Talk:1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Untitled

Excellent work done on this article. --Golbez 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Schumacher

Although completely erelevant, didn't Schumacher laugh on the podium at Imola? Sorry, I've just seen a few vids on You Tube and I was wondering if anyone had recorded the 1994 San Marino GP - If so, please can you check, thanks :) --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some edited video that shows him smiling. In the full live version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F2BWbi_1pc) it's far less apparent. Also at the time of the podium, Senna's death had yet to be announced, and the last information the drivers knew was probably just before the race restart (this was a mistake in Speed Channel's programme, who appear to take his offical time of death not time of announcement into account) Alexj2002 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks Alex :-). --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 12:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speed Channel Didn't cover F1 in 1994. ESPN 2 did. I did watch the race live, and I remember Bob Varsha saying on live Broadcast because he was at ESPN " What is going on this weekend, we have a 3 time world champion figting for his life and a driver dead", I remember Katayama spinning but recover, the anouncers laughing that something finally went right, one of the cars lost a tire in the pit lane, it was just a crazy weekend and crazy race and day that I will never forget, I was still in college and I took a small nap after the race hopping for the best news, I woke up at 10:45 CST or so and started watching ESPN Again and that was when the announcement came that Ayrton Senna was gone. It watch the rebroadcast later that night in some strange way like your watching a movie that you hope the ending would change. It was later mentioned that the drivers did know that result before going on the podium. Seeing those words come across the bottom of my father's TV screen is a moment that I cannot forget....DBS _{The preceeding unsigned comment was left by 68.1.68.146 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}

Correct but I was referring to the Speed channel replay of the race shown a few years back, where they said when the podium sequence was being shown "At this point, they know that Aytron Senna is dead". The official announcement was later but the time of death was at the time of the crash. The drivers and F1 paddock might well have been told before the official announcement. Alexj2002 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I also Watch the Fontana race in '99 that Greg Moore was killed. There was a lot of smilling but it was all because they were saying their goodbye to Greg thinking of the man and the battle and good times they had. They interviewed Chip Ganassi and He was smilling and he said "yeah Greg is up there on that big track in the Sky" . I assume if Schuemacher was smiling, he was simply reflecting on his time and battle with Senna. I did watch the rebroadcase on Speed as well and I didn't quit catch all the comments but those were recorded over the original live comments. Speed did a rebroadcast of the whole decade and the Funny thing is Bob Varsha was the voice of the original broadcast and he had to record over that during the rebroadcast with Speed. ...DBS

yes, but he has no excuse for laughing. Roland Ratzenberger died during qualifying, remember? Bubby the Tour G 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

True,,,but I cannot imagine what goes on in these guys lives. I've seen guys get their car destroyed in massive start line crashes and get out and run back to their spare car like nothing happen. I have to think that they have to avoid the fear or the feeling as much as they can to continue on that edge. DBS

I never thought about it like that before, but it's a good point. All the drivers take the responsiblity of their sport and I believe even in times of death, it is very important to laugh and be positive. 64.180.7.63 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Aelange

Nice work

Just wanted to say that! --4u1e 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree 218.186.9.1 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Senna's last lap

After counting the seconds via this video: [1], Ayrton Senna's last lap was roughly 1 minute, 26 seconds - Sorry that's the best I can do for now --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how fast his lap was, I find it very hard to believe that it was the 3rd fastest for the whole race, Senna was notorious for doing that early on but I would think that on a 2 stop strategy he was carrying a lot of fuel. DBS

Rubens Barichello - Practice or Qualifying?

Did Rubens's accident happen during a practice or qualifying session? Did Friday qualifying even take place during the '94 season? Something tells me it did, which is why I want to check if I've got it right in the article. Alexj2002 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It was during qualifying. I've corrected the article and added a reference. Alexj2002 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts

There's some stuff to do with the article I'd like help with finding information on.

