text:
Talk:Jordan Grand Prix

Tobacco sponsorship & slogans
For what it's worth, Jordan ran (in venues banning tobacco sponsorship) in humorous Buzzin' Hornets livery. And Jordan sent his people to the Fireball Roberts School of Interviewing; when asked why his drivers didn't like the new car, the answer was, "It's slow." Too bad it didn't help them survive. RIP Jordan F1. Trekphiler 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There was also Bitten & Hisses and Bitten Heroes at various stages. Jordan died the day EJ sold the team, to be honest, the last season as 'Jordan' was a charade...
 * I missed those. I am sad to see EJ gone, but it's mixed feelings; Schnaider claims Canadian citizenship, & it's the first since Walter Wolfe. We've put a couple of drivers at the top in F1 & Champ cars; I'd love to see a Canadian-owned team there. Trekphiler 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Dept of Corrections
Asked why drivers didn't like the new car, it was Patrick Head (of Williams...) who replied, "Not quick enough." So much for my memory... Trekphiler 06:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cars, esp. 191
I see it's intended to do an article on each car used by Jordan over the years - great. I'd like to see an image of their gorgeous first car, the 191, included in the main article, though. Anyone know of a public domain image of it about? Bastun 11:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable drivers
Surely Michael Schumacher should be included as a notable driver! Myredroom 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jordan a British or an Irish team
Several F1 seasons' pages include Jordan as an Irish team. I would say they were British, though. The were based at Silverstone, which is very much UK, but I'm not sure whether they also raced on a British licence. And perhaps, like Benetton, they changed from Irish to British or back at a certain point in time. Lustigson 25 July 2007 15.15 CET

 * Although based at Silverstone, the team raced under an Irish licence for the duration of its existence. Jordan writes about it in his autobiography. Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately used an Irish race licence at all times - the Irish flag was used on podium celebrations, and the Irish national anthem was used at two of them - no anthem was played for the constructor at Spa '98 as they didn't have a copy, apparently. --Kiand 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But, notice this British flag at this picture: http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Bull is also based in the UK but it is an Austria team. Check out the flag beside Mercedes (Brawn) this year, it German. Jordan was registered as Irish. Bjmullan (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But for example Toyota. Notice this picture: http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/105396 This picture is from the same French Grand Prix. Toyota had japanese license and was based in Germany. Jordan had irish license and was based in the UK. So why at this photo is japanese flag for Toyota team and at previous photo is British flag for Jordan team ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And for Red Bull, see: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_gallery_image_display.php?fes_gal_id=620&fes_image_number=26&fes_reverse_order=

Picture from French Grand Prix. Red Bull garage with Austrian flag. Based in the UK, the same as Jordan. And Jordan had British flag at its garage. Why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP does not establish the nationality of a sporting team or person by looking at pictures of garages rather they reference the licensing authority to determine it, in this case the FIA. Why don't you got and update all of the entries for the current F1 season and see how you get on. I see Lotus is down as Malaysian, and Force India (the old Jordan team) is now Indian but they are both based in the UK. Bjmullan (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I offer evidence. Photo pictures from French Grand Prix. All photos you can see. Offer any evidence for your claim. You only claim something but lack of evidence. From where do you know that Jordan team had Irish license ? Send some sources for your claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking here on WP for the evidence? What about 1991 Formula One season, 1992 Formula One season...2005 Formula One season Bjmullan (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And what about some non-WP sources for your claims ? Like I did. WP is made by people like you and me and therefore not each information on WP is always true. If Jordan was Irish team, why was British flag at official place during French Grand Prix ? Why was not there Irish flag, when Toyota had there Japanese flag, Red Bull Austrian flag, Honda Japanese flag, Renault French flag. And like Jordan, all these teams are based in the other country as country of their registration. See carefully photogallery of French Grand Prix at this webpages: http://www.autosport.com/gallery/ http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_galleries.php I offer authentic sources and evidences for my claims, not only WP sources. On photos from French Grand Prix you can notice: british flag for Jordan, Williams, McLaren. French flag for Renault. Italian flag for Ferrari and Toro Rosso. Japanese flag for Honda and Toyota ( although they are not based in Japan ). Austrian flag for Red Bull.

 * I very much doubt the teams themselves put up those flags ouside their pit garages. Much more likely to have been the race organiser.  And they were not infallible.  See above - no anthem was played for the constructor at Spa '98 as they (the event promoter) didn't have a copy.  We do, however, have a source for the Jordan team being Irish, as also mentioned above - namely Eddie Jordan himself, writing in his autobiography.  That's rather more authoritative than a photo taken at one race.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok people, this is precisely why the team used to be listed as contentious. As far as flags outside garages go, they would have been sourced from the official FIA entry list and erected according to that schedule, so I tend to believe that they offer some evidence. Are you seriously suggesting that EJ would have left the Union Jack above his pit garage all weekend if it were wrong? Not playing a national anthem or playing the wrong one are a completely different story, as they are sudden events that you can't really alter. On the other hand, and sticking to national anthems, the Irish national anthem was indeed played for Frentzen's wins in 1999. This suggests that, in 1999 at least, Jordan were registered as Irish. So what had happened by 2001? Flipping nationality from year to year isn't far-fetched, as at the time there were special rules introduced allowing extra testing at a track in a team's "home" country (to appease sponsors and so on). But, how many F1-grade tracks are there in Eire? And why would a team based, literally, over the road from one of the best F1 tracks available at the time spend money traveling? Eddie, although proudly Irish, is also a canny businessman, and being honest Jordan didn't really trade on the Irishness beyond the first few years. I can see it being perfectly possible that Jordan was registered as both Irish and British at various points in its existence. There certainly seems to be evidence for both. I don't have EJ's autobiography to hand, and while if he does say what you claim he says that provides a powerful line of evidence, there is certainly enough inconsistency in other sources to question it. EJ never was one to let the truth get in the way of a good story. Go away, find more evidence, then come back.  Pyrop e  17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch 1999 French Grand Prix Part 6 at youtube webpage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmF-7Ej3Iw&feature=related In 4:00 min. you can see British flag at Jordan garage. But at the same race Irish anthem is played after race as you can hear at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sI4UcVok38&feature=related I think that Jordan was british team and Irish anthem played on the podium after race was only a mistake like it happened at 2009 Chinese Grand Prix where British anthem was played for austrian Red Bull team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's equally easy to believe that the French GP organisers made a mistake when they put up those signs and could not repaint the sign that quickly. One banner above a garage is not credible evidence to change the nationality of the team, we need something more concrete and not debatable.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that French GP organisers made the same mistake repeatedly during each season ? Photo above is from 2001 French Grand Prix, video is from 1999 French Grand Prix. The wrong anthem is more probable because it is an event which can not be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * * http://www.statsf1.com/en/jordan.aspx
 * * http://www.statsf1.com/en/irlande/constructeur.aspx
 * These citations work for me, if you really insist I'll try to dig out Eddie Jordan's autobiography. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But on the other side, this citation http://www.grandprixstats.com/en/makes/details.php?d=71  works for me. It would be the best if you really send EJ autobiography. I think that wrong anthem is more probable than wrong flag at pitgarage, therefore I consider Jordan as British team. It is impossible that British flag would have been above Jordan garage during whole race weekend since thursday to sunday during each season ( photos from 1999 and 2001 French Grand Prix are pictured here as proof ) if Jordan was not british team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assumptions on what the French organisers did or did not do is irrelevant, the point is that a banner above a pit garage is not a reliable reference. The359  ( Talk ) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

and Bruce Jones in his book "The ultimate encyclopedia of Formula One" also mentioned Jordan as British team. See: http://books.google.cz/books?id=Q19CG7Zn86oC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Jordan++Great+Britain+++Bruce+Jones++book&source=bl&ots=rQFp9hb8a2&sig=7XuSUlx2FHDrW1kf9eyiO-UxJtQ&hl=sk&ei=oj10S-fVNcyC_QbDwsG-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the evidence provided so far is conclusive; all are secondary, they contradict each other and all could be the result of mistakes. As soon as we try to judge which mistake is more likely, we're into the realms of original research. We need access to the official FIA entry lists, or an authoritative source. Does FORIX cover this stuff, and does anyone have access? 4u1e (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * (Also posted at WT:F1) From the horse's mouth:

"When I got to the podium, someone said they did not have the Irish national anthem – which was a major cock-up on the part of Formula One Management because Jordan was an Irish-registered team. Our first win was to be marked with the wrong national anthem. This was outrageous."

