Jump to content

Talk:Australian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

V8 Supercars 2007

[edit]

After many years as a support act, the Australian Supercar championship put in a bid to have a higher priority for the 2007 race, with the possibility of being given pit garage space and thus making it a point scoring round for the Supercars. This choice was turned down by the FIA which lead to the V8 Supercars chosing to end their role as support race, leaving a gap in the support races for the Grand Prix. Many V8 fans see it as cuasing a serious indent on the turn out while the FIA and Grand Prix Teams make no notice of it.

Removed not true - http://grandprix.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=101 - Official Grand Prix Corp. Press release says due to conflict of television rights.

Most Wins - Lex Davidson

[edit]

The infobox lists Lex Davidson as having the most wins. Should this infobox only include details for official Formula One races? GK1 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on WP:F1 discussion page for wider discussion. -- DH85868993 07:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bathurst Grand Prix Events

[edit]

There were some Australian Grand Prix meetings held on the old Yale circuit in Bathurst, Yale was used before the Mount Panorama circuit was opened. There appears to be no mention of this in the article however unfortunately I don't have much information on these events. I will try to locate some further information and enter it as required. Virtualr84 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mount Panorama circuit opened in 1938 and was utilised almost immediately for the 1938 Australian Grand Prix. Archival photographs and reports of that race clearly show it to be Mount Panorama. Or you suggesting that AGP's were held at Yale prior to 1928? --Falcadore (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1994

[edit]

Who sponsored the race in 1994? The article does not say so if any one knows who sponsored it that year please fix.Pattav2 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My strong recollection is that in the absence of a naming rights sponsor, the race was "sponsored" by the South Australian state government. I think it was either called the "SA Great Australian Grand Prix" or "Sensational Adelaide Australian Grand Prix". I'll try to locate my copy of the programme to make certain. DH85868993 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The programme cover [1] indicates it was just called the "Australian Grand Prix". I don't count the word "Adelaide" as part of the name - if you look at the programme covers for the other races held in Adelaide [2] , they all have the word "Adelaide" somewhere on the cover. I've updated the article to say there was no naming rights sponsor in 1994. DH85868993 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Grands Prix

[edit]

Are there any that are not considered notable - apart from pre-'85? Basically - shouldn't the articles on the Grand Prixs themselves carry this info? --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all the races from 1985 onwards are notable but perhaps some are more memorable than others. Maybe the section could/should be retitled "Memorable Australian Grands Prix"? Certainly the individual race reports should contain the information which is currently in this article, so the question is whether it should be included here as well. DH85868993 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be done, it might be better to have some prose which summarises the history of the event. The focus then is not so much on notable races, but on races that have affected the history of the event. The 1991 monsoon, for example - did that influence the move away from Adelaide? Does that make sense? 4u1e (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Formula 1 race

[edit]

1987 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.164.133 (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1985 Australian Grand Prix was the first Formula One race. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins section

[edit]

A proposed revamp - expansion of the Origins section which really skims over the pre-F1 history of the Grand Prix, I have written a replacement section and placed it here, as its a drastic re-write I thought I'd give interested editors a preview. At this point I have not added my references, but I do have a number of texts lined up for the purpose I just wrote the terxt first.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Falcadore (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great. I don't have any improvements to suggest. DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then up its goes. --Falcadore (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1928 AGP

[edit]

The assertion that Waite won the 1928 AGP "using the handicapped start to beat many faster, more powerful cars to the finish" is, I believe, incorrect. The 1928 chapter in "The Official 50-race history of the Australian Grand Prix" makes it pretty clear that the two races both used a mass start, albeit with the two classes separated in each race. But it was the fastest overall time set by Waite which gave him the victory. GTHO (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide GP needs major help

[edit]

The part of the article about the Adelaide F1 GP is pretty bad. There's not much there, what's there is largely fluff, and the single source is dead. It already has a "needs expansion" tag, and now needs a source (or more). This was obviously a significant part of the history of the Australian GP. Can anybody help? (I'm not the right person.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent attendance" section - very POV

[edit]

There is considerable controversy about how many people actually go to the GP. And from within that number, how many are not on complementary tickets and actually pay their way. (Most people I know who go get free tickets.)