• Firstly were Larrousse punished for letting Comas leave the pits? Were they fined and if so how much?
• The BBC cut away from the RAI pictures of Senna's crash. Did any other broadcasters cut to their own pictures?

Will add more when I think of them. Alexj2002 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know the bbc where the only broadcaster capable of cuting to their own pictures.Sion 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Murray Walker's autobiography, this was the first race they'd ever taken their own outside-broadcast kit to the event, as they started doing this for European rounds from 1994 onwards.--MartinUK (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, "As Time Goes By" by Christopher Hilton has an interview with the BBC's GP producer Mark Wilkin who explains how this was the first time they could do it compared with having to cut away altogether as they did with Berger's crash in '89. He mentions they'd decided that's how they would do it the previous day after seeing the graphic images RAI showed with Roland's crash (quali was not shown live by the BBC). AlexJ (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Larrousee did not recieve punishment. DBS

Peer review checklist

the intro discussion of concequences (changes in saftey) don't match the main article text (state funeral, court case, with a little on saftey). The two should be closer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Made changes to the lead and legacy sections to address this. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This sentence To add to the confusion, Érik Comas left the pits whilst the circuit was closed under red flag. Marshalls frantically waved him down as he approached the scene of the accident travelling at "pretty much full speed". Eurosport commentator John Watson described this as "the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen at any time in my life". needs explaining for people unfamilia r with the sport. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained this in a bit more detail, and it's been edited to make it clearer. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that some more information on how the race actually went would be good. It is true that the racing between Schumacher and Larini pales compared to other events, but for completeness it would be worth having. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The main points on how the race went after Senna's crash added, mainly details of changes for the lead. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also much as I hate fair use an image, if one can be found, would be good. I can only find pics of Senna's car after the crash which are of dubious taste, perhaps someone has a F1 magazine from the time. Not essential, and certainly doesn't need lots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a screenshot from the video used in the court case, it shows Senna's car leaving the track from multiple angles, and as it was used in the courtcase, I think we can claim fair use on it without any problems. Alexj2002 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside...

The charges of manslaughter were, and are, absolutely outrageous. If anyone had, impossibly but here for the sake of argument, known the slightest hint of what was going to happen, Senna would simply have not been allowed to run, or the equivalent of, with the car withdrawn immediately. Charging those men with a crime is tantamount to the madness of saying they weren't devastated by it, and I'm sorry but someone needs to point out the sheer incredulity of such a claim, at best. --Chr.K. 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are but what the Wikipedia article needs to do is state the facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. The majority of people will come to that conclusion but we've gotta stay NPOV. I believe that Italian law states (or stated at the time) that someone has to be found responsible for someone's death. That may be the person themselves or someone else, even if it was an accident. In Senna's case it wasn't his fault, and no-one else tried to kill him - it was an accident but the laws meant that someone had to be brought to trial over it. Alexj2002 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alex - you are correct. It's just the way Italian law works, very similar for Jochen Rindt's death, if I recall correctly.

You don't appear to understand manslaughter. Manslaughter does not require people have an intention to kill or an awareness that their actions will cause death. It simply requires that there is an criminal negligence or recklessness. Also, it's extremely stupid to claim that charging them suggests they don't regret it. Indeed in many cases even with murder people may later regret their actions and may be devasted by them. It doesn't change their culpability (although it may change their sentence) Nil Einne 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the WP Manslaughter page: "Negligence consists of conduct by an individual which is not reasonable -- that is, the individual did not act with the care and caution of a reasonable person in similar circumstances." - If we take reasonable person in similar circumstances to mean any other Formula One team engineers (or Indycar/Champcar/other top racing series) then I'm sure they'd take the same amount of care and caution while at the same time taking the same risks which both the team and driver accept are necessary to be competitive. Of course, that's my own POV so is not suitable for inclusion in the article. AlexJ 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Pictures

