text:
Talk:Hungaroring

I corrected the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth.--Ciroa 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--

NUMBER OF TURNS

there are 14 turns not 16, the fade named turn 2 isn't a turn and neither is the fade named turn 5. For refence this would make the chicane turns 6 and 7 not 8 and 9 Gav

It's a Will Pettinger map, it's obligated to be wrong. I don't know why it has the chicane, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.50.53 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wet race
From the article: "it is a circuit in the Grand Prix calendar that saw its first wet race in the 2006 season" and "some of the most exciting races in F1 history have been held here[1], although these were nearly always wet races"

This contradiction does not make any sense. Nearly all of the exciting races can't have been driven under wet conditions if the first race was just two years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.121.112 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This was added by an IP less than a week ago, I remove it. The article badly needs more references though. Squash Racket (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lap tables
Please stop tabulating qualifying laps. Official lap records have always been only racing laps. Qualifying records while faster, have always been significantly less important. --Falcadore (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungaroring. 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/20151208113348/http://www.rvo.hu/benzingoz/2015/08/09/alpok-adria-halalos-baleset-hungaroringen/ to http://www.rvo.hu/benzingoz/2015/08/09/alpok-adria-halalos-baleset-hungaroringen/

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) 17:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hungaroring


text:
California State Route 2

State Route 2 (SR 2) is a state highway in the U.S. state of California. It connects the Los Angeles Basin with the San Gabriel Mountains and the Victor Valley in the Mojave Desert. The highway's southwestern end is at the intersection of Centinela Avenue at the Santa Monica-Los Angeles border and its northeastern end is at SR 138 east of Wrightwood. The SR 2 is divided into four segments, and it briefly runs concurrently with U.S. Route 101 (US 101) and Interstate 210 (I-210). The southwestern section of SR 2 runs along a segment of the east–west Santa Monica Boulevard, an old routing of US 66, to US 101 in East Hollywood; the second section runs along segments of both the north–south Alvarado Street and Glendale Boulevard in Echo Park; the third section to I-210 in Glendale is known as the north–south Glendale Freeway; and the northeastern portion from I-210 in La Cañada Flintridge to SR 138 is designated as the Angeles Crest Highway.

Route description

SR 2 is known as the Angeles Crest Scenic Byway, a National Forest Scenic Byway, from SR 2's east junction with I-210 in La Cañada Flintridge to the Los Angeles–San Bernardino county line. The Big Pines Highway is routed along SR 2 from County Route N4 (CR N4, the northwest continuation of the designation) in Big Pines to the Los Angeles–San Bernardino county line.

SR 2 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, and except for much of the mountain portion is part of the National Highway System, a network of highways that are considered essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration. SR 2 is eligible to be included in the State Scenic Highway System; however, only the portion of SR 2 from a point northeast of the I-210 interchange to the San Bernardino County line is actually designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), meaning that it is a substantial section of highway passing through a "memorable landscape" with no "visual intrusions", where the potential designation has gained popular favor with the community.

The California Legislature has relinquished state control of various segments of SR 2 in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, and turned them over to local control.

SR 1 to the southeast junction with US 101
The original official southwestern terminus of SR 2 was at the junction of Lincoln Boulevard, SR 1, and I-10 in Santa Monica. SR 2 then proceeded northwest on Lincoln Boulevard before turning northeast on Santa Monica Boulevard. Since the California Legislature relinquished segments of the highway, state control of SR 2 now officially begins at the point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the Santa Monica–Los Angeles city limits at Centinela Avenue. From Centinela Avenue, SR 2 heads northeast on Santa Monica Boulevard, where it heads northeast through West Los Angeles, Westwood, Century City, and Beverly Hills before entering West Hollywood. Santa Monica Boulevard, as a major street, is for most of its length at least four lanes wide.

At its west end, Santa Monica Boulevard starts off Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. From there until Sepulveda Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard is a densely urban commercial street. Most of the Westside car dealerships are located on Santa Monica Boulevard. After Sepulveda, Santa Monica Boulevard passes Century City, and intersects Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills.

The south roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard, often called Little Santa Monica Boulevard in Beverly Hills, runs parallel to the state highway (north) roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard from the city's west limit to Rexford Drive. After Rexford Drive, Little Santa Monica turns east, becoming Burton Way. Burton Way merges into San Vicente Boulevard at its intersection with La Cienega Boulevard. It is noted that the south roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard in Beverly Hills is a city street while the north roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard is a California state highway, each roadway handling bi-directional traffic.

After intersecting Wilshire, Santa Monica Boulevard continues northeast toward West Hollywood, spanning Beverly Boulevard and Melrose Avenue. At Holloway Drive, in the middle of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, now north of Melrose Avenue turns to the east. In West Hollywood, between Fairfax Avenue and Doheny Drive along Santa Monica Boulevard, bronze name plaques are embedded in the sidewalks as part of the West Hollywood Memorial Walk. SR 2 continues east through Hollywood on Santa Monica Boulevard to the Hollywood Freeway.

Route 2 then merges onto U.S. Route 101 (the Hollywood Freeway) and heads southeast leaving US 101 at the Alvarado Street exit.

Alvarado Street and Glendale Boulevard
From US 101, Route 2 heads northeast on Alvarado Street through the community of Echo Park. The route then turns north onto Glendale Boulevard.

Glendale Freeway
After crossing Allesandro Street, Route 2 then branches northeast onto the Glendale Freeway, a north–south route. With five lanes each direction, the freeway is quite wide. It intersects the 5 Freeway (the Golden State Freeway) and then crosses the Los Angeles River, and runs through the communities of Glassell Park and Eagle Rock.

After its interchange with the eastern Ventura Freeway (SR 134), the Glendale Freeway route follows a ridge in the San Rafael Hills through eastern Glendale. The freeway ends in the Crescenta Valley, at Foothill Boulevard in La Cañada Flintridge. Just before reaching Foothill Boulevard, SR 2 turns off the Glendale Freeway onto the eastbound Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) for a short distance until reaching the Angeles Crest Highway exit in La Cañada Flintridge.

The Glendale Freeway was originally proposed to continue through Echo Park all the way to Hollywood Freeway (101). Since that plan has been scrapped, the freeway is somewhat isolated from the remainder of the LA freeway system.

I-210 to Route 138

Leaving La Cañada Flintridge at an altitude of 1,300 ft, the route turns north onto the Angeles Crest Highway. This route winds generally east-northeast through the canyons of the San Gabriel Mountains for over 80 mi, before descending through Big Pines and Wrightwood to the edge of the Victor Valley approximately 20 mi west of Hesperia and ending at SR 138. The highway climbs to a high point of 7,903 ft at Dawson Saddle. The eastern portions of the Angeles Crest Highway are notoriously dangerous, with many switchbacks and blind curves, and are often closed during occasions of heavy winter snowfall. The highway is generally closed between Islip Saddle and Vincent Gap from mid-December to mid-May due to snow and rockfall.

Designation
In 1964, Route 2 was defined as a single route from Santa Monica to Wrightwood with no discontinuities. The segment of former US 66 on Santa Monica Boulevard west of the Hollywood Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard was added to Route 2 at this time, since US 66 was truncated to Pasadena. Route 2 became discontinuous at Routes 101 and 210 in 1965 and 1990, respectively.