The source for the most recent event describes the number as "estimated". No mention of who did the estimating, and how. It also mention a much smaller estimate from opponents of the race, but that figure didn't make it into the article. Three of the figures for previous years don't even have sources. By just listing the figure claimed by those who want the race to continue, we are taking the side of the promoters and fans, and ignoring other views. Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove all the estimates and just add the official attendnace figure. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would take some restructuring to have it make sense, but I'll give it a go. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting everything isn't "having a go" mind you. --Falcadore (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking at how much wasn't "estimated", and was from objective sources, and sourced at all, and all that was left was all that I left. How can what you have now reverted it to be justified? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about your own POV issues on this subject. First of all this is a list of attendances, it does not state paying attendance, just attendance. I should also point out that if someone goes to the Grand Prix for example on a free corporate ticket it is only free to the attendee, someone else has paid for the ticket on their behalf so they are in fact still paid attendee.
Secondly, I'm concerned you are setting an unrealistically high standard. We are not taking the sides of the promotors and fans. Sporting events all over Australia are issued by promotors. You doubt one, you doubt at least in theory, them all. Do you suggest deleting every crowd attendance figure in Wikipedia, or just certain ones.
Also as an at least partially govertment-funded event, those crowd figures do have to be justified. You deleted one figure published by a respectable newspaper without providing any alternative figures when all you have to do to satisfy Wikipedia is to add an asterisk or an (estimated) or similar. By deleting many of these figures it would seem you a pushing a point of view of your own.
Additionally, I did suggest replacing figures with official figures. Did you even attempt that? --Falcadore (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's rubbish there, it shouldn't be there. So it should be deleted on sight. FInding reliable figures would be a good thing, but is hardly my job alone. And, figures such as AFL attendances are audited. Thay are reliably precise. They do not included tens of thousands of compllimentary tickests. GP figures are not audited. This IS a controvesial issue. We should not be including "claimed" figures from the promoters unless we describe them as just that and highlight the doubt and controversy. Yes, I do have a POV. The promoters are there to make money, not to tell the truth. Their figures are not reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No other Australian sport outisde of the AFL audits its figures, so the point still stands. If there is "rubbish" it needs to be justified. Someone saying a crowd is 'estimated' is not proof of falsehood. --Falcadore (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys, Sorry 4 opening a can of worms. Anyways, I see that the 04,06 and 07 aust stad refs were left behind in HiLo48's edit. I assume he/she thinks they are unbiased/reliable(whatever) sources. I couldn't be bothered re-referencing sources 4 the other years where the crowd numbers were the same from both sources. This is the link 4 the 04-08, 10, 12 years, http://www.austadiums.com/sport/results.php?sid=8. I don't know how they obtain their numbers but there it is. Personally the Aust TV and radio ratings is my biggest concern where 5000 people represent the nation but that's not this pg. The figures in aust stad are not exact but close enough, just like every other australian sport (except AFL as you say). It gives readers an idea whether the crowd is up or down and the approxiamte amount of people that attend yr to yr. If you're super-keen just put an asterisk 4 the whole section cos it's all an educated estimate I guess. But then you would have to put an asterisk next to a shitload more pages on wiki. Hope I didn't offend you in this post(as i'm new to wiki).Offfspring227 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most Constructor Wins

[edit]

The Introduction mentions McLaren with 12 wins, but the info box lists both Ferrari and McLaren with 12 wins. There seems like a conflict here, but I do not know the true stats. SquashEngineer (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is correct. I have updated the introduction accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. DH85868993 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

[edit]

Johnsmith2116 As I said earlier, we follow WP:F1 in maintaining the pages related to Formula One. Might not be the same as tennis, I ask you to respect that. Admanny (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the repeat winners redirects to an unrelated article.