We can't use pictures that have no Fair Use rationale, those two did not have one and would be reason for the article to be rejected as a good. Additionally it would be hard to claim fair use on them as a free alternative would be possible for both. With respect anyone can use Google Images to get pictures of Senna driving a Williams or Barichello in Jordan overalls, the difficult task is finding one that is freely licenced, and that's what this article requires. Alexj2002 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of pictures I found these [2]. They are pretty graphic to say the least, but do clearly doccument Senna's death. I saw someone commenting on this artcles featured article nomination page, that the could have used another picture in the article. One of these could do the trick, although chances are they have no Fair Use rationale, but if they do it could be good. Gran2 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Big revert

The Youtube links provided were removed as we must not link to material that violates someones copyright. The photos were also removed as they too were copyright to various sites, and incorrectly claimed to be GFDL. Alexj2002 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Version added

I have added a spoken version of this article today; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratzenberger's death

Were any charges brought by the Italian government over Ratzenberger's death, like they had with Senna? The359 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that (but no source to back it up due to the overshadowing of Roland's death by Senna's) Ratzenberger's death, which was caused partially by him knocking his wing loose over a kerb on the previous lap, was deemed to have been (to put it bluntly) his own fault in that his mistake hitting the kerb had caused the car to fail and lose control. Senna's loss of control was not established although Italian prosecutors believed it to have been caused by a poor weld on his steering wheel column - something that was someone other than Senna's fault. Without sources though I can't confirm Roland's investigation either way. AlexJ 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First safety car?

If I recall correctly, this was also the first race ever (or first race in quite some time) in which the safety car had been deployed since a rule change. This might help explain the mention of concern from the drivers that the safety car was not fast enough. The359 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The safety car was first used in an F1 race in 1973. It wasn't used again until Brazil 1993, which I wouldn't regard as a long time before. I believe it might have been used at the GP before Imola ('94 Pacific GP) The main concern was over the safety car itself. It was a standard (except for lights and stickers) Opel Vectra (European version of the UK Vauxhall Cavalier). The car was hopelessly inadequate speed-wise to start with, before it's brakes were shot after just two laps. Compare it to today when you have a heavily modified AMG-Mercedes Benz, that is idling for the whole race in case it's called out, and drivers still complain about tire pressures and you get some idea of the concerns about the Vectra. AlexJ 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember seeing the safety car used there, I just thought I had heard commentators say that it was a first. I figured it might be useful in explaining why the drivers would have a problem with the safety car going slow specifically before this race, if it was a first. The359 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that is was used the previous race had allowed the drivers to realise how slow it was (remembering that driver aids were banned in '94 so SC in '94 was different to '93 when electronics might have compensated for tyre temperatures). Pure speculation that though, we have no way of knowing exactly why they raised their concerns only that they did. AlexJ 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be 7 years after this discussion but it was the first time it had been used in 1994, the second time in a dry race (I don't think the 1973 usage really counts), and the third time overall: Brazil 1993, Britain 1993, and San Marino 1994. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Circuit Maps

The circuit maps aren't accurate. The Tamburello turn is too sharp, the chicane at Acque Minerale is omitted (and this part of the circuit is showing in something resembling its 1995-present configuration), and the second of the two Variante Bassa chicanes is also omitted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.112.187 (talk) 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I've corrected these mistakes in the map at the top of the page, can you confirm that's now correct (or point out any further mistakes) before I change the rest of the maps please. AlexJ 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any further mistakes being pointed out, I've carried out the circuit layout update to the Tamburello and Villeneuve images. AlexJ 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing wording about the GPDA

This sentence-"It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, " reads like the organization existed but needed reforms, not that it had ceased to exist in 1982 and was reconstituted as a direct result of the accidents as stated by the page about the GPDA.-Anonymous reader of the featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Good point. I'll do something about it. Rdfox 76 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Post-race comments added from NASCAR as well