Before the segment of the Glendale Freeway was built between Glendale Boulevard and just west of the Los Angeles River, Route 2 began at the Hollywood Freeway on Santa Monica Boulevard, continued east to Myra Avenue, then north on Myra Avenue, east on Fountain Avenue, northeast on Hyperion Avenue, southeast on Rowena Avenue, southeast on Glendale Boulevard, and northeast on Fletcher Drive to just west of the Los Angeles River. From west of the Los Angeles River, Route 2 continued on the Glendale Freeway to its temporary connection with Fletcher Drive at Avenue 38 and then followed the routing described in the previous paragraph to Route 138 northeast of Wrightwood.

Before the segment of the Glendale Freeway was built north of Glassell Park, Route 2 continued north on Fletcher Drive to Eagle Rock Boulevard, then north on Eagle Rock Boulevard to Verdugo Road, north on Verdugo to Cañada, north on Cañada back to Verdugo, and north and east on Verdugo to the Angeles Crest Highway (then Haskell Street).

Beverly Hills Freeway
Originally, it was to have been the Beverly Hills Freeway from Route 405 to Route 101 just east of Vermont Avenue, flowing onto the Glendale Freeway. In fact, the proposed freeway on Route 2 west of Route 101 was the original routing of the "Santa Monica Freeway" (a name which subsequently went to the distantly parallel Route 10). However, for a variety of political reasons, the department never reached agreement with Beverly Hills to build the segment through that city. At one time, the department considered building a cut-and-cover tunnel under Beverly Hills, but even this proved a non-starter, and the freeway plan west of Route 101 was quietly cancelled in 1975. Currently, the Glendale Freeway begins as a stub at Glendale Boulevard. A freeway-wide bridge was built over Glendale Boulevard in hopes that the freeway would be built further west. Today, the bridge serves as the westbound lanes of Route 2, connecting the southwestbound freeway lanes to southbound Glendale Boulevard. A more modest freeway/expressway extension to Route 101 has been discussed.

Planners originally intended for it to connect to the Hollywood Freeway with Route 101 near the Vermont Avenue interchange, but community opposition killed the project by the 1960s (which is why there is a huge median around the cancelled interchange today). The Glendale Freeway offers stunning vistas of the eastern San Fernando Valley, the Verdugo Mountains, the Crescenta Valley, and the San Gabriel Mountains.

In the 1960s, the city of Beverly Hills had begun a transition from a quasi-exurban retreat for the entertainment industry to its current status as one of the world's premier shopping and culinary destinations. Building a freeway along Santa Monica Boulevard, the northwestern border of the city's emergent "Golden Triangle" shopping district, did not fit into city fathers' vision for Beverly Hills' development. Moreover, it was feared that a freeway would exacerbate the already evident divisions between the fabulously wealthy residents of the hilly areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard and the merely affluent ones to the south. A proposed cut-and-cover tunnel for the freeway failed to generate sufficient political support, and by the mid-1970s the project was essentially dead.

California State Senator (later Congressman) Anthony Beilenson was one of the leading opponents of the project.

Caltrans' decision not to build the freeway was both harmful and beneficial to the areas along its proposed route. The massive Century City high-rise commercial development just west of the Beverly Hills city limits was built with freeway access in mind. For many Century City workers who live in Los Angeles' eastern suburbs, the quickest way home takes them through the residential district of Cheviot Hills, which has caused consternation among its well-heeled residents. For Beverly Hills, the decision helped preserve much of its emergent downtown, but at the cost of creating gridlock on Wilshire Boulevard and I-10.

Further construction
The first segment of freeway was built in the 1950s and ran from just west of the Los Angeles River to Avenue 38 in Glassell Park. This portion was at one time named the Allesandro Freeway, because it runs next to Allesandro Street. The last segment of freeway, from Route 134 to Route 210, was built between 1972 and 1975.

Starting in July 1964, Route 2 began in Santa Monica at its junction with Routes 1 and 10. After heading a few blocks northwest on Lincoln Boulevard, the route turned northeast on Santa Monica Boulevard, just several blocks from the Pacific Ocean. The route continued on Santa Monica Boulevard to Centinela Avenue.

For its entire length, until the tracks were removed, Santa Monica Boulevard followed the tracks of the Pacific Electric Railway. In the portion from Holloway Drive in West Hollywood to Sepulveda Boulevard in West Los Angeles, the tracks were in a separate right-of-way, with two roadways, one on each side of the tracks. For the rest of the route, the tracks ran in the traffic lanes.

Except for a short portion at its eastern end, Santa Monica Boulevard was adopted as a state highway in 1933. From 1934 to 1936, it was signed as State Route 2. Then it became U.S. Route 66. When U.S. Route 66 was truncated to Pasadena in 1964, Santa Monica Boulevard once again became State Route 2 as far east as the Hollywood Freeway. Today, the State Route 2 portion of Santa Monica Boulevard is defined from the Santa Monica/Los Angeles city limits to US 101.

From 1936 to 1964, U.S. Route 66 ran along Lincoln Boulevard from its junction with Alternate U. S. 101 (now California Route 1) and California Route 26 (now replaced by Interstate 10) to Santa Monica Boulevard and along Santa Monica Boulevard from Lincoln Boulevard to the Hollywood Freeway. US 66 turned southeast on the Hollywood Freeway with US 101. At that time, Route 2 began on Alvarado Street at the Hollywood Freeway. As is today, Route 2 traversed Alvarado Street and Glendale Boulevard to the Glendale Freeway. Route 2 continued on the Glendale Freeway to a temporary connection with Fletcher Drive at Avenue 38 in the Atwater district of Los Angeles. From the temporary connection, the route ran northeast on Fletcher Drive, and north on Verdugo Road to its south intersection with Cañada Boulevard in Glendale. From the south intersection, Route 2 headed north on Cañada Boulevard to its north intersection with Verdugo Road, north on Verdugo Road, and east on Verdugo Boulevard, before reaching Foothill Boulevard in La Canada Flintridge. Route 2 continued approximately one mile southeast on Foothill Boulevard with California Route 118 to Angeles Crest Highway. From Foothill Boulevard, Route 2 continued north on Angeles Crest Highway, where it continues to this day.

Today, the California Transportation Commission is relinquishing the street-running parts of Route 2 to local cities which it runs through. In 1996, state law was changed to permit the relinquishment of Route 2 in Santa Monica and West Hollywood. When the relinquishment in Santa Monica went through in 1998, the portion from Route 1 to Centinela Avenue was deleted. The law was changed again in 2001 to allow Route 2 from Route 405 to Moreno Drive to be relinquished to the City of Los Angeles. In 2003 California Senate Bill 315 was chaptered, acknowledging the relinquishments within Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and from Route 405 to Moreno Drive in Los Angeles, and permitting the relinquishment of Route 2 in Beverly Hills. Whether Route 2 west of Route 101 will stay as a paper route after relinquishment is yet to be determined.