[edit]

Les Murphy gets linked to an unrelated article, I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:74CE:3800:4833:9486:D6A0:659E (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the Les Murphy link to Les Murphy (racing driver). SSSB (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo question

[edit]

Was wondering what some others think about File:2017 Australian GP security team.jpg being used in Australian Grand Prix #Albert Park, Melbourne? It doesn't seem to be really adding much encyclopedically to the article per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles in my opinion, and there's no corresponding content about Maurice Novoa or security guards in general anywhere that I can see in the article. Perhaps there's something I'm missing and others feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Melbourne Grand Prix published in The Latina Australian Times newspaper. Australianblackbelt (talk)
I wasn't questioning the source of the photo or its copyright status. I'm only asking for opinions on how this image is encyclopedically relevant to the article. Per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." You added the file to the article so perhaps you can clarify how it increases the readers' understanding of any of the content contained in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this photo is useful at all.
5225C (talk • contributions) 07:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered reverting this addition but didn't get around to it. In any case, I agree it isn't really suitable, especially in context and with the caption (Maurice Novoa has no noteworthy connection to the Grand Prix as far as I can tell). If there were some discussion of security and/or miscellaneous organisation of the event then maybe a photo of security would be appropriate, but I don't think it is suitable as is. A7V2 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 5225C and A7V2, this has no value.
SSSB (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, it in no way helps the reader understand the topic and is only of tangental relevance. Adds zero encyclopaedic value. It appears to have only been inserted as part of a promotion campaign for this Maurice Novoa that is currently underway. Canterbury Tail talk 17:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Australian Grand Prix

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Australian Grand Prix's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mitchell 2022":

  • From 2022 Australian Grand Prix: Mitchell, Scott (4 April 2022). "The long-awaited changes intended to transform Australian GP". The Race. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  • From 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: Mitchell, Scott (12 January 2022). "FIA review of Abu Dhabi F1 controversy started this week". The Race. The Race Media. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 12 January 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed It was the first one. I've updated the article. Thanks AnomieBOT. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To consider this matter at AfD, with a view to deletion for notability. Klbrain (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race into Australian Grand Prix. I don't believe the topic is independtly notably, unfortunately, but it can probably be included in this article with a section about support races. TartarTorte 14:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Wonk (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed removal of Formula 3 section

[edit]

The formula 3 section recently added as a result of the above "discussion" is completely out of place, and has no references apart from one that refers to a separate championship. It should be removed. Also note that the above discussion was closed not based on what was brought up, but instead by the closer's admission based on a vote. A7V2 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The merged secion has some additional citations. It was a support race for the AGP in 2006 and 2007. If you are absolutely set on deleting content -I'd recommend you look at improving the content for 2007 Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race by potentially merging this info to make a 2006 & 2007 page. TRL (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suggest you accept the content is not notable and let the content be deleted. Your closure of the above discussion was a completely unacceptable reading of the discussion and hence why it was reverted. Tvx1 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a section for support races, if necessary media coverage and content were provided. What was part of the deleted article looks simply not enough.Rpo.castro (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all do what you want! I disagree with the complete delete of the section - it is inappropriate. If you disagree with the merge... put it all back to the original configuration... don't just delete it! That action is more harmful than the merge itself. My read on the closure of over five months of discussion about the merge was 3-2 vote support for merge.
By blatantly deleting the content you are inhibiting this discussion and the merge... You shouldn't delete and not finish the undo... TRL (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and BTW @Tvx1 where were you in the vote of the merge discussion? You have not provided input there, yet you revert the actions? This does not make sense... TRL (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance is the 3-2 "vote", when this was a discussion and not a vote? That's not how consensus works. As for your suggestion that the original article should be restored, with that I agree, and will do so shortly. It is my opinion, however, that this issue would be best settled at AfD. A7V2 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned to see if a consensus was formed on this but nothing happened. I wonder if anybody who believes the article is only about the F1 race has thoughts on also removing the Economic impact section as this is the impact of the event, not the F1 race. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making the article about the event instead of the race doesn't make the F3 support race a notable part of it. --Falcadore (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1231302207"