Talk:2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

Formula One High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 29 October 2020 by reviewer Tvx1 (talk · contribs).

Name

The name section is pertinent and not speculative. Why the name San Marino GP was not chosen was on my mind (and likely on the minds of many other people) and must therefore be answered in the article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there have to be a reason? And why does the reason have any relevance to the race?
SSSB (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is a reason, so we add it - that's the whole purpose of WP. Sure, the name is not relevant to the race, but intrinsic to this article itself (like a etymology section of a place name - it is not relevant to living in a certain place but relevant to the overall knowledge about the subject). The reasons for removing it border on "I don't loke it". An article by a motorsports journalist is not speculation. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So much information for reporting its name from an interview? Just no sense. I don't remember adding different stuff for the Styrian Eifel and Tuscan Grands Prix for example, except only for the section about the impact of the pandemic.--Island92 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's the whole purpose of WP - no the purpose of the encylopedia is to be encylopedic. And why the name was choosen to no intrinisic the article. The value it adds is minimal at best and is not relevant to the overall knowledge about the subject. Race names are named after countries predominatly, otherwise for promotinal purposes.

You accuse us of using "I don't like it", but I see no evidence that your arguement is anything other than "I like it" or .

I feel like this could even border on WP:FANCRUFT, given that it has even been admitted that the name was choosen for promotional purposes.
SSSB (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This: In previous years F1 had the rule to have only one Grand Prix per country. is also false. The rule is different races within a year must have unique names. (i.e. one Italian Grand Prix a year, otherwise the San Marino Grand Prix, US West Grand Prix or (for some years) the European Grand Prix couldn't have happened.
SSSB (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not comparable to Styrian, Eifel, and Tuscan GP. Imola has a long history of being known as San Marino GP.

Whether or not to include this info is purely subjective, I can equally point to WP:NOTINTERESTING.

As for the F1 rule, I may not have quoted it accurately, but in essence it is true. Just a matter of finding the right source. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a good source available on the reason for the race being held under a different name than previous races which have taken place at the same venue then that is perfectly reasonable information to include in the article, as the change may be a source of confusion to some readers. However it is unlikely to warrant more than a passing mention, ie.:

"The race was held under the title of the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix in order to promote the region's economic interests."

Or whatever reason (if any) is given by a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:1012:E043:B81B:675B (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a compromise I am willing to accept. It may also be worth doing the same for EIfel.
SSSB (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the Eifel Grand Prix there was a clearly stated reason why it wasn't held under the German Grand Prix title, namely that the naming rights belong to the organisers of the Hockenheimring race and not the organisers of the Nürburgring race.

In the case of this race the stated reason doesn't seem to be especially meaningful, and the fact that there has already been an Italian Grand Prix this year should make it relatively clear to readers why an unambiguous name was chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:75A4:A2F3:3F1:14B3 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, for everyone else wondering why this GP was not called the San Marino Grand Prix and expecting to find the answer here, just check out my edit in the article history of October 31. Regards, -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Verstappen's retirement

There has been some disagreement between editors as to how we should list the cause of Verstappen's retirement in the results table, with "tyre failure" and "span off" being the potential options. The issue here is that there is a chain of causality. The tyre failure caused Verstappen to spin off which caused his car to get stuck in the gravel. Just saying he span off could imply that Verstappen was driving incompetently, which isn't really the case, as the tyre failure was largely beyond his control, but in turn the tyre failure did not directly lead to the retirement quite so much as spinning off did. Perhaps this should be discussed. @Arbres:, @Btad16:, @Engr. Smitty:, and @SSSB: seem to have made edits regarding this (and are invited to voice their opinions), as well as a couple of IP users. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The established pratice here is to list the cause of retirement, not the cause of the cause. The cause here is that he span off. The fact that this was caused by a puncture is not included in the results table by long-standing convention. SSSB (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the ultimate cause of retirement and not just causes of causes then surely we should list "stuck in gravel" as the cause of retirement? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's being a little pedantic. SSSB (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any more pedantic than saying "he didn't retire because his tyre failed, he retired because the tyre failure caused him to spin off"? The fact of the matter is that multiple editors have tried to change the table and arguably there is something of an WP:EDITCONSENSUS for changing it. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on what it should say, but I think how to handle cases like this warrants discussion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:EDITCONSENSUS doesn't make that arguement. It argues there is an implied consensus if an edit is not reverted. Multiple editors making the same change doesn't imply consensus.

To the more important issue at hand, no, it isn't more pedantic. If I read "tyre failure" or "puncture" as cause of retirement I think either the puncture caused so much damage to the rest of the car it was forced to retire, or the driver couldn't make it back to the pits to change tyre, neither of which are correct. SSSB (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]