Since the 1950s, proposals have been made to extend the Glendale Freeway to the Antelope Valley Freeway via a tunnel under the San Gabriels, relieving some of the latter freeway's notorious congestion. The difficulty of designing and building such a route through the mountains (designated SR 249) and the cost of insuring it against earthquakes and terrorism would undoubtedly make perpetually cash-strapped Caltrans unable to undertake such an ambitious project.

In popular culture

The section of freeway between the Ventura Freeway (134) and the Foothill Freeway (210) was largely completed in late 1972, but not fully finished until late spring 1978. During this five year period, the section from just north of the 134 Ventura freeway to approximately Mountain St (Glendale College) was not built. During this time, the closed freeway and an on/off ramp at Verdugo Blvd in Montrose were used as a location for several films due to its relatively complete construction status, and its proximity to major movie studios in Southern California. Some of these productions included Coffy, Corvette Summer, The Gumball Rally, Death Race 2000, Cannonball, Hardcore, and several American television series including Adam-12, Emergency! and CHiPs. The transition overpass from the eastbound Ventura Freeway to the northbound Glendale Freeway was prominently featured in the notorious disaster film Earthquake when a livestock truck and two cars crash over the side of the overpass (a shot completed in miniature special effects). Ever since it was opened in 1978, this section of freeway is still relatively lightly traveled (especially on weekends), and is still utilized as a filming location, with filming typically done early on weekend mornings.

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

title: California State Route 2


text:
Talk:Albert Park Circuit

Original circuit
Someone with some knowledge of the pre-1996 history of the racing circuit (particularly the 1950's races) may want to add info to this article. ozzmosis 16:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was looking to start a writing up the original circuit, but reading this article as it stands, and considering the name of the article I'm not sure its entirely appropriate. The article isn't really much about the circuit itself and is more about what happens at the ecircuit, and 'Melbourne' was never used to describe the original circuit, it was always the Albert Park circuit. What are other edittors thoughts - should the original circuit have a separate article? Is some description of the current circuit of higher priority? --Falcadore (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions
I added the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth.--Ciroa 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--

 * I added link to BBC & au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article--Cheetaih (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Stands' Names
Why is the biggest stand called Fangio and the 2nd called Senna? Should not they be called respectively Schumacher and Fangio? And the actual Schumacher renamed to Senna?

JMRRF - Porto, Portugal 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.86.66 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In 1996, when the circuit was first used (and the stands were named), Schumacher had only won 2 Championships. DH85868993 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The actual Schumacher renamed to Senna? Did I miss something?!? I hope you mean the stand, and not the man. Apterygial (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Why would ranking the grandstands be in any way important anyway? Do the grandstands moan about their names in the pub after the race meeting? Do they complain about not having won enough championships? --Falcadore (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Of course it doesn't matter. Renaming a stand every time someone wins another championship is absurd. Though I do like your idea, Falcadore, of the stands in the pub afterwards. Apterygial (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lap record
A note to the users who are editing in Sebastian Vettel's pole position time from the 2010 Grand Prix...the lap record in an infobox on Wikipedia relates to the lap record recorded in race conditions. Now, as Vettel's time was set in the qualifying practice session, it is not considered as an official lap record. Thus Michael Schumacher's 1:24.125 is still the official lap record, and should be listed in the infobox. Cs-wolves (talk)  10:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an example, numerous drivers lapped under Felipe Massa's old lap record (1:38.708), but the official lap record stands at 1:38.683 by Timo Glock, which is shown in the infobox on Valencia Street Circuit. Cs-wolves  (talk)  10:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the lap record for the circuit not for the F1 GP race so i don't get your point, people wants to know what's the fastest ever recorded time on this track not what's the fastest race lap recorded for F1 here, there is another page for that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Grand_Prix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.162.228 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is nice of you to assume for everyone what they want. What you as an individual want is not particularly important against that the terminology for Lap record has always been for race laps only. Qualifying laps have never counted towards lap records in Australia or in any other FIA aligned country, so I don't see why we should change the rules because you, personally, like qualifying laps. Qualifying laps have their own record, it is why the term qualifying lap record exists. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Please do not delete information regarding the first Albert Park circuit. --Falcadore (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit. 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/20120717081807/http://www.natsoft.com.au/results/ to http://www.natsoft.com.au/results/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.procar.com.au/Stats_PROCAR.pdf

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) 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Support races 2018
Does the information in the "Support races 2018" section belong in this article (i.e. at the article about the circuit), or at 2018 Australian Grand Prix? DH85868993 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Certainly not here. Same with the 2019 support races.Tvx1 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Obviously. None of this should be about the races really. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead section needs some attention
"The Australian Grand Prix has always been more of a promoter event than a profit-raiser in itself. The contract was prolonged until 2023, although tobacco advertising has been banned since 2007." - I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, or how it is relevant information about the circuit. This wiki entry isn't about the Australian Grand Prix itself. Which contract was prolonged? And what does tobacco advertising have to do with it? -- Epistolarius (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox update
I have updated the infobox in regard to circuit layout in recognition of the announcemnt that the circuit layout will be changed for 2021--Brozovera (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Albert Park Circuit". (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit → ? – I believe this article should either be renamed to Albert Park Circuit or Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit (or with a lowercase "c" on circuit?) per WP:Common name, and also since it's not even clear if Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit is the official name.

Firstly, I live in Melbourne and I've never heard anyone in common useage refer to it as "Melbourne Grand Prix cirtuit". It is always, including generally in the local media (see, and ), referred to as "Albert Park". It is also often referred to as Albert Park in the more specialised sources, for example: in the latest edition of Autocourse, it is referred to as "Albert Park, Melbourne" (see page 118), on ESPN's website it is called "Albert Park", on racingcircuits.info, it is called "Albert Park".

Finally, it's not even clear if "Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit" is the official name: while it's true that the official formula one website usually refers to the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit (although not always, see ), it looks like the local promoters use the term "Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit", for example this article/press release. Also, other series which race there don't necessarily use "Melbourne..." either, for example see the S5000 website. A7V2 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 * you have gone to some trouble to explain, well done. Motorsport articles in the australian project are short of a good cohort to keep them up to date and working -

Support move to Albert Park Circuit - per https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=albert+park+circuit compared to https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=melbourne+grand+prix+circuit, the usage of Albert Park Circuit seems logical change, as long there is adequate flagging of the variant names in the article JarrahTree 06:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Question – It's difficult to !vote for a better name if no definitive name has been proposed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My preference would be for Albert Park Circuit but I figured it would be good to give the option as I'm happy with either and people may have good reasons for choosing one over the other. As for whether the c should be capital or not, I'd say it should be capital since a quick look at other racing circuits shows that they seem to always have Circuit rather than circuit.A7V2 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Support move to Albert Park Circuit Fecotank (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to Albert Park Circuit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral on moves to Albert Park Circuit and Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit. Strong oppose to Albert Park Grand Prix circuit or Albert Park circuit (ie lowercase on circuit). Circuit forms a part of the name and is not an identifier. SSSB (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Albert Park Circuit --Scott Davis Talk 09:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to Albert Park Circuit. 5225C (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Albert Park Circuit 1950s.jpg