Let's not forget that later that day in NASCAR in the Winston Cup (now NEXTEL Cup) race at Talladega Superspeedway, Alabama, it was also on the hearts and minds of the Winston Cup drivers, both with pole sitter Ernie Irvan and the eventual winner Dale Earnhardt. When Earnhardt won the race at victory lane on ESPN, Earnhardt expressed his condolences to all of the fans of Senna. The death of Senna did not get much reaction in the United States while it was international news. Interestingly enough, both Irvan and Earnhardt would suffer head injuries later in their careers. Irvan crashed during a practice run at Michigan International Speedway on August 20, 1994, but would later return to race the following season before retiring in 1999 from injuries suffered five years to the day in a wreck at Michigan. Earnhardt would die from his on the last turn of the last lap of the 2001 Daytona 500 and would generate as much mourning in the US, but not outside the the country like Senna's death did nearly seven years earlier. Chris 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if memory serves, there WAS significant mourning outside the US for Earnhardt's death, though not of quite the same type as for Senna's, as there was much less personal feeling from it. However, I remember for certain that a number of F1 websites honored Earnhardt after his death.

Interestingly, when I moved recently, I found that I had, for some reason, kept a copy of the sports section of the May 2, 1994, issue of USA Today. I couldn't figure out what story convinced me to hang onto it for over ten years, but it did move with me for the small article on Senna's death.

...and now I realize this is rapidly turning into a forum discussion, so I won't go any further on it. Rdfox 76 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There was actually quite a bit of reaction in the United States among sports fans; even if F1 isn't nearly as popular here as in Europe, people knew who Ayrton Senna was, just as European racing fans knew who Dale Earnhardt was when he died. Would you believe I also found a copy of that same issue of USA Today when I moved a few weeks ago? Jsc1973 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

HANS device

Hi. This article says that following the Grand Prix the HANS device was brought in. This is kinda misleading as I understand the HANS system was not brought in until 2005ish (I remember the commentators saying that Montoya should be used to it as he's driven NASCAR where its been standard for years). So I dont think that the HANS introduction was directly linked with the death of Senna. Thoughts? Gringotsgoblin 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)gringotsgoblin

What it's trying to say is that since the race, safety has become a higher priority in F1. Some of the big examples are given which as you say have happened several years after the race (I believe HANS was 2003 so 9 years after, Bahrain GP Circuit was finished in 2004). I still think examples of increased safety should be given (to avoid the question 'Like what?') but perhaps they don't belong in the lead? AlexJ 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to include them, but as you say, it's not really appropriate in the lead. Perhaps in a separate section further in which deals with the ramifications of the deaths. (I didn't think the reference to the Bahraine GP was out of place as the track was presumably planned well in advance of its build and inclusion into F1 - therefore its planning may well have taken into account the lessons of San Marino. However, HANS being incorporated so much later on, when it was available for years, indicates that something else was responsible for its inclusion...) Gringotsgoblin 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance Scale changed

I've changed the importance scale from "High" to "Top" as per this page. Due to its significance on the sport, I cannot argue with that assessment. Not to mention, it is a Featured Article! Formulanone.one.two 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - but quality of the article (FA) has nothing to do with its importance. There is (or used to be) an FA on Exploding whales. How important is that, in a world context? ;-) 4u1e (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible source of photos

I have just come across this website, which has a link to some photos taken by the webmaster of the Grand Prix. I can't read the disclaimer (link at the bottom of the page) as it's in Italian, but if someone contacted him about permission to use the photos, it's possible that something good could come of it.-- Diniz(talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost any of those photos would be superb, if the author was to release just one or two under CC-BY. Need to find someone on WP:F1 who speaks Italian! AlexJ (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Berger retired by team?