- Eddie Jordan
 * That's not some field in a form that could be mistakenly entered, that's a quote from the team owner that specifically states the exact words we are looking for: "Jordan was an Irish-registered team". The original article has been taken off ITV-F1.com, but there is an archive version here, which is textually identical to the original. AlexJ (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Which is pretty much what I remember he says in the autobiography, too. Will look for it when I have some time, probably at the weekend. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The header describes it as an extract from his book so it's probably identical. However, I don't see any harm in using the web version - as far as I can tell from guidelines, the use of Wayback Machine archive versions of webpages to overcome linkrot is permitted. Additionally, ITV-F1.com is considered a reliable source, and also the text is viewable by anyone with an internet connection, whilst the book may not be. AlexJ (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, Jordan was registered as an Irish team. Jordan achieved 4 wins: 1998 Belgian GP, 1999 French GP, 1999 Italian GP and 2003 Brazilian GP. 1998 Belgian GP: no athem for winning constructor was played because organisers had no copy of Irish anthem. See Eddie Jordan autobiography quoted above. 1999 French GP: Irish national anthem was played as you can hear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sI4UcVok38&feature=related 1999 Italian GP: Irish national anthem was played as you can hear. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/f1-1999-italian-gp-podium-and-press-conference/36028864135400429 2003 Brazilian GP: originally Kimi Raikkonen was declared as a winner, therefore no anthem for Jordan was played on the podium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Plus, I wouldn't put too much credibility in the French organisers... watching Ireland vs France in rugby at the weekend, and the graphics (Irish commentary from a French TV feed) kept showing the Irish tricolour. Which is the flag of Ireland, the state, but not the flag of the Irish rugby team, which is an all-island team.  Considering that France has been in the Six Nations since 1946, you'd think they'd have known that by now... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And referring to 2003 Brazilian GP, Irish anthem was eventually played for Jordan team. This ceremony took place at Imola in two weeks later before start of San Marino GP and playing of Irish anthem is proved by these web pages: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2003/4/244.html and  http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=120294&FS=F1

Nationality of Jordan team is resolved. But nationality of Eagle, Shadow, Penske and Wolf team still remains controversial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable drivers
Recent edits sort of confirm my suspicion that 'noted drivers' is an impossible category, because everyone's definition of noted is different and what seems obviously right to one is equally obviously poppycock to others. Just as a thinking exercise, here are the list as of right now, with reasons for notability: I'm struggling a bit with Irvine - he didn't drive for the team for a particularly long time, didn't win any races, but did achieve some podiums (as did Ralf Schumacher). I suppose if Irvine goes in, so should Ralf, but I can't really see that either of them are particularly notable. I'm not that convinced by Rubens either. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this - just interested to see what others think and why. Cheers. 4u1e 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Schumacher - only drove one race for Jordan, but it was his debut and he went on to become (by most definitions) the most successful driver of all time in F1.
 * Damon Hill - won Jordan's first race, and is a former world champion
 * Rubens Barrichello - drove for Jordan for four years and took the team's first pole position.
 * Eddie Irvine - drove for the team for two years.
 * Heinz-Harald Frentzen - won two races for Jordan (the most won by any Jordan driver) and with two three races to go was a potential, if slightly unlikely, contender for the 1999 drivers' championship
 * Giancarlo Fisichella - won one race for the team, his first and the team's last.
 * All of the above should be included, in my opinion. Irvine gets talked about a lot when Jordan are discussed, and (in my opinion at least) his F1 debut merits the inclusion in and of itself - Eddie_Irvine.  Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that's not just from a UK/Irish point of view? By his debut, do you mean the Senna incident? What do people say about Irvine in connection with Jordan? Ralf Schumacher also made his debut for Jordan, and has been arguably more successful than Irvine - should he too be included? Glad to hear your views. 4u1e (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Scoring a point (under the old system) on a F1 debut is notable in and of itself; and unlapping himself from Senna and the subsequent 'altercation' only add to it. I'm fully prepared to admit that may be an Irish bias, though :P Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a bit of pride in your country! Hmmm, I hadn't taken that debut race into account - ah well let's stick him and Ralf in and see how it goes. I see Ralf got a podium in only his third race, which is pretty notable too. (No, I'm not German!). 4u1e (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The explanations make Tiago Monteiro and Narain Karthikeyan more notable than the Schumacher brothers, Irvine and Barrichello, for these two took part and won points for Jordan in the infamous US GP of 2005. Monteiro made a podium finish and Karthikeyan came fourth. Additionally, Monteiro represented the team in the following year. Karthikeyan was the first Indian to drive on F1. I am including their names too to the list. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Zsolt Baumgartner was the first Hungarian driver in F1 when he made his debut for Jordan. Andrea de Cesaris competed for Jordan in the infamous 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. I'm not sure these things, while perhaps notable in themselves, really make drivers notable for a specific team, in this case Jordan. Surely we should focus on the team, in which case Barrichello's two podiums and one pole position, and Schumacher R's three podiums, all scored in real races, are rather more notable than Monteiro's lucky podium in a comedy race with only six cars or Karthikeyan's fourth place in the same race. I'd happily remove Irvine from the list in exchange. 4u1e (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point is proven with the removal of Irvine, R Schumacher et al from the list. Thanks for it. The explanation given for M Schumacher also does not make enough reason for retaining his name as one notable driver for Jordan. The 1991 debut was important for Michael, but that does not make him a notable driver for the team. Please remove his name too. His name would have been valid had he won a race for them, following your own lines. Michael is indeed a great driver, but Jordan is nowhere in the picture to make his personal and professional achievements 'notable'. The comedy race podium finish of Monteiro is more meaningful. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish to reiterate: M Schumacher is indeed one of the best ever Formula One drivers. But that does not make him a noted driver for Jordan. Making his debut for Jordan is not good enough reason to have his name on the list. To be very clear, M Schumacher was not a notable driver for Jordan at all. In this page, we are mentioning the names of notable Jordan drivers only. Other info can be given in M Schumacher's page. Thanks. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * 'Notable' can also mean 'famous'. Schumacher (famously) made his debut for Jordan, and if you were to show the list we currently have to anyone entirely unfamiliar with F1, they would most likely still recognise Schumacher's name. I'd ask, before you change again, to achieve some consensus here first. -- Schcambo aon scéal? 20:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put it again: How a formula one driver becomes notable, and how he becomes notable for a team are different. Schumacher achieved his feats running for Ferrari. Making his debut for Jordan is not enough reason for counting him as a notable driver for Jordan. There are many other drivers who have made their debuts for Jordan. In that respect, even Tiago Monteiro's podium finish becomes more notable than Schumi's debut for them. A driver becomes notable for a constructor, when he scores, and not by making debut for them and achieving his feats for another. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Schambo on this. Schumacher's first drive for Jordan is not just notable because of what he later went on to achieve, it was a notable event that year anyway. As we all no doubt know, Schumacher's qualifying performance made headline news in the specialist press, and his subsequent poaching by Benetton has been well documented - for example it takes up the first chapter or so of the book The Piranha Club, which also takes its title from the incident. 4u1e (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jordan EJ14