Reasons for ending racing in 1958
The last line in the section about the 1950s is very generalised and seems unduly partisan, though I doubt many people would question it, given peoples attitude to media freedom in general. “The press” don’t usually conduct negative campaigns of their own unless they have something to write about and support. Was this a campaign by local residents and reported by “the press”? What were the issues of concern and how long did this campaign last for? Otherwise, this is a classic example of “nothing to see here”. The link supplied didn’t work for me. Flanker235 (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd describe it as partisan, if anything I tried to make it less partisan but it is a bit awkwardly worded. As to the "link" not working, I'm not sure what you mean, the source is a book. I have also removed the better source needed template as I'm unsure why you would be suggesting the source is not reliable. In any case, the text I based this on is "A powerful anti-racing campaign was being mounted in parts of the Melbourne press, elections were looming, and Albert Park was closed for good." Without delving into WP:OR, it seems as though (by my reading) that the press was indeed leading this, thus driving public and political opinion in a similar vein to the "Supercar scare". A7V2 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that simply writing it off as campaign by the press to get rid of racing is probably not an adequate explanation but perhaps I didn't put it very well. What are the issues? Who was involved? How long did it go on for. I just think there needs to be more information. If, indeed, "the press" were campaigning against it, what were they saying and what did they have to gain from it? Contrary to popular view, the news media doesn't usually go off on a crusade against something like that. Perhaps it was a prominent reporter, rather than a generalised campaign. Even so, a campaign with only one entity at the head is not likely to be very successful. There are usually two sides to every story. If it's to be brought up, it needs a bit more than a casual line like that. As to the original, west, I realised it was a book shortly after I posted my comment. Did the author of that book elaborate? If so, what did he say? Flanker235 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your point... no the author did not elaborate, though he did partly contextualise it by mentioning previous difficulties. "Even before the Second World War, racing drivers had been studying Albert Park as a potential racing circuit. Their first try, in 1934, foundered in a storm of adverse reaction. The second,... in 1937, met the same dismal fate." and "By careful management, the Light Car Club of Australia managed to secure the near-perfect site for the 1953 Australian Grand Prix" (my emphasis). It's also safe to say that the author is not exactly writing neutrally on this issue. Writing about the proposed new circuit (note for context the book was published in 1995, the year before the first race on the new circuit) "...predictably, the proposal was greeted with another storm of adverse reaction". I've also checked the Macquarie Dictionary of Motoring (pub 1986) entry on Albert Park and it simply states "Later that year (1958), following a government ban, the circuit closed". So as you say it's not as clear cut. I think for the moment then we should replace the line with something simply stating that the circuit closed in 1958? A7V2 (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds very reasonable. Good research too. I didn't realise the acrimony had been around so long. Makes interesting reading. Cheers. Flanker235 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done though my wording isn't the best if you want to change it! A7V2 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine as it is. Perhaps, in time, it can be expanded but it's probably not a critical matter. Thanks for listening. Flanker235 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

New surface for 2022
The track is currently being resurfaced. Work started around the beginning of December 2020, though it might have been earlier than that. After the layout changes were made, the top surface was scraped off in preparation for a new top skin. I presume it will be finished in time for the 2022 Grand Prix in April. Unfortunately, I only know this from driving around it every day and I have no back up information so it doesn't qualify for inclusion at the moment under WP:OR. Flanker235 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Circuit corner numbers have changed.
Existing corners 9 and 10 have been removed. 14 corners in total. The image therefore requires updating. https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2022/Australia/Circuit.html --Dave F63 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The map already shows the new layout.Tvx1 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It shows the new layout, but the corner numbering in our infobox image is incorrect. SSSB (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I also wrote in 2022 Australian GP talk page; I am not expert of drawing circuit layouts, just I found the image from somewhere. Maybe @Gpmat, @GabrielStella, or @Anthony Alessio Tralongo can draw and upload better and more accurate circuit layout for Albert Park Circuit. Apeiro94 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's accurate and more than good enough. No new drawing is needed. Just a tweak of the corner numbers. What does need drawing, though, is a map of the version of the circuit used for the 1953 and 1956 Australian Grands Prix.Tvx1 14:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Layout for 2022 Season
So, I was looking up in f1's channel and it popped up Australian grand prix. And I need some question maybe someone could help me. Where is the 2022 layout? Is it redesigned minorly or majorly? Can someone find the 2022 layout? Thanks. ChangeMyNamePlease (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It‘s in the infobox.Tvx1 14:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Outright lap record
Hi, I was wondering if it might be prudent to include the above, which I think is Max's pole time of 2023. For all us F1 stat fans, & others, outright lap records are important additions to statistical lists, & for all circuits. Thanks 120.16.128.252 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fastest lap record
This circuit's fastest race lap is already on the page (set by Charles Leclerc), but there needs to be a spot for the record of the fastest non-race lap, which recently has been given to Max Verstappen setting a time during Q3 of the 2024 Grand Prix of 1:15.9. Might be a simlilar request to the topic above, just updated though.

Thanks. 194.193.158.18 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This is my comment; I posted it with no account earlier. Fmsjd (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Albert Park Circuit


text:
Talk:Montjuïc

Moving formula one to its own page
At some point we should consider moving the formula one info to a page in its own right (say [Montjuïc circuit for example), ideally with more information about the track, details of the F1 races and any other races that took place there, and I think more about the horrible accident the article describes. Personally I don't have any problem with that info remaining here, but I suppose it's rather weird for someone browsing the F1 pages to find themselves reading about political executions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks to user:Matthead, who had the presence of mind to Babelfish the Spanish language version. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The "non functioning" tower
The article said that Calatrava's tower was "non functional". I've removed this snippet, pending a citation to that effect. The online resources I've consulted about it (including, , and ) make no mention of its not being functional. It was apparently built by Telefonica and the microwave antennas are concealed inside the horizontal arc section. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Some information is missing
CarlosRibeiro 14:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC):

 * How high is the hill? I mean, being a hill, this is one important piece of information. I belive it's not very high, but it is relatively high considering the city below it. I would like to know by how much.
 * The article states that the Español team would leave the statium at Montjuïc, probably in 2005. We're already in 2006. Is this information confirmed?

 * According to the Catalan language Viquipèdia ca:Montjuïc_(Barcelona) measures 173m at the highest point.
 * The Espanyol football team hasn't left the Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys yet (yesterday they played a game there), because the stadium they're building in Cornellà isn't yet finished. So information about that issue is outdated. --62.57.90.7 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * If the photo dated "Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:34:59" at is accurate it appears that the new stadium won't be ready any time soon. I'll update the article to relect that. Ruudboy 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The article omits the fact that large numbers of people, principally immigrants from the rest of Spain, lived on the mountain in shantytowns for much of the twentieth century. Major evictions took place for the purposes of the 1929 Expo and the 1992 Olympics. Examples of writing on the subject include guys like Juli Vallmitjana and Francesc Candel.

Pronunciation
The pronunciation in DCVB is [muɲʒuík]. This is a little strange: is the n really palatal, like in enyoro? DCVB is excellent, but the pronunciation [muŋʒuík] in this article appears more correct with velar ŋ. (Both use the nonstandard symbol for stress, though.)