I'm reading a first-hand account here link to Jalopnik that Berger was retired by the team manager and the handling problems was a ruse. How much credibility do we want to place on this? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely plausible, and I expect it's true. Nevertheless, that isn't a reliable enough source for it to be included in the article, and ultimately per WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". AlexJ (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I did not want to jump in with an edit on the main page with this. It looks like Berger has no autobiography out either so I wonder if there is a verifiable source that corroborates this story. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Saturday qualifying

The session was not cancelled, but delayed for about twenty-five minutes after Ratzenberger's accident (although several teams did not run afterwards). I've got a copy of Eurosport's coverage of the session. The sources used to reference the session being cancelled (Frank Williams biography and Damon Hill article) are probably derived from the fact that Williams took no further part in the session.--Midgrid(talk) 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the change.--Midgrid(talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Official Race Classification table?

Does anyone have access to the official Race Classification table (formula1.com, being the current source, often tends to have erroneous information—so I wouldn't regard it as a good source)?

I specifically note the following discrepancies with my sources (major one of which in this case is the recording of the contemporary TV broadcast):

• Larini's time was 54.941 (not .942)
• Hakkinen's time was 1'10.678 (not .679)
• Number of laps for non-finishers from Berger till Alboreto (at least for those seven) were one less than currently listed in the article (should be respectively 15, 16, 22, 26, 36, 39, 43 laps)
• Comas - not sure if he finished 4 or 5 laps: he was last seen on the 5th lap still going, but then before the race was stopped he was missing from the line of cars driving around the circuit; and he didn't re-start the race.
• Ratzenberger was not DNS, he was DNQ (the 26th grid position was left vacant in his memory, but this didn't mean he qualified into the race). (This one even formula1.com agrees on, so I'm not even clear why with formula1.com being the source of his results for the article, he is still listed as DNS.)

cherkash (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ratzenberger set the 26th fastest laptime in qualifying (1:27.584) on one of the laps before his fatal accident. The top 26 qualified for the race in 1994, regardless of time (there was no 107% rule or similar until 1996). As mentioned in the article, this meant " A time posted by Ratzenberger before his fatal crash would have been sufficient for entry into the race starting from the 26th and final position on the grid." hence DNS rather than DNQ. AlexJ (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that in the race results it lists Senna as retiring after 5 full laps when he had completed 6 full laps. His crash was at the beginning of lap 7. It also says he crashed on lap 6 in the actual article. For some reason this misinformation is common and I see it all the time, however if you watch the race you will clearly see six full laps occur before Senna's crash on lap 7. Furthermore, lap 6 was the lap on which he set the 3rd fastest time of the race. It would be hard to do that if he crashed at the beginning of the lap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.152.48 (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The countback rule applied for re-starts at the time. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00187.htm
  • In 1994 San Marino Grand Prix on 2011-05-25 06:10:50, 404 Not Found
  • In 1994 San Marino Grand Prix on 2011-06-08 02:38:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Classifications table

Personally, I don't think it's beneficial for the classifications table to be being changed constantly. Just look at the edit history of the last couple of years and you'll see what I mean. I tried to add some notes to prevent the random changes. That was met with, shall we say, resistance. I can't address it specifically since the other editor involved has made some pretty serious threats.

