (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for an answer to why it is Hinomaru but Kimi ga Yo. And BTW, I couldn't find where in the manual of Style it says that Kimi ga Yo would be the correct way to write 君が代. --Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since nothing happened, I just moved the page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I made some changes to this p[age a month or so ago and I note that they have now been removed. I have a photo copy of the original notation for Kimigayo as it was written by Akimori Hayashi. It is  part of a large collection  of songs written by the court musicians (Gagaku) and predates Fenton's et als  version. I included a copy of the original notation but I see now that this has been removed. I don't understand why. I spent several years in Japan studying Gagaku and this where I first learned of this history. I would like to know on what basis my entry was removed.

72.219.187.95 (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Robert Garfias
 * The edit and link was removed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimigayo&diff=next&oldid=385390358, which was the next edit. As for why, I have no clue. I am looking at the link and see what I can pull from that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Readings
Is it a coincidence that there are no Sino-Japanese words in the anthem, or was that the intention for the country's anthem? All the words are 和語 instead of 漢語, which seems atypical for Japanese: was that a hallmark of writing during the Heian period, even though "Chinese influences were at their height"? Ulmanor (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue (and I agree with your edit). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In 古今和歌集, it's common. Kimigayo is not an exception.61.213.84.139 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Adopted in 1888?
The Richard Boyd/Tak-Wing Ngo footnote says that the anthem was adopted in 1888, but the text often says that the anthem was adopted for the first time in 1999. I'm wondering where the discrepancy lies, was it adopted in 1888 and formally abolished after WWII, only to be readopted in 1999? Was it only adopted as an imperial anthem (the anthem of the emperor) in 1888? Or did nothing at all happen in 1888 to the status of the anthem and Boyd/Ngo are mistaken? What exactly transpired in 1888?--Canuckguy (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just going to the Japanese version of the page says "対外正式公布" next to 1888 in the Japanese info box, but I don't know enough Japanese to get a good handle on what that means. (Google translate says "promulgated official foreign", but that doesn't really tell me what that means as to what the status of the anthem was at the time.) --Canuckguy (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me some time and I will get you what I know and what I wrote. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The song was adopted for use as the national anthem when it comes to diplomatic ceremonies in 1888, so that is where one of the official adoption dates go. In the 1890's, the song was used in school ceremonies as the anthem but there was no official anthem until the passage of the 1999 law. There were times that other songs that were treated as anthems, but were not the anthems of a state until later. This was the case for the Star Spangled Banner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of parody section
Good day,

would it be possible if the parody section could be removed?

The Wikipedia page is about a national anthem, and with a national anthem you also link a bit of respect. When you have in an international encyclopedia the description of the national anthem of Japan that includes an unimportant parody section, then it takes a bit the integrity and seriosity of the meaning away.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.20 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Key
The reference to the key supposedly being C major said no such thing, and the sheet music doesn't indicate this in any way either. The melody is on the Dorian mode, but without a (minor or major) third. If anyone has a more accurate edit to make, feel free to make the necessary corrections. 72.93.173.72 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I just had to add a Controversy Section. It’s just too related to the Kimigayo.
The Japanese national anthem “Kimigayo” (君が代) is well-known that it caused controversy not only among Chinese and Koreans but also inside Japan. If you would like to talk about this, please head to my talk page and let’s discuss about it.HanSangYoon (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kimigayo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728091749/http://www.dpj.or.jp/news/?num=11044 to http://www.dpj.or.jp/news/?num=11044
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728091823/http://www.dpj.or.jp/news/?num=8506 to http://www.dpj.or.jp/news/?num=8506

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kimigayo. 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/20090211083829/http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/tog/ to http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/tog/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323180056/http://www.shugiin.go.jp/itdb_gian.nsf/html/gian/keika/1CE3AB6.htm to http://www.shugiin.go.jp/itdb_gian.nsf/html/gian/keika/1CE3AB6.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/public%20affairs%20info/Archive%20News%20Pages/2005/050218-heart.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722112237/http://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/kyouiku/hotline/02zesei/sankou/kokkikokka.htm to http://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/kyouiku/hotline/02zesei/sankou/kokkikokka.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060319210723/http://cebc.jp/data/education/gov/jp/tsuuchi/19990917hatauta/data-02.htm to http://cebc.jp/data/education/gov/jp/tsuuchi/19990917hatauta/data-02.htm

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) 03:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kimigayo. 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/20100428014321/http://www.yu.emb-japan.go.jp/Srpski/UpoznajteJapan-PolitikaEkonomija.htm to http://www.yu.emb-japan.go.jp/Srpski/UpoznajteJapan-PolitikaEkonomija.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618201400/http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=248658 to http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=248658

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) 15:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What is "slated" supposed to mean in this sentence?
"Hashimoto Toru, the mayor of Osaka, slated [sic] the teachers as "It was good that criminals [teachers] who are intent on breaking the rules [of not singing the state anthem] have risen to the surface [public]"? Please clarify. Autodidact1 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Deleted sentence; rewrite and clarify. Autodidact1 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of "slated" is colloquial, specific to British English, and it's vulgar; that's why I deleted the sentence. Wikipedia is not the place for colloquial British English. See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/slated Autodidact1 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Need confirmation of translation
The second line, "千代に八千代に" should be more accurately translated as "For ever and ever" or "for eternity". Is it correct? Pichnat Thong (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 * No. "千代に八千代に" literally means ("For 1,000 years to 8,000 years"). 115.84.95.19 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kimigayo


text:
DivX (disambiguation)

DivX may refer to:

 * DivX, a video codec from DivX, Inc.
 * DIVX, the failed pay-per-view for DVD
 * DivX, Inc., the company that offers software for encoding in DivX and that certifies devices that are capable or encoding and/or playing DivX encoded video

title: DivX (disambiguation)