What is really correct? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the location, I imagine that it's a case of assimilation of place of articulation. It's not unlikely that the velar symbol was accidentally used here.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Origins
No word on the ancient 8th to 13th century Jewish cemetery after which the whole area takes its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.45.216 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I concur with this complaint - it is obvious that the hill was an important Jewish cemetery in medieval times, which is where it got its name, c.f., Montjuic of Girona. This is an important historical basis for the hill, its name, and Barcelona.  More is needed with a historical discussion of the cemetery, particularly given that there is now a modern-day, unrelated cemetery. Bdushaw (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Exact location of Méchain's meridional measurement on Montjuïc hill?
See Talk:History of the metre
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Name change?
There are at least two Montjuic's - one in Barcelona and another in Girona. I am contemplating writing an article on the latter, based on the Spanish Wikipedia artcle. Looking around the web, there appears to be significant confusion between the two. The two have a parallel history. So I contemplate a name change for this article to "Montjuic (Barcelona)", to go with the name I contemplate for the Girona article "Montjuic (Girona)"; both article to have a "not to be confused with..." notice at the top. Thoughts anyone? Bdushaw (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 * There are, in fact, many Montjuic's as see in this disambiguation page on the catalan wikipedia. I lean more toward making the name change. Bdushaw (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn. I will move Montjuïc Castle (Barcelona) back to Montjuïc Castle as requested. No such user (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Montjuïc → Montjuïc (Barcelona) – There are many Montjuïc's; have created Montjuïc (disambiguation) page; Montjuïc (Barcelona) already exists as a redirect to Montjuïc ; also request redirect of   Montjuïc to Montjuïc (disambiguation). Bdushaw (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are not many Montjuic articles, and this one looks like a primary topic. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me there were enough "Montjuic"s around as to cause a bit of confusion, see e.g., the catalan wikipedia disambiguation page for Montjuic. Montjuic can refer to either a neighbourhood, the mountain itself, or the castle on top of the mountain, and to the same in either Barcelona or Girona.  My intent in the rename is part of a reorganization of all these to eliminate the confusion - there are several articles, etc. in which Montjuic of Barcelona and Girona are confused.  I have started a Montjuïc (disambiguation) page and am working on articles for the Girona Montjuic, drawing on the articles in catalan (its been moved over to a Draft stage). Bdushaw (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I had not appreciated quite how many articles link to "Montjuic", though it is obvious in retrospect. Perhaps a "Not to be confused..." notice at the top of the article would suffice.  But let's give it some thought, yes?  I believe the  "Montjuic" confusion is substantive, so can we try to alleviate it?  Bdushaw (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, not unrelated, I have similarly recently moved page Montjuïc Castle to Montjuïc Castle (Barcelona). Depending on what we decide here, it may make sense to move it back. Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started a new article Montjuïc (Girona) with a bearing on this discussion. It occurred to me that one source of confusion was the remarkable similarity between Montjuic Barcelona and Montjuic Girona - both hills adjacent to a town with a Jewish cemetery and a large fort on top! Bdushaw (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I've been reading up on disambiguation page policy, and it is quite clear that both Montjuic and Montjuic Castle in Barcelona are now and forever will be the "primary topics". I see people cite the different hit rates to articles, which in this case are likely to be something like 1e6:1 for Barcelona:Girona.  My original request was from the point of view of a logical text consistency that is overruled by the primary topic policy (the Catalan Wikipedia is arranged in the way I envisioned).  So I withdraw the request and, further, request that perhaps someone can arrange to have Montjuïc Castle (Barcelona) moved back to Montjuïc Castle with the redirect corrected.  Once that is done we can craft a "not to be confused" statement for the top of each article.  Bdushaw (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Montjuic infobox
The article on Montjuic (Girona) on the catalan wikipedia HERE has a nice infobox, apparently drawing from wikidata. I can't for the life of me figure out how that is done - or if that is functioning in the English wikipedia. Anyone know how to add such an infobox? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of Wikidata for en.wp infoboxes has been controversial and is, generally, um, discouraged. See Wikidata and links therein. Some templates, however, do use wikidata (Category:Templates using data from Wikidata), but I do not see Infobox hill nor any flavor of Infobox building listed there. So, in all probability, you will have to populate an infobox manually. No such user (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Montjuïc


text:
Talk:Nürburgring

random talk
Project Gotham Racing 3 for the Xbox 360 has a few variations of the Nürburgring. The "test" track for the game seems to be the F1 circuit, and throughout the game there are at least 3 variations, including a gigantic one that is rated at about 9 minutes at the easiest skill level, so this is probably the full-size version. Pvera 06:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone recently had deleted a remark about motorcycle racing - please remember that the Nürburgring is more than just "related to Formula One"! --Matthead 00:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have a separate article for the Nordschleife (as opposed to the F1 circuit). The two are quite different in terms of the style of the circuit and types of races held there--210.185.68.90 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is required, but it would be nice if there was more information on the GP Strecke, such as the recent change from 4.5 to 5.1 km. And perhaps a little more on the Südschleife. Balfa 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have section listing or informing of known/available video games or simulations which feature the track or portions of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.72.226 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nordschleife Pronunciation
Anyone knows how to pronounciate "Nordshleife" correctly - "Nord-shlai-fe" or "Nord-shlee-fe"? Honeyman 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Near-boorg-ring Nord-shly-fay" --Matthead 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the CORRECT, and I stress CORRECT, pronunciation of the word Nordschleife? I've come across many different pronunciations, but the most common are: NORD-SCHLEEF/NORT-SCHLEEF and NORD-SCHLEEF-FE/NORT-SCHLEEF-FE Are any of these correct?, or has the correct pronunciation continued to elude me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaitingForTheSun (talk • contribs)

 * I don't know what you consider correct, but for the German pronunciation transcribed with English see my proposal above. You're invented to request IPA or a sound file. -- Matthead discuß!    O       10:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * May I offer my two cents as a native speaker of German?
 * 1. Nürburgring: Matthead´s transcription above is quite correct. Keep in mind, though:
 * a) "ü" is not pronounced like "ea" in "near"; this vowel (--> Umlaut) doesn´t exist in English at all; it´s some kind of a mixture of "u" and "i" (that is, speak an "i" [like the vowel in "near"], but with pursed lips as when speaking an "u").
 * b) d/g/b at the end of a German syllable are spoken hardened, i.e. as t/k/p.
 * c) Generally, the German "r" is different from the English "r"; it is produced by pressing the rear of the tongue (not the middle part of it) against the palate.
 * d) the "ng" in "ring" is a single phoneme, just like in the English word "ring".
 * e) The stress is on the "ü".
 * f) All vowels in this word are short.

 * 2. Nordschleife:
 * Notes as above; NORT-SHL[EYE]-F[ǝ] comes near to the real thing. Note:
 * "r" pronounced like described above; "d" in "Nord" is pronounced like "t"; "sch" equals the English "sh" [like in "shame"]; "ei" in German is always spoken as "ai" [sounds like English "eye"]; an unstressed "e" at the end of a word is not a regular German "e" (which is spoken as a long vowel), but a short murmured vowel, somewhat like an unstressed "e" in English words like "matter" or such (if I remember correctly, linguists call this a "schwa", written phonetically as "ǝ"). All vowels here are short, too. The stress is again on the first syllable.