The article Jordan EJ14 has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found only a single published (gBooks) reference to this vehicle, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Refs have been added and prod has been removed (not by me). DH85868993 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted Drivers
Shoulnt Narain Karthikeyan be added to the noted drivers list as he was the first ever Indian Formula One driver so he has the right to be a notable driver. Me12356 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Notable in the history of Jordan? I don't think so. Him being the first Indian falls in the category of trivia related to his career, not notability.  Pyrop e  13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes but it also should run under the teams trivia as the team gave his first ever F1 drive. His Performance in 2005 for Jordan was great considering the car he was given for example the 2005 chinese GP his Qualifying performance was great. Me12356 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * All opinion, not fact. It still doesn't make him notable.  Pyrop e  13:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I found it incredibly odd that Trulli was missing from the list, while Irvine, de Cesaris, et al were included! Didn't make any sense to me. Even Alesi, who drove just 6 (?) races for Jordan, is included in the "noted" drivers list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.48.169 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jordan Grand Prix. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&PO_ID=39312
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224001924/http://www.sutherlandhawes.co.uk/ej10.html to http://www.sutherlandhawes.co.uk/ej10.html
 * Added tag to https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2002/feb/03/jordan-pushes-on-with-energy-drink/

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) 03:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jordan Grand Prix


text:
Talk:Eddie Jordan

Hair today
The article states that Jordan has alopecia. Does that not remove all body hair? How does he have a beard? --Shylocksboy (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.80.140 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Married 35 years?
The summary box states he was married in 1983. That means that by the end of 2015, he must have been married for 32 years. But the text under personal life says 35 years. Which is correct? Marchino61 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Top Gear
I added a line about him joining Top Gear, the Top Gear link formatting might need some work though.

Drakviggen26 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Article title
This article was recently moved from Eddie Jordan to Eddie Jordan (commentator). Should it be left as is, reverted, or moved to a different title (perhaps Eddie Jordan (Formula One) or Eddie Jordan (motorsport))? (I guess the basic question is whether we consider this Eddie Jordan to be the primary topic. Please discuss. DH85868993 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I've asked for the undiscussed controversial move to be reverted, and then a proper requested move should be started. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes to a revert, and I'd suggest it's fine as the primary topic. I don't see that any of those other EJs trump the motor sport chap. As an aside, "commentator" has to be one of the least appropriate disambiguators I've ever seen, given that he isn't, nor has he ever been, a commentator. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think (motorsport) would probably be the correct one, although I believe he's the primary topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If he is not primary topic, then I also vote for (motorsport), even though it is not ideal. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This Eddie Jordan very much is the primary topic, at least by a standard news or google search. If a disambiguator is required "motorsport" would be preferable, but I can only echo Bretonbanquet that "commentator" is completely wrong for someone who has never been a commentator. QueenCake (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I hate to rain on your parade, but our pageview stats show that Eddie Jordan (basketball) gets pretty much twice the traffic that Eddie Jordan used to do before the move. I'd suggest that your Google observations are a good indicator of why Google hits are a poor metric: Google knows who you are and what you are likely to want to know about. Creepy, but true. Therefore, if you search from the UK and have no history of being interested in NBA topics, Google is unlikely to show you any NBA articles. I think there is a valid argument to be made that the motorsport EJ is not a definitively primary topic globally. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with all above that "commentator" is a poor choice of dab suffix. Pyrop  e  02:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert to Eddie Jordan - clearly should not have been moved without a RM. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I must have missed the part where this was a vote and not a discussion... Perhaps the grown up and sensible thing to do is discuss what the preferred title for this page should be here and then make one single action to move it there, rather than a knee-jerk revert, with all the associated link maintenance, only to then instigate yet more tedious Wiki bureaucracy to perhaps largely undo the revert. No? Pyrop  e  15:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The Motorsport Eddie Jordan is the primary topic IMO - the USA's larger population probably skews the page hits in the basketball player's favour. EJ's been an integral part of the sport since he entered it really - probably 95% of people interested in F1 know who he is. The basketball player, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be that notable even in his own sport. I notice as well, on the page on primary topics that page hits is only one of a handful of "tools that may help" to come to a decision. Allypap81 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Your opinion and assumptions are not really very helpful for a discussion, sorry. There are a lot of criteria mentioned at the guide page and by most of them, using objective measures, either the two EJs come out even or the basketball one comes out ahead. As far as global reach goes, latest figures claimed by FOM put global F1 viewership around 400m. Recent articles about NBA viewership claim around 300m just in China! If ever there was an indication of F1's real place in the global sporting pecking order, that should be it. Pyrop e  23:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eddie Jordan. 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/20140201175606/http://www.dit.ie/news/archive2003/piercebrosnanandeddiejordanawardeddoctorates/ to http://www.dit.ie/news/archive2003/piercebrosnanandeddiejordanawardeddoctorates/

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) 17:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eddie Jordan. 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/20140201153108/http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2002/533.html to http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2002/533.html

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) 05:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Eddie Jordan


text:
1964 in Ireland

Events in the year 1964 in Ireland.

Incumbents

 * President: Éamon de Valera
 * Taoiseach: Seán Lemass (FF)
 * Tánaiste: Seán MacEntee (FF)
 * Minister for Finance: James Ryan
 * Chief Justice: Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh
 * Dáil: 17th
 * Seanad: 10th

Events

 * 3 January – Princess Margaret of the UK and her husband Lord Snowdon arrived in Ireland for a seven-day visit.
 * 28 January – Families from Springtown Camp made a silent march through Derry to demand rehousing.
 * 21 February – The new Garda Síochána (police) training centre was opened in Templemore, County Tipperary.
 * 16 March – Taoiseach Seán Lemass arrived in London to make an official launch of "Ireland Week".
 * 21 March – Writer Brendan Behan's funeral took place in Dublin.
 * 23 May – President Éamon de Valera, Taoiseach Seán Lemass, and Tánaiste Seán MacEntee attended the official opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Dublin.
 * 26 May – the Fine Gael parliamentary party approved Declan Costello's Just Society programme.
 * 1 June – A new exhibit for Dublin Zoo, a two-year-old elephant called Jill, arrived from India.
 * 5 September – Taoiseach Seán Lemass attended celebrations marking the silver jubilee of the first commercial transatlantic flight.
 * 18 December – The Cuban Minister for Industries, Che Guevara, was interviewed by Telifís Éireann during a stopover at Dublin Airport. He was flying from New York to Algeria after a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly when his flight was diverted from Shannon Airport because of fog.
 * The Lifford Bridge over the River Foyle was built, linking Lifford and Strabane.
 * The death penalty was abolished for all but the murder of gardaí (police), diplomats, and prison officers.
 * Myrtle Allen opened The Yeats Room restaurant at her home, Ballymaloe House, Shanagarry, County Cork.