Again, in my opinion, the notes are necessary, regardless of what the consensus decision is on what the table says. Reactionary blocking of edits does not seem constructive to me. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a note saying "This is the official classification. Do not change!" regarding a blank space in the wrong column is terribly helpful. Maybe other editors will disagree with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you're in favor of editors randomly changing the classifications table with no regard for factual accuracy. Noted. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I proved the opposite when I reverted you here [3]. You put notes in the table implying that "accident" is a classification (it isn't) and that a blank space is also a classification (it isn't). That column is not the classification column anyway. That column is for explaining why a driver retired or failed to qualify. The cited source says "accident" for Senna, and I don't see anyone trying to change it since you tried to change it, so no note is necessary, in my opinion. The source does not cover reasons for non-qualification, but there is no question as to why Ratzenberger and Barrichello did not start the race. I fail to see why you removed those reasons for their non-participation, so I have restored them. Do you question the factual accuracy of those quoted reasons? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As you are well aware, that is a deliberate misrepresentation and not what we're discussing here. Are you now going to claim I'm attacking you again by simply disagreeing? 128.114.59.144 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, forgot I logged out. Whatever, I'm done here anyways. I can't work with editors who are so opposed to wikipedia's core mission. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me. I thought it was pretty good myself - what did I misrepresent? I'm addressing the hidden comments you added, as per your first comment in this section, and your removal of the reasons for Barrichello and Ratzenberger's non-participation here [4]. If this discussion is about something else, please elaborate. Also, jolly up a bit and try to assume good faith please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. If you want people to assume good faith, maybe try not making obviously false accusations and then being deliberately obtuse about it. You know perfectly well that the edit you linked was superseded by a later one. Why would you keep harping on it? Why would you attack me on my talk page claiming I was championing a version I clearly wasn't? Why would you bring this up again here, and than blatantly lie immediately after and claim you weren't doing so? Why are you pretending to be unaware of the fact that this has been changed dozens of times in the past? You'll receive an assumption of good faith from me the minute you acknowledge you've been acting in bad faith and agree to stop. If you don't consider that other editors are worthy of even the slightest bit of respect, why are you even here? What can the rest of us do? It's wikipedia, not Bretonbanquetpedia. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's quite enough fucking around. I'm not entering into whatever it is you're trying to do. If others have anything to say here, then I'm sure they'll do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to have a rational discussion about a way to improve wikipedia. That is clearly at odds with what you are doing. I thought that was perfectly clear, but if I'm missing something, it would be ridiculously easy to show otherwise. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My post at 00:33 was concerning your hidden comments, which was what you started this discussion about, and your removal of the Ratzenberger / Barrichello info, which was your last edit to the article. If you want to respond to what I said, please do. You think you're rational? In the last 2½ hours, you've accused me of the following: lying, having a personal agenda with no regard for guidelines, acting in bad faith, vandalism, being pro-vandalism, attempting to destroy Wikipedia, disrespecting other editors, attempting to make Wikipedia a more dysfunctional place, having a long history of disruptive editing and making threats against other editors. If you want to continue to do that, the place to do it is here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the San Marino flag.

The San Marino Grand Prix, as represented by the Italian flag. I'm pretty sure San Marino is not part of Italy. Ezza1995 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct: San Marino is not part of Italy, but the convention of the Formula One WikiProject is to use the flag of the country in which the circuit is located, so in this case the Italian flag is used because the circuit at which the race was held (Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari) is located in Italy, not San Marino. DH85868993 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right, and it's partly because according to the Manual of Style for flags, flag icons are not allowed to be used to represent events, only places and people's nationalities. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1994 San Marino 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.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/formulaone/article2331237.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C12771-1077121%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/formulaone/article2333563.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026111820/http://www.gpracing.net192.com/drivers/prost-senna.cfm to http://www.gpracing.net192.com/drivers/prost-senna.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive imagery in article

I've just removed some of the imagery in the article. Much of it was duplicated by others, or didn't add to the article, also making the sections too image heavy compared to the rest of the article. I know an image is worth a thousand words, but there was a millions words going on there... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens Yea I still think there are a few more pictures than needed in the Race Day section, I see you reverted them, and then someone reverted them back. But, I won't complain, I just think it looks a little overcook, a little crowded. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns

I don't think this article meets modern FA requirements because it there are some comprehensiveness issues. The background just lists the points without mentioning other controversies such as Senna being adamant that Benetton had illegal technology, and then in the qualifying it only mentions about 1-2 lines about the actual competition; the rest is about tragic accidents. Some detail about qualifying and some competitors continuing after RR was killed and the race (apart from Senna's accident) is not so detailed. eg, Google came up immediately with this. Compared to more recent F1 race FAs, this one is quite thin on racing details, especially as it is likely to be ones most written about Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)