 * GENERAL NOTE: The description I´ve tried to give is valid for regular High German (which is based historically on southern German dialects). Of course, there are variations of pronounciation in modern dialects. Some speakers will pronounce the "ü" in "Nürburgring" not short, but long; also, in some dialects (notably around Cologne and in the Eifel mountains themselves, where the Nürburgring is situated, the "g" of "Nürburgring" will be spoken not as a "k", but as a German "ch" (like in "mich") or even as a "sch" (English "sh"). Also, some dialects do not pronounce an "r" at the end of a syllable at all, but replace it with a sound similar to the murmured "e" mentioned above ("Nürburg" then becomes "Nüǝbuǝk").

 * Hope this helps...it´s really complicated to describe these matters in written form.

 * --328cia 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the comment about the Nurburgring being known as "the ring" as I was unable to find any citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small mats (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Touristenfahrten
What is the English translation of the word "Touristenfahrten"? Recury 20:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "tourists' drives". --Matthead 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the nickname "The Green Hell" wasn't given to it by Jackie Stewart, its a translation of the German nickname "Die gruene Hoelle" that was long associated to it.

"alternative spelling without umlaut: Nuerburgring, but never Nurburgring" why is it never spelled Nurburgring? Where did Nuerburgring come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.227.179.195 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 July 2006  (UTC)
 * It comes from German printing conventions. --Majin Izlude 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for the Nürburgring, does anybody know where in Germany it is? Or any major cities around it?

I corrected the coordinates of the circuit. The coordinates given are for the start/finish line, taken from Google Earth.--Ciroa 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)--

This article says the nordschleife is only open for tourists from april to november but on the official site you can still buy tickets and it looks like it's going to be open all winter. GerardK 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% so won't change the article text, but I believe Phil Hill's 1961 record lap would have been on the 14.12 mile version that combined the Nordschleife and the Betonschleife, which no longer exists. Dirk Schoysman's famour 7:59 Skyline lap (and all subsequent laps) have been on the 12 mile circuit. Still impressive but not directly comparable. Eftpotrm 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Castle
What is the name of the Nurburgring castle and where is the wiki page associated with it? --68.207.206.69 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The castle is called Nürburg, hence the name Nürburgring (Nürburg Circuit), and has an article only in de:Wiki. The castle itself is relatively unimportant, being located in an area with about as many castles as supermarkets. -84.169.79.24 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Schumacher S" section
Sorry if I'm being too brief, but does this really need a section of it's own? --Phill talk Edits 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. And I'm going to remove it.--BSI 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing all over the track?
Does anyone know what the paint/chalk writing all over the track is for? Where does it all come from, and what is the point?

Could we possibly have a section on this in the article? --Recoil42 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a section on this.

 * The writings are applied mainly by the spectators camping around the track in the days before the 24 hour race. The messages are about favorite marques, teams, drivers, or simply about the groups of fans hoping to see their slogan on TV. Some graffiti are just for fun, like painting a pedestrian crossing. I have not yet seen a website trying to cover the writings, so I doubt Wikipedia can dedicate a section to it. -- Matthead DisOuß   04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Common misspelling
Because the exclusion of the Umlaut mark is nine times out of ten not intentional, I have changed the beginning text of this article from "commonly misspelled" to "alternately spelled". This is because of the extreme difficulty involved in inserting the symbol, especially in or on websites or webpages, or any place that the code for the symbol must be used. This is usually not intentional, this is done out of lack of knowledge. Please see the article on misspelling. (By the way, the list of "famous accidental misspellings" is pretty interesting).  Zchris87v  20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not of "extreme difficulty", as in HTML, the Umlaut ü can be generated with ü ü. En-Wiki offers a table with many characters in the edit windows. If all fails, ue is the proper way to write it. -- Matthead DisOuß   04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sketch Grand Prix course"
The caption for the map in the "Nordschleife Map" section makes reference to the "Sketch Grand Prix course". The word "Sketch" isn't used anywhere else in the article. Should it say "Strecke" instead of "Sketch"? DH85868993 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * it could be refering to either the complete Südschleife, or to the sprint course Lynx Raven Raide 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The GP track is, partially, in that yellow area. I've removed the confusing word "Sketch".-- Matthead DisOuß   03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Racing is risky
I think the information about fatalities and serious injuries is misleading:

"There are a few deaths and major accidents each year, most of which are during public sessions, although generally accidents on racetracks are rare and not to be expected."

A few deaths? People apparently die, but luckily 'just a few'. And he sentence ends with implying that we shouldn't worry because generally people don't actually die on racetracks...