Arts and literature

 * 19 September – The Abbey Theatre in Dublin closed in mourning for playwright Seán O'Casey who died the previous day of a heart attack in Torquay in England, aged 84.
 * 28 September – Brian Friel's play Philadelphia, Here I Come! opened at the Gaiety Theatre, Dublin.
 * 26 December – Micheál Mac Conmara and Eoghan Ó Tuairisc's pantomime on Irish folklore Aisling as Tír na nÓg opened at the Abbey Theatre.
 * Val Doonican released his single "Walk Tall".
 * John Montague published his story collection Death of a Chieftain.
 * Seán Ó Ríordáin published his poetry collection Brosna.
 * Eoghan Ó Tuairisc published his narrative poem The Weekend of Dermot and Grace and Lux Aeterna, including Hiroshima Mass.

Association football

 * In the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Shelbourne F.C. were drawn against Portuguese side Belenenses and after two drawn games won the replay 2–1. Facing Atlético Madrid in the second round, they were beaten 1–0 in both legs.

Horse racing

 * The horse Arkle won the Cheltenham Gold Cup and the Irish Grand National.

Births

 * 10 February – Richard Corrigan, chef.
 * 21 February – Keith Bailey, cricketer.
 * 23 February – Joseph O'Neill, writer.
 * 4 March
 * Brian Crowley, Fianna Fáil Member of the European Parliament
 * Pete Finnerty, Galway hurler.
 * April – Ger FitzGerald, Cork hurler.
 * 10 May – Diarmuid Gavin, garden designer.
 * 26 May – Caitlín R. Kiernan, writer.
 * 1 June – Alan Lewis, cricketer, rugby referee.
 * 4 June – Michael Collins, novelist.
 * 13 June – Ciarán Lynch, Labour Party Teachta Dála (TD) representing Cork South-Central.
 * 18 June – Iarla Ó Lionáird, singer.
 * 26 June – Francis Hare, 6th Earl of Listowel, peer.
 * 7 July – Jennifer Gibney, actress
 * 21 July – Steve Collins, boxer.
 * 31 July
 * Jim Corr, guitarist and keyboardist with The Corrs.
 * Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Sinn Féin party TD for Dublin South-Central and Chief Whip.
 * 1 September – Ray D'Arcy, broadcaster.
 * 5 September – Liam O'Brien, association football player.
 * 1 October – John Sheridan, association footballer born in England of Irish descent
 * 31 October – Colm Ó Cíosóig, drummer.
 * 7 November – Liam Ó Maonlaí, musician.
 * 17 November – Marina Carr, playwright.
 * 29 November – Tony Davis, Cork Gaelic footballer.
 * 15 December – Paul Williams, journalist and writer.

 * Full date unknown
 * Mick Deegan, Dublin Gaelic footballer and manager.
 * Martin Naughton, Galway hurler.
 * Eddie O'Connor, Kilkenny hurler.
 * Colm O'Neill, Cork Gaelic footballer.
 * Derek Turner, journalist.

Deaths

 * 9 March – Frederick Jeremiah Edwards, recipient of the Victoria Cross for gallantry in 1916 at Thiepval, France (born 1894).
 * 20 March – Brendan Behan, poet, novelist and playwright (born 1923).
 * 29 April – J. M. Kerrigan, actor (born 1884).
 * 21/22 July – Paddy McLogan, former Sinn Féin party President, firearm accident (born 1899).
 * 18 September – Seán O'Casey, dramatist and memoirist (born 1880).
 * 27 September – Michael Donnellan, founder of the Clann na Talmhan party, and TD (born 1900).
 * 24 November
 * William O'Dwyer, judge, District Attorney and 100th Mayor of New York City (born 1890).
 * Des Dillon, former Clare, Dublin and Offaly hurler and Gaelic handballer (born 1926).
 * November – Percy Redfern Creed, soldier, sportsman and writer (born 1874).
 * 31 December – Daniel Corkery, writer, teacher and Fianna Fáil Senator (born 1878).

title: 1964 in Ireland


text:
Eifel Aqueduct

The Eifel Aqueduct was one of the longest aqueducts of the Roman Empire.

The aqueduct, constructed in AD 80, carried water some 95 km from the hilly Eifel region of what is now Germany to the ancient city of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (present-day Cologne). If the auxiliary spurs to additional springs are included, the length was 130 km. The construction was almost entirely below ground, and the flow of the water was produced entirely by gravity. A few bridges, including one up to 1400 m in length, were needed to pass over valleys. Unlike some of the other famous Roman aqueducts, the Eifel aqueduct was specifically designed to minimize the above-ground portion to protect it from damage and freezing.

History
Before the building of the Eifel Aqueduct, Cologne got its water from the Vorgebirge aqueduct, which had its source in the springs and streams from the Ville region to the west of the city. As the city grew, this aqueduct was no longer able to provide enough water of sufficient quality: the springs contained a small amount of silt in the summer, and sometimes even ran dry. A new aqueduct was built to bring water from the springs of the Eifel into the city.

The Eifel aqueduct was built in the northern part of the region. The construction is of concrete with stones forming an arched covering. It had a maximum capacity of approximately 20000 m3 of drinking water daily. The aqueduct provided water for the fountains, baths and private homes of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium. The aqueduct remained in use until about 260, when the city was first plundered by the German tribes. After this date, it was never brought back into operation, and the city obtained its water from the old Vorgebirge Aqueduct.

Course
The aqueduct began at a spring in the area of Nettersheim in the Urft river valley. It then travelled along the valley to Kall, where it had to overcome the divide between the Maas and the Rhine. The Roman engineers chose this spot because they were able to overcome the divide without resorting to a tunnel or a pump. The aqueduct then ran parallel to the northern Eifel Mountains, crossing the Erft near Kreuzweingarten (in the Euskirchen district) and the Swistbach with an arched bridge. In Kottenforst, northwest of Bonn, it passed through the Vorgebirge highlands. Finally, it ran through Brühl and Hürth before arriving in Cologne. Other springs in the region that met Roman quality and quantity guidelines were also equipped with aqueducts to feed the main line.

Architectural aspects
To protect against frost, most of the aqueduct ran about 1 m below the Earth's surface. Archaeological excavations show that, at the lowest level, the Roman engineers had placed a loose layer of stones. On this base, they set a concrete or stone U-shaped groove for the water and, over this, cut stones and mortar were used to build a protective arch.

For the concrete work and the arch, the engineers used boards to build the form. Impressions of the wood grain remain in the concrete 2,000 years later. The aqueduct had an inner width of 70 cm and a height of 1 m, so a worker could enter the tube when necessary. The outside of the aqueduct was plastered to keep dirty water out. At several locations, a drainage system was set up alongside the aqueduct to keep ground water away. Smaller streams crossed the aqueduct through culverts: one, very near the source, is still well-preserved.

The inside of the aqueduct was also plastered with a reddish mixture called opus signinum. This mixture contained lime as well as crushed bricks. This material hardened under water and prevented leakages to the outside. Small cracks were sealed with wood ash, which was strewn over them the first time the aqueduct was set in operation.

Roman spring constructions
Several springs in the area were fitted with constructions to aid their direction into the aqueduct. The first is at the source, Grüner Pütz near Nettersheim. The most studied is the "Klaus fountain" at Mechernich. This site has been archaeologically reconstructed and preserved. The constructions at the various springs were designed to fit in with the characteristics of the area and would meet today's technical requirements.

There were four major areas of springs:
 * Grüner Pütz (Green well) near Nettersheim
 * Klausbrunnen (Klaus spring) near Mechernich
 * An area of springs in Mechernich-Urfey
 * The Hausener Benden in Mechernich-Eiserfey

The spring area Hausener Benden, also near Mechernich, is interesting because it was discovered rather late and was put back into use. In 1938, while searching for a drinking water source for Mechernich, the workers encountered the feed line for the aqueduct from this area. The water from the feed was simply connected into the modern water network. So as not to damage the spring, they carried out no archaeological search for the construction around the spring.