Should this section be rewritten with more detailed and realistic information (with a bit more of a 'warning' in it)? Or is that not being objective?
 * There are some deaths, in racing maybe five or so in the last decade, with various reasons: two of them apparently heart failures, and some freak accidents. In public driving, riders are always at risk, but drivers get killed too, e.g. in a Ferrari that caught fire. Over all, I guess more people get killed travelling to or from football games, but noone attributes this to a stadium. -- Matthead DisOuß   03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ticket prices
Does this article really need to list the ticket prices (which are subject to change?) Perhaps a link to the relevant section of the track's own website would be preferable? DH85868993 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People do frequently ask about the prices for driving one or more laps, in forums etc., so it makes sense to state them. -- Matthead DisOuß   03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Niki Lauda is NOT the only person who had completed the Ring in under 7 minutes
"Niki Lauda, the reigning world champion and only person ever to lap the full 22835 m Nordschleife in under 7 minutes (6:58.6, 1975)"
 * Derek Bell has completed a VIDEO RECORDED lap in 6'41 on a Porsche 956 (from the video 'In Car 956');
 * the all time record has been set by Stefan Bellof, in 6'11;
 * the Radical SR8 has completed recently (late 2005) the lap in 6'55. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.191.170 (talk) 10:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * And dozens of others - because the Ring was shortened by ca. 2000 meters for 1983.-- Matthead discuß!    O       14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's wrong. On the 22.8 km Nordschleife Niki Lauda was the only person who finished one lap in a time under 7 minutes (two times on 5/16 in 6:58.2 and 2/8 in 6:58.6 in 1974 - not 1975). The best lap of Stefan Bellof and all others was in 1983 after the track was shorten by 2 km in the winter 1982/1983. The fastest lap of Derek Bell was at 5/29 in 1983 - even after the track was shorten. On the "new" track times between 6:30 and 7:00 are usual for prototypes. The best lap on the new track was 6:07.6, driven by Stefan Bellof in 1984 in Porsche 956, but not during a race/official training and was therefore not considered.79.212.188.245 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Armco barriers?
Could someone familiar with them add a section on what Armco barriers are and why they are specifically used? Are Armco barriers any different from normal guardrails? --Phasmatisnox 07:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are the standards rails used on public roads, except that three (at least two) are mounted atop of each other.-- Matthead DisOuß   03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More references and this could well be GA-status
This is a strong article in itself, but with references it could get to GA status. I classed it as a hesitant Start class for the F1 Wikiproject (I almost want to put it at B-status) Guroadrunner (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate conversion
In the first paragraph, 28.265km is equated to 14.3 miles. This is obviously wrong. I haven't changed it because I presume the 14.3 miles came from somewhere and is in fact the length of one version of the track, but it can't be the length of the Gesamtstrecke. Also the differing precision in the two measurements is undesirable. 81.154.101.147 (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the external links in this article are to commercial sites
Roughly half of the links are companies offering tours or racing packages (you race your car with hotel, ferry ride, and more included). Will (Talk - contribs) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I visited the sites that appeared to be fine, only to find they were not.  The only valid link appears to be the one that I left.—  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Most links are commercial as there is a lot of commercial interest end of the day if the information is relevant it should stay for example the BBC is a commercial entity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.95.78 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Printable version?
Does anyone else experience difficulties when trying to print the printable version of this article? It has frozen Firefox every time I've told it to print on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EunuchOmerta (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nordschleife or Nordscheife?
As a linguist fluent in English, and studying Japanese and French, among other languages, it comes natuarlly to me to wonder which spelling is correct. I have seen several times two different spellings of this name. One is 'Nordschleife', and the other 'Nordscheife'. The 'l' has been annoying me for quite some time and I must find out. Which is correct? My reason, I think the '-schei-' is a correct possible spelling in German, probably because I have seen other words with that sequence in it. It may not be but w/e... Help please. Mattokunhayashi (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nordschleife" returns 1,450,000 ghits; "Nordscheife" returns 2,670. I'd say that's a pretty good indication of which is correct. DH85868993 (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct is "schleife", it's a german word means "slip knot" or "loop", "scheife" isn't a german word. --93.193.255.185 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the United States' founding document, the Declaration of Independence, the typography of the S often appears like an F. Therefore, in German, Scheife becomes, well, how should I put this politely, a bad word? Arthurblenheim (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What if the people who wrote the word copy-pasted it from a single instance that was a typographical error to begin with? That may explain why the ratio of search instances between schleife and, oh, I can't say that bad word here, is so large. 72.70.60.222 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Gran Turismo Record
"On the 30th November 2008, Teenager X broke the record around the Norfschleife, on the racing game, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, he set a record time of 6 Minutes, and 11 Seconds." - No citation, and what does a videogame record have anything to do with the real 'Ring? Also, according to the GT5P page, there's no Nordschleife there in the first place. I've removed this. MetzMaboo (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nordschleife literally translates into English as "north loop." And, Nürburgring does indeed have a "nordschleife." And, guess what? It is called, get this, Nordschleife. Actually, Wikipedia says this. So, I assume there is supporting evidence to lay Wiki's claim. In Wiki's article, "24 Hours Nürburgring," all of this information appears in the first sentence. And, so does a hyperlink on the word "Nürburgring." Hey, why don't I give you the hyperlink? Here it is: Nordschleife. I wonder why you feel that there is no north loop at Nürburgring. Maybe you misinterpreted what you read on the GT5 page. Hmm. If you have made a mistake, can you put back the info the other guy says--the stuff you have removed? Arthurblenheim (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * No need to repeat the name and claim here. -- Matthead Discuß   21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh, I figured out your statement finally. You mean to say that there is no North Loop in GT5 rather than that there is no North Loop in Nuerburgring. I mistook your meaning. Well, how do you expect me to read your meaning when it isn't there in the sentence? I sympathize. GT5 has nothing to do with the real ring. 72.70.60.222 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Roller coaster
The Roller coaster is not operational, and will not be working before spring 2010, if ever. It is undue to even mention it in the lead, as this article is about the race track, not about peripheral toys. -- Matthead Discuß   21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lap time confusion
The German Gran Prix article states that Vettel has 1:15 lap time whilst the fastest lap mention in this article is attributed to Montoya - it's a little bit confusing - should the current F1 circuit not be listed in this article as it's the most "relevant" for the current date?

The upper right image for the article is of the F1 track layout and the GP-Strecke (2002-present) lists M.S as the lap time record whilst S.V seems to out perform this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.151.162 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is you have assumed Vettel's lap was recorded at the same circuit, when that is not the actual case. Sebastien Vettel's 1:15 lap from 2010 was recorded at Hockenheim. You've metaphorically added two plus two and come up with five.
 * The current circuit is the Nurbrugring, the race is now what two weeks away? would be silly to say Hockenheim under those circumstances. --Falcadore (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Circuit layout
The direction at the NGK chicane is incorrect. F1 uses the more angular pass, not the wider pass on the other side high-lightened in the picture. -- Zuxy (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the german article uses the right chicane. Regards --Pitlane02 talk  20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Armco
The link seems wrong and useless. Huw Powell (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The link is correct in that AK Steel Holding is the company whose predecessor ("Armco") produced the steel safety barriers to which this article refers, however I agree it would be more useful if AK Steel Holding contained some description of/reference to Armco safety barriers. DH85868993 (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does there have to be a link at all if it does not add anything? --Falcadore (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Prices read like sales material
It seems to me that the prices in the Nordschleife public access section reads like it is trying to sell them to you. I do not feel that listing all of the prices like this is really appropriate as encyclopaedic content. I think a little less information here, just a brief description of the price, and an external link would be much better. Sas 1998 (Talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Teffers straight
"The Teffers straight between Adenauer Forst and Metzgesfeld is known for its high number of expensive accidents." This sentence was deleted because firstly none of the official Nürburgring maps shows a section called "Teffers straight" or German "Teffers Gerade". Secondly the claim about the "high number of expensive accidents" is unproven and appears to be hearsay. Recently this statement was reinput by an anonymous user without any reason. Any idea why? Lavoulte (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Limit to the number of layouts?
I just tried to include the GP/D version of the course (aka "Sprint" course, which is 3629 m long). But the template didn't display it on my screen. Is 7 the maximum variants or something?  It's been used for the ADAC GT Masters, and is even in Gran Turismo 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what's in any computer game should not be given consideration as its a simulation only.
 * Secondly: Template:Infobox motorsport venue only caters for a maximum of seven variations. It is unusual to have that many variations in a circuit. No reason the template can't be expanded to an eighth variation but at some point the realtive importance of minor circuit variations should be considered. --Falcadore (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been used in real races such as the ADAC GT Masters, also truck racing, Beetle Cup, etc. Also, there aren't that many versions. Really, the Nordschleife and Sudschleife could both be considered completely separate tracks to the GP track (this one is basically a short version of the GP track, much like Silverstone's Arena/National/Stowe/Bridge variants)
 * Similar to that, I think there might be another very slightly shorter than normal version in use, which is the one featured in GT4. That, or there just wasn't quite enough memory to fit in the whole thing and they had to chop it, whilst still leaving in the bridge-to-gantry segment. To whit, the "dangling" start/finish loop is excised, and instead what appears to be a service link (or part of the "warm up loop"?) is used instead, with the start/finish halfway along it. This might also allow used of the northern and southern parts separately for two different races, even if one of them is only junior karts or the like... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Lap records in infobox
I realise that the Lap Record at the Nurburgring is one of Motorsport (especially Formula 1's) Holy Grails, so what constitutes the Fastest lap on the Nordschliefe is a touchy subject to some. However, I am given to understand that 'Lap Record,' in F1 parlance at least, means 'Fastest Lap under Race conditions' not the absolute fastest lap ever done, ever. Indeed, there seems to have been a discussion over at the Spa-Francorchamps page on this very issue. But looking at the infobox, the fastest times given for the 'old' Nordschliefe (including the now-demolished pit straight) and the 'current' Nordschliefe (ommitting any part of the modern-day GP track) both give times which I believe were done in practice/qualifying rather than under race conditions. If this page is to be consistent with other F1 World Championship circuits, would the correct Lap Records not be: 7:06.04 for the the 22.8 km version by Clay Regozzoni in the 1975 German GP and 6:25.91 for the current version by Steffan Bellof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.252.173 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