Roman demands for water quality
Romans preferred drinking water with a high mineral content, preferring its taste to that of soft water. Roman architect Vitruvius described the process for testing a source of drinking water: "Springs should be tested and proved in advance in the following ways. If they run free and open, inspect and observe the physique of the people who dwell in the vicinity before beginning to conduct the water, and if their frames are strong, their complexions fresh, legs sound, and eyes clear, the springs deserve complete approval. If it is a spring just dug out, its water is excellent if it can be sprinkled into a Corinthian vase or into any other sort made of good bronze without leaving a spot on it. Again, if such water is boiled in a bronze cauldron, afterwards left for a time, and then poured off without sand or mud being found at the bottom of the cauldron, that water also will have proved its excellence."

Vitruvius insisted, "Consequently we must take great care and pains in searching for springs and selecting them, keeping in view the health of mankind." The water from the Eifel aqueduct was considered to be some of the very best water in the empire. Unfortunately, hard water tends to produce calcium carbonate deposits, and all areas of the aqueduct today have a thick layer of limestone-like deposits up to 20 cm thick. Despite the reduction in the cross-sectional area of the aqueduct caused by these deposits, the aqueduct was still able to provide the necessary quantity of water for Cologne. In the Middle Ages, the layer of "Eifel marble" from the aqueduct was widely reused as building material.

Above-ground sections

For various reasons, the Eifel aqueduct has very few above-ground sections, unlike other Roman aqueducts, such as the Pont du Gard in southern France:
 * The course of the aqueduct was chosen so as to avoid the need for such constructions.
 * By construction underground, the aqueduct was protected from freezing.
 * The water arriving in Cologne had a pleasant temperature due to the insulating properties of the ground.
 * In case of war, the aqueduct would be less easily damaged.

Nonetheless, there are a few places where bridges or other constructions were necessary. The most notable was an arched bridge over the Swistbach near Rheinbach that was 1400 m long and up to 10 m high. Archaeologists calculate that the original bridge had 295 arches, each 3.56 m wide, but the bridge has been reduced to rubble with the passage of the years.

A smaller arched bridge crossed a valley near Mechernich. This was some 10 m tall and 70 m long. The archaeological remains were in good enough condition here that a partial reconstruction was built to show how the original must have looked.

Roman aqueduct construction
Construction of the aqueduct placed great demands on the capacities and knowledge of the Roman engineers. The Romans occasionally suffered problems of low-quality work on large projects, as witnessed by Sextus Julius Frontinus, lead official for water resources in the city of Rome, who wrote: "No other construction requires greater care in its building as one that is to contain water. Therefore it is necessary to supervise all aspects of such a project with great conscientiousness—proceeding fully in accord with the rules, which everyone knows, but only few actually follow."

Cost of building
Considering the amount of surveying, underground building, and bricklaying involved, a construction of this size could not be built all at once. Instead, the engineers divided the entire construction site into individual building areas. Through archaeological research, the boundaries of these building areas have been determined. For the Eifel aqueduct, they were each 15,000 Roman feet long (4,400 m or 2.7 miles in modern units). It has further been demonstrated that the surveying took place separately from the building, as is in fact the rule today in large construction projects.

For each metre (3.3 ft) of aqueduct, approximately 3–4 m³ (100–140 ft³) of earth had to be dug up, followed by 1.5 m³ (50 feet³) of concrete and bricklaying, along with 2.2 m² (24 feet²) of plaster sealant. The complete labour expense is estimated at 475,000 man-days: with about 180 possible construction days in the year due to weather conditions, 2,500 workers would have worked 16 months to complete the project. The actual construction time appears to have been even longer, since this estimate leaves out the question of surveying and production of the building materials.

After construction, the building trenches were filled in, the surface flattened, and a maintenance path built. The maintenance path also served to delimit areas where farming was not permissible. Other Roman aqueducts show similar facilities. One of the aqueducts to Lyon (France), the Aqueduct of the Gier, was marked with the following inscription: "By command of Emperor Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, no one is permitted to plough, sow, or plant within the space determined for protection of the aqueduct."

Roman surveying
After a good location for the aqueduct was selected, it was necessary to guarantee a constant slope downwards in its course. Using devices similar to modern levels, the Roman engineers were capable of maintaining a slope as small as 0.1 percent—one metre of fall for every kilometre of aqueduct. In addition to the slope, it was necessary for the various building sections to be able to join up, while still maintaining a constant downward slope.

The Roman constructors of the Eifel aqueduct carefully made use of the natural fall of the land. If the work from one segment arrived too high for the next segment, they built a small pool into the course to calm the falling water.

Roman concrete
The concrete used for the Eifel aqueduct was a combination of lime, sand, stones, and water. Boards were used to make a form into which the concrete was packed. Modern tests of the quality of the concrete show that it would pass current standards. This particular concrete is called opus caementicium in Latin.

Operation of the aqueduct
For the 180 years of the aqueduct's use, from AD 80 to 260, the aqueduct required constant maintenance, improvement, cleaning, and freeing from limestone accretions. Maintenance was facilitated by regular maintenance shafts, through which a worker could descend into the aqueduct. Additional maintenance shafts were built at the sites of repairs and at the boundaries between building segments. There were also open pools at points where various springs ran together so that maintenance personnel could keep an eye on problem areas.

Distribution of water in ancient Cologne
For the last few kilometres before the ancient city, the aqueduct left the ground and was supported by an aqueduct bridge approximately 10 m (33 ft) high. This additional construction enabled water to be delivered to the higher-lying areas of the city through pressurised pipes. The pipes at the time were made of lead plates bent into a ring, either soldered together or with flanges to bind the individual pipe sections together. The Romans used bronze fixtures as taps.

Incoming water arrived first at the various public fountains of the city, which were always in operation. The fountain network was so dense that no resident had to travel more than 50 m (164 ft) to get water. In addition, various public baths and private homes, as well as public toilets were provided with water. Waste water was collected in a network of canals under the city and led out into the Rhine. One section of the Roman sewer system is open for tourists under Budengasse Street in Cologne.

The aqueduct as a stone quarry
The Eifel aqueduct was destroyed by Germanic tribes in 260 during an attack on Cologne, and was never brought back into operation, even though the city continued to exist. In the course of the migration of the various tribes through the region, aqueduct technology fell out of use and knowledge. The entire aqueduct remained buried in the earth some 500 years, until the Carolingians began new construction in the Rhine valley. As this area has relatively little naturally occurring stone, the aqueduct became a favoured place for obtaining building materials. Transportable sections of the aqueduct were used to build the city wall around Rheinbach, for instance. Some of these sections still have the sealing plaster from the aqueduct intact. Thus all of the above-ground sections, and a good part of the underground construction as well, were dismantled and reused in medieval construction.

Particularly desirable as a building material were the limestone-like limescale accretions from the inside of the aqueduct. In the course of operation of the aqueduct, many sections had a layer as thick as 20 cm. The material had a consistency similar to brown marble and was easily removable from the aqueduct. Upon polishing, it showed veins, and it could also be used like a stone board when cut flat. This artificial stone found use throughout the Rhineland and was very popular for columns, window frames, and even altars. Use of "Eifel marble" can be seen as far east as Paderborn and Hildesheim, where it was used in the cathedrals. Roskilde Cathedral in Denmark is the northernmost location of its use, where several gravestones are made of it.