English language used in the article
This is the start of the article: "Nürburgring is a 150,000-capacity motorsports complex[.]" All I want to ask is, Nürburgring has a capacity of 150,000 what: race cars on the racing circuit? The Wikipedia article should explain itself to people having a basic university degree without needing a decoder ring. Maybe the sentence could be changed to say this: Nürburgring is a 150,000-visitor motorsports complex, 150,000-attendee complex, 150,000-viewer complex, or whatever the authors want to express, instead of what they say, which apparently does not say what they think it does. I suppose we are talking about people who show up at the race track to view a race, but it could be 150,000 race cars, because it's a big track at 16 miles, North Loop included. To paraphrase an old proverb that uses the race car as a metaphor, a good writer puts his brain into gear before putting his written words into motion. I just wonder how many people read the sentence and wonder, a capacity of 150,000 what? Readers can perhaps guess the meaning, but the art of formal writing is in toning down ambiguities. And here, the ambiguity is in the article's very first sentence--thank you very much. One could wonder, as I do, who writes these things: knuckleheads? While a talk page may be informal, the article must not. And, I tire of articles where not only common-sense thinking skills get passed over, but also that Wikipedia's authors often ignore the web site's own guidelines for writing articles there, leaving integrity to wonderment. Writing articles involves a combination of both knowing and writing--not just knowing information, but being able to state that knowledge, then executing the act. Secondly, it is not a "motorsports complex." It is a motorsport complex. Common English usage deems that nouns used as adjectives for purposes of describing other nouns must be used in the infinitive form--not in plural. It would look like this: Nürburgring is a motorsport complex. This second error, I would feel safely to correct, but I talk about it here in editorial form, because I want Wikipedia's authors who read this to take my criticism with them when they go write other articles, so I can increase Wikipedia's prestige while reducing my own need to correct stuff. Motorsport complex--not motorsports complex! Arthurblenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I spot another thing. Nürburgring possesses an umlaut. Wikipedia's own page on how to write articles for the web site says this. The proper way to drop an umlaut from a word is to add an E after the letter from which the umlaut is dropped. Nürburgring becomes Nuerburgring. This is the proper typography. Nuerburgring may look strange, but it reads properly. I suggest that all Wikipedia authors heed this. I do not need to have visited Germany to figure this out, but, if saying so helps, I have spent six years living there, have taken two years of German Language at a university of Florida, and have studied typography. Read Wikipedia's page on how to write articles and find it there. Arthurblenheim (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

NATO parade 1969
The Nürburgring hosted a Bundeswehr parade celebrating the twentieth anniversary of NATO on 6 June 1969. See Commons:Category:1969 Nürburgring NATO parade. --21lima (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Südschleife into Nürburgring
The Südschleife is a course layout of the Nürburgring, which has many layouts. It's not even the most famous layout (Nordschleife is), and so is not independently notable for a stand-alone article Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is another "Südschleife" located in Red Bull Ring, which is more notable.  Hansen Sebastian Talk 16:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The current Südschleife article is just about the Nürburgring one, and your point is exactly why we shouldn't have Nürburgring-specific content at Südschleife, a generic term. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Suport - I'm very enthusiastic regarding Nürburgring and I didn't knew about the Südschleife article. The Nürburgring article mentions Südschleife, even has Südschleife lap record, so makes more then sense to merge Südschleife into this article to report all the history about the circuit, which Südschleife was a part of.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment based on 's argument, Südschleife should be a disambiguation as multiple cicuits have a layout with that name and then Südschleife should be moved to Südschleife, Nürburgring (if it isn't merged).16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Rpo.castro's comment - have it as a Disambiguation and merge the article with the main Nürburgring article Philby NZ (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Definitely true that it is nowhere near as notable as the Nordschleife, but I strongly disagree that it would not be independently notable had it not been attached to the rest of the Nurburgring. "Südschleife" just means south circuit, so it's not surprising that other circuits have these as layouts, but they have not hosted major races such as the 1960 German Grand Prix, so there is no need for a disambiguation page as this is undoubtedly the primary topic, and I question whether anyone would search just "Südschleife" to find the Red Bull Ring. A google search for "Südschleife -wikipedia" for me only comes up with mention of the one at the Nurburgring, and as the term isn't even used at the RBR article, I can't see how one could describe that one as more notable? A7V2 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that a hatnote can be added if anyone things that disambiguation is needed for Südschleife; given the discussion above (that it is unlikely that alternatives will be searched for (in English), I've not done so. Klbrain (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that a hatnote can be added if anyone things that disambiguation is needed for Südschleife; given the discussion above (that it is unlikely that alternatives will be searched for (in English), I've not done so. Klbrain (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit after I pointed out that Hell was a swear word
Doesn't this person have common sense? My dad used to beat the shit out of me for saying hell. The Green Hell is a cuss term 71.94.157.155 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell is not a swear word. And even if it was, Wikipedia isn't WP:CENSORED. SSSB (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for accidental vandalism
Last night I made a minor edit to the page to add some additional clarifying and referenced information about the ring racer roller coaster. Years ago I installed a chrome plugin called "Cloud to Butt. I study computer science so the occasional laugh I got during discussions about "Butt storage" was quite funny to me. However, I assumed this remained all client-side and I didn't realise that when I edited a wikipedia page the change would come with it, changing all instances of the world "Cloud" to "Butt" on the page. I understand why this was removed for vandalism, but I would like to clarify it was a complete accident and I've now removed the plugin. I will re-make the appropriate edit regarding the roller coaster now and will try not to accidentally vandalise the page in the process.

I hope someone finds this as funny as I did! And thank you to for fixing the mistake EvanM2015 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now seen everything... a case of legitimate accidental vandalism! To be honest I didn't even look at the rest of your edit (and the link), just assuming it was spam or something, but I can see it's perfectly fine. Thankyou for your contribution, happy editing! A7V2 (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * wow, you're honest. I would have pinned the blame of the chrome plug-in on an imaginary younger brother, to save face. SSSB (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

1973 Kallenhard entry modifications
"In 1973 the entrance into the dangerous and bumpy Kallenhard corner was made slower by adding another left-hand corner after the fast Metzgesfeld sweeping corner. Safety was improved again later on by removing the jumps on the long main straight and widening it."

Concerning this passage in the article, I can't find any evidence that the corner was modified. The article doesn't provide a source for that claim. It is either not true or so obscure to warrant a citation needed.

MMichkov (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nürburgring