Medieval legend held that the aqueduct was an underground passage from Trier to Cologne. According to the legend, the Devil had bet the architect of the Cologne cathedral that he could build this tunnel faster than the cathedral could be erected. The architect took the bet and drove the men to work with great haste. One day, the construction workers broke into the aqueduct, where flowing water could be seen. The Devil's giggling is said to have driven the architect to suicide by jumping from the half-finished cathedral tower. Supposedly, the architect's death (and not the lack of funds) was the cause of the centuries-long delay in the completion of the construction.

A few medieval writings on the aqueduct lost sight completely of the original purpose of the construction. Some say that it carried not water, but wine to the city, for example, the Gesta Treverorum written from the 12th century, and the Hymn to Saint Anno of the 11th century.

Tourism
The Römerkanal-Wanderweg ("Roman canal hiking trail") runs for approximately 100 km along the aqueduct's path from Nettersheim all the way to Cologne. Public transport links are good, allowing the trail to be walked in various stages. It may also be used as a bike trail. There are approximately 75 information stations along the way, providing an excellent view of the aqueduct.

Legacy
Archaeological research on the Eifel aqueduct started in the 19th century. C.A. Eick was the discoverer of the farthest source from Cologne at Grüner Pütz near Nettersheim (in 1867). Systematic study of the aqueduct was carried out from 1940 to 1970 by Waldemar Haberey (de). His 1971 book is still a suitable guide along the course of the construction. In 1980, archaeologist Klaus Grewe (de) completely mapped out the location line and added it to the official German topographic map. His Atlas der römischen Wasserleitungen nach Köln (Atlas of Roman Aqueducts to Cologne, 1986) is a standard work for researchers in Roman architecture.

The Eifel aqueduct is a very important and valuable archaeological site, particularly for the study of Roman surveying, organizational ability, and engineering know-how. It is also a poignant symbol for the loss of technical knowledge during the decline of civilisations that between the Middle Ages and more recent times, no better use was found for the aqueduct than as a stone quarry. The Roman level of technology in this area was not equalled until the 19th and 20th centuries.

title: Eifel Aqueduct


text:
Talk:List of Formula One Grands Prix

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seems to be a universal agreement that it should be turned back then! For what it's worth I had a look at www.statsf1.com (a french site) and they seem to refer to Grands Prix as well. 4u1e 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be correct in French - have a look at the corresponding page on fr.wiki, although it may have been before 1990 reforms. It certainly doesn't seem to be the proper English plural either, although all the commentators use it.LRT24 (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing the tradition of late responses... There isn't any audible difference between "Grand Prix" and "Grands Prix", the "s" is silent. - Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Request
The following comment was added by Lgrego14 just above the "Active and past races" table:
 * Please add a column, how many years any Grand Prix participates

DH85868993 08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

monaco
Monaco Grand Prix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.170.139 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your question is unclear: If you're asking "Why isn't the Monaco Grand Prix listed?" - it is. If you're asking "Why is it Monaco Grand Prix rather than Monegasque (or Monacan?) Grand Prix?" - the answer is that (as far as I'm aware) the event has always been referred to as the "Monaco Grand Prix". DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

One example is (List of Formula One circuits). F1rocks 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs)
 * Are you "F1Rocks" or "Editadam" ? --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The Flags which keep being changed are the European Grand Prix from the EU Flag to Spain even through the race has also been hosted by Britain and Germany, the San Marino Grand Prix to Italy and the Luxembourg Grand Prix to Germany. This is highly misleading as it implies the flags are of those mentioned in the race title. There is a separate list for the host nations below where the flags of the hosts are used. Using the host flags in both lists undermines the first list as it is a list based purely on the race title and not on where the race took place. I say the flag of the those mentioned in the title must be retained in the list of names of Grand Prix or what’s the point of having the list in the first place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my view is that if flag use is ambiguous in certain instances, we should not use flags in those instances. A possible alternative would be to use noflag. But regardless, edit warring over flags is not acceptable. I don't know which version was in place before the dispute began, but that version should be restored until consensus is reached. Regards, —WFC— 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WFCforLife: Consensus has been achieved on this subject, more than once before, elsewhere within Formula One articles. As an active participant on this subject it is perhaps disengenious for Lucy-marie use the same arguements that did not impress the Wikiproject participants previously.
 * This is highly misleading as it implies the flags are of those mentioned in the race title. No such implication is present. Additionally if the flag is only to match the name of the race then that is using the flags purely for illustrative colour, which is as I understand it, against MOSFLAGS. On that basis flags should be deleted entirely. Considering the mass of flag colour in the race-by-race tables beneath which seem to serve no purpose other than to provide some colour to the article, perhaps that is not an undesireable outcome. Certainly no additional information is gained by their presence, something which could be corrected by providing the national flag of geographic location.
 * It is also inconsistent with the approach of several other races in the list, for example, Abu Dhabi, Pacific, Pescara, Detriot, Dallas, Indianapolis 500, and inconsistent with the usage of flags for the representation of non-championship Grands Prix and Formula One races as exampled in several of the 1950s and 60s season articles. Arbitrarily applying a standard you've made up and called 'common sense' is not what Wikipedia is for. --Falcadore (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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

All I'm really interested in here is to prevent the on-going edit warring and the fact that some editors here are close to breaking WP:3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the settling of the previous discussion does not continue through to here. There is additionally the clear double standard I have mentioned previously where as some ambiguously named races have nation-correct flags, and others do not. The standard of application is not consistent, and, again referencing similar non-championship races in 1950s/60s F1 articles, not applied consistently. Flags are no supposed to be used illustratively, by displaying euro flag for the European Grand prix all it is doing is illustrating. You say that applying the Spanish flag to the current European Grand Prix would be confusing. What do you do when presenting with confusing facts, do you ask more questions to determine why? In asking why this might be the case the reader may then learn that the race takes place in Spain, it is additional information. When a flag is presented next to an athlete it provides additional information, we don't put a symbolic image representing that specific athlete. Having the Union Flag next to Lewis Hamilton is not considered confusing, yet seeing as it is not illustrative of the name of the article, eg an icon sized picture of Hamilton, it could be considered confusing.
 * An additional question then, do we apply US flag to Detrio, or Japan Flag to Pacific Grand Prix - is that because there is not an illusttrative flag that corresponds? No. The city of Detriot has its own flag and there is a Pacific community flag. However by discussion these flag were considered inappropriate, and for good reasons. So the flag of the host nation was used. Why is this standard not applied universally?
 * We have one standard for some races, and another standard for other races. This is clearly not an ideal solution. If a Spanish flag seems to contradict the word European, the first instinct should not be to replace, but to ask why this is so. In the answer lies the reason. --Falcadore (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this instance and in this article specifically there are two separate lists one list refers directly to the official name of the race and the second to the hosts’ nations of grand prix. In the official name of the race list it is appropriate to refer to the name in the official name in of the race as such the European grand prix or San Marino grand prix because that is what the list is focusing on. In the host nation list the list is focusing on the host nation itself and as such the host nation flag should be used as the host nation is the direct subject of the list. In the first list the European, San Marino and Luxembourg flags should be used as they in the official race title and the official race title and not the host nation is the focus of the list. In the second list the German, Italian, British and Spanish flags should be used as they are the hosts and are the main focus of that list.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The official name of the race has little bearing on the larger issue. Flags should not be used illustratively, and you have not addressed the issue of the inherent double standard, or of the standard used across all non-championship other Grands Prix. The focus of two different lists has no bearing. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to draw attention to the use of Flags in Motorbike racing articles. An example can be found here--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is an even greater misuse of flags. But one issue at a time. With regards to Formula One this is an issue already consensus achieved. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Concensus has been acheived in some but not all areas as demonstarated by these two lists.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No exceptions were mentioned in the consensus. --Falcadore (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The original discussion only really got as far as the Lists of Grand Prix in a season in the main articles tables and never really finished by clearing up the other areas where flags are used, such as other tables or in infoboxes. I think we need to now go through the othe areas where flags are used and finally hammer this to death and be done with it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussions resulted in these tables being the standard but never went any further after that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

←Gee, I hate to disturb your back-and-forth bickering, but as an outside observer, I can see why this article is in dispute. The basic problem is that there is no legend or other kind of explanation to inform readers what the flags actually mean. A reader will see the "By race title" table first, and then the "By host nation" table second, and since the flag usage has different meanings between the two tables (!), the numbers don't add up the same way. Perhaps you need to step back and think of the casual reader's experience when they browse this article, and not think as an editor who spends a lot of time working on these articles. What is implicitely understood by editors of WikiProject Formula One isn't necessarily going to be clear to others. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Frankly, the page is a complete mess, the misuse and overuse of the flags is obvious and entirely unnecessary and unhelpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting them works fine by me. --Falcadore (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree. I need to understand what benefit the reader gets from the continual overuse of these flags. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Apart from the "By host nation" section, it's not clear what the flags even mean. —WFC— 08:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the meanings change then it's a clear abuse of WP:MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite my comment above, I actually think there is some value in flag icons here. For example, if I'm scanning the table rows, the flag icons make it easier to see that the Brazilian Grand Prix has moved from near the beginning of the race calendar to near the end.  It is also easier to see when races are added to the schedule and when races are removed.  Yes, you can discover all that by looking at the text alone, but the icons certainly make it easier.  Having said that, I re-assert my objection from before: icon usage must be consistent within a page, and it must be explained to the casual reader (by a table legend, for example).  The current article fails in both respects.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A legend for the application of those flags would fail, because they have not been applied by any consistent criteria. Some have been applied Geographically, some Illustratively, and the reasons for each would need to be detailed individually, which makes the legend neccessary to cover it all cumbersome and with at least three explanatory notes. This inconsistency is been the source of my point. When I bring this up, I am told it is better to do at as it has been written because of an undefined form of common sense. A common sense which is additionally only applied from the 1980s F1 articles onwards, and not apllied to 1950s and 1960s F1 articles. But it is common sense. How can I argue against something which appears to have no definition other than one that is impied without basis? --Falcadore (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Request - Wet races
I suggest someone make a list of which grands prix were wet or dry. This could be on this page or a new one. A lot of people would be interested in this, I think. The simple version is to list the races which were declared wet. The other version I had in mind would have 5 categories: dry race, race mostly dry, race mostly wet, wet race (the whole time), and wet race where safety car was deployed or the race was red-flagged due to heavy rain (and not because of an accident). There are pages of each grand prix, some of them indicates if it was a wet race, but most of them don't, so I can't make a full list. For me, it would be enough to list the last 10-20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you define what races are mostly dry, and what are mostly wet? Where is your boundary? And why stop with just five categories? --Falcadore (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe we don't need "mostly wet" and "mostly dry" categories, they can one category: races that were both wet and dry (drivers used both dry and wet tyres during the race). These 4 categories are sufficient, no need for more, even 2 categories would be satisfactory (dry/wet). Categories are not so important, the most important thing would be to gather the information about which races were wet (and how wet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could read the relevant race articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be collected lists of trivia. --Falcadore (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing has been discussed several times in the past: here, here, here, here and here, and historically there hasn't been a great deal of enthusiasm for it. DH85868993 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request - San Marino
WHo thinks San Marino is in Italy, it is a separate country and therefore should not be counted in the Italian section, please remove and recalculate the number of races actually held in Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.153.212 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that arguement is that the San Marino Grand Prix has never been held in San Marino. It has always been held in Italy. The fact that San Marino is a separate country is essentially irrelevant. To suggest those races were actually held in San Marino is a complete falsehood. --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Add in race winners / new page?
Would it be possible to take the races by season section, add in a detail for the winner of each race, and create a new page, so that viewers could plot driver's careers and rivalries more easily. 86.175.43.13 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not really in the scope of this article. It would also blow out the size of this article considerably. --Falcadore (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

300km?
It mentions in the lead section of the article that a race needs to be at least 300km in distance to be entitled a GP. I am very confused by this, considering the current Monaco Grand Prix is only 260.5 km in distance - it has been this way (78 laps) for decades. It seems contradictory to me, to have the Monaco GP listed so many times in the article, with this in the lead section. There are also no references to back this up, and I notice it has now been marked as dubious. Would anyone disagree with me removing this? Bigdon128 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because it is correct. Monaco is just granted an exemption from the rule. It's been often quoted, particularly by Martin Brundle in telecasts that races go one lap beyond 300 km. Finding a reference to back this up should be easy. --Falcadore (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks I think I did find a suitable source.Bigdon128 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Total number of Grands Prix
Can I request a clarification on the total number of Grands Prix that have taken place. The article intro says 855, yet each of the three main tables, as well as the season tables, totals up to 856. Seems like someone missed one, no big deal. But the List of Formula One Grand Prix winners totals up to 859. No way 856 races were won 859 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.188.72 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It actually does, because in the 1950s it was possible for two drivers to share the same car. I refer you to the 1957 British Grand Prix and the 1955 Argentine Grand Prix as examples. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the count in the lead to 856. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

San Marino Grand Prix
How come in 1992 and 2000 the San Marino Grand Prix has the Italian flag and all the other years it has the San Marino flag? Mobile mundo (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed the flags for 1992 and 2000 to match the others. Noting that this article does not follow the general WP:F1 convention of using the flagicon of the country in which the circuit is located. DH85868993 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should change, seeing as the Caesar's Palace Grand Prix doesn't have a picture of Julius Caesar. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ceasar's Palace isn't a country. San Marino is. And the Sammarinese Grands Prix were held under the auspices of that country's motorsport governing body, just like the Ceasar's Palace Grand Prix was held under the auspices of the US national motorsport governing body. Hence the national flags.Tvx1 11:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

UPD: still enormous effort put to preserve correct map without Crimea marked improperly as Russian territory: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg I strongly recommend to remove or replace this map from another source! 192.68.51.225 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk about mountains out of mole hills, you are reading too much into these maps, this is not a political article stop trying to make it one. Besides the Crimea isn't even marked as Russia in the article. SSSB (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not call the dispute as making mountains out of mole hills since it is related to a major war conflict in Europe regarding Russian invasion into Ukraine that claimed over 13,000 lives already, including those perished during Crimea annexation. FIA during each TV intro shows world map which marks borders of countries recognised by international community, such as United Nations, without any notation on disputed territories. Other issues are also involved, e.g. the whole etnicity is persecuted in Crimea in a racist way. Therefore, one cannot avoid the problem of the disputed territories in a simple way. For instance, if sticking to de-facto status, other regions should be marked as a part of Russian Federation: Tskhinvali Region, Abkhasia and Transnistria. I would recommend VISIBLY mark all disputed territories (also including Nagorno-Karabakh and Taiwan) with unambiguous notation instead of current map, which definitely favours Russian violation of Internalional law. Unas964 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this discussion has moved to a centralised discussion at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship. Therefore can you (and other editors) please not argue here so as to keep the discussion central. You are of course welcome to contribute to the centralised discussion. Thank you, SSSB (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Races by season
I really think that we should remove the races by season section. Their inclusion is an exercise without end as new races will keep happening and slowly but surely this section will grow to be most extensive of the entire article which would be undue. But most importantly, there is only a limited amount of templates that an article can handle at a time and eventually some of them will stop being transcluded correctly.Tvx1 23:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. The section's use is really limited. I have only really used this section to see when was the last time we had such a short season. Really this section is only useful for seeing how many races each decade/season has had. And when was the last time Austria opened the season (as a random example). I really don't see the benefit of what is essentially a series of long lists. SSSB (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have found the information to be useful occasionally, I do wonder if the same general function could be maintained by providing direct links to the calendar section on each seasons' page. Rather than this:

We could have this:
 * 2010 Season Calendar
 * 2011 Season Calendar
 * 2012 Season Calendar
 * 2013 Season Calendar
 * 2014 Season Calendar
 * 2015 Season Calendar
 * 2016 Season Calendar
 * 2017 Season Calendar
 * 2018 Season Calendar
 * 2019 Season Calendar

This has the benefit of reducing the ever-expanding tables (which are already too large for smaller screens). Additionally, the existing tables only provide the race title, and not the circuit information. Finally, linking to the calendar section can also provide more context when races get added or dropped to the calendar. The obvious downside to this approach is that it doesn't allow for a quick scan of multiple seasons at the same time. JohnMcButts (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * , all due respect but what is the point of that? What does that list add to the article apart from text? If a reader wanted to examine the 2017 season calendar he would go to 2017 Formula One World Championship and scroll down, wouldn't (s)he, in any case the ? provide more context when races get added or dropped to the calendar. - this is why the start and end years are wikilinked.
 * Anyhow, the templates isn't the problem, if necessary we can move those templates to a subpage and translcude it there (or am I wrong with that assumption,, I am no expert). The problem from my point of view is I don't see how the current tables are encylopdic (I consider them to hit at least 1 point of WP:WWIN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, possibly more, need to take a closer look) and I don't see how sortcuts to season calendars is useful. SSSB (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having had time to think on this more, I think you're correct. I had simply wanted to provide an alternative to the functionality that the existing tables serve. But given the many ways that the same information can be accessed, I agree that the tables should be dropped. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't they even duplication of the navboxes at the bottom of the article?Tvx1 20:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was one of the things that changed my mind on the issue. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion has been up since February, and there hasn't been any opposition, I've gone ahead and made the change. JohnMcButts (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to firmly oppose this decision as taken far too hastily and without consideration for current context. For the following reasons: it provided concise and easy-to-navigate info on exactly which races took place in each season to any new or recent fans without having to navigate to separate pages. Secondly, this page is particularly relevant and helpful to readers at the moment due to the complicated and tenuous scheduling that F1 is undergoing right now. I agree with the template reasoning said above, and certainly agree that the removal will be necessary at some point in the future, but I strongly disagree that it should be now of all times.2601:4B:301:2670:8D45:556:D9AE:A162 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how these tables are any more relevant or helpful now compared to normal and I am equally confused as to why the templates at the bottom of the page are not sufficiently consice and easy-to-navigate. SSSB (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For newer fans, especially inexperienced with wikipedia nav. They will most likely never even see the tables now, and as to the point about concise seasons at a glance, the flags and vertical format make it visually much easier to quickly find info than a drop down chart with line after line of ISO country codes. At least to my understanding, the people who would be trying to see how previous seasons have looked (in terms of calendars) wouldnt normaly be the most experienced at navigating this article in its current format. 2601:4B:301:2670:A0AC:8749:7113:6CCF (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * People who want to see how previous seasons have looked can look at the article on previous seasons. I fail to see how this incredibly long list is of encylopedic value or it's measurable benefits over the navigation templates. I also reject that anyone could struggle with or need expirence with navigating this article. It couldn't be much easier. SSSB (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I took into consideration the suggestion in this section, adding the information that, I believe, those who wanted that section came to see, without the inconvenience of an overly wide table. I would appreciate an explanation for why my edit was reversed. Mj4e (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get into why I reverted latter but let me adress a misunderstandings first. Width was never an issue. Your edit would have been a lot better if it had been wider, then it's less long.
 * I'll get into why I reverted latter but let me adress a misunderstandings first. Width was never an issue. Your edit would have been a lot better if it had been wider, then it's less long.

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

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

I dont really know why everyone is trying to remove the races by season. Just because you do not find it necessary doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Cianbryyy (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why is it necessary? SSSB (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

2020 Season changes
Most of the Foriegn-language articles on the 2020 season use the Styrian flag and the F1 logo for the Styrian and 70th anniversary GPS-should we do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.113.94 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy of this wikiproject is to use the flag of the host country. This is because several name sales don't have corresponding flags (the Pacific Grand Prix for example) so as to allow for some kind of consistancy. Although this does seem to abounded here with the use of the Luxembourg and San Marino flags. Not sure why. SSSB (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See the discussion in progress at Talk:2020_Formula_One_World_Championship. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Belgrade Grand Prix
The Belgrade Grand Prix is a former grand prix from the Grand Prix motor racing era - precursor to Formula One. It was held on the streets of Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia (today Serbia). Only one championship event was held, on 3 September 1939. This race saw 5 drivers take part - two Mercedes-Benz in their Silver Arrows, two Auto Unions (modern Audi) and a Bugatti, which finished 19 laps down - and was won by Tazio Nuvolari.[1] The Kalemegdan Park circuit is no longer operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barserbz (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for the information. However, this article only lists Grands Prix which were part of the Formula One World Championship, from 1950 onwards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Formula 1 all over the world-2021.svg

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

Or if the idea is to identify races which haven't ever been held yet (i.e. to explain why the "Years" column is empty), then the key should just be "Future Grands Prix", not "Future/returning Grands Prix". DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I redid the article at FLC, I had the view that I wanted to identify Grands Prix that have not been held yet MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the system we use at List of Formula One circuits should be adopted here. We identify circuits that are due to/have hosted in the current season. And ones that are due to host in future season. I'm interpreting MWright96's arguement as being "I want to explain why Qatar and Saudi Arabia are listed as current GP, but have an empty year column", but then shouldn't Abu Dhabi be green as it is identified as hosting a 2021 race, but 2021 isn't included in the years column? To me those two examples come from the same point of confusion. However, The problem we have with this article (currently), that needs rectifing regardless of what we agree on, is that we identify "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)", but Qatar and Saudi Arabia are instead identified as "Future/returning Grands Prix". You could describe Qatar and Saudi under both categories, identifing it as a "Future/returning Grands Prix" implies that it isn't a "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)", espically as Abu Dhabi isn't green (see previous paragrapgh). This problem is avoided at the circuit list by better defining what is meant by "Future/returning". Becuase without a clearer definition, my immediate interpretation leaves me wondering why Saudi and Qatar aren't being identified as "Current Grands Prix (for the 2021 season)" and why Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Miami etc. aren't listed as "Future/returning Grands Prix". SSSB (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"was held in" notes
In the "Race" column of the "By race title" table, are the "The XXX Grand Prix was held in " footnotes really necessary? Except for the European Grand Prix (which is a special case), there's a "Country" column immediately to the left showing what country the race was held in. If the purpose of the footnotes is to provide an anchor for the reference to confirm that the race was held in the specified country, couldn't that reference just be placed next to the country name in the "Country" column? DH85868993 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with this view MWright96 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the race title table deals with countries at all. We have a seperate table for host country, which identifies the race titles that a country has hosted. So we don't need to identify the host country in the "by race title" table. SSSB (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Formula One Grands Prix