Talk:70th Anniversary Grand Prix

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

Orphaned references in 70th Anniversary 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 70th Anniversary 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 "auto":

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⚡ 00:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Grand Prix[edit]

There is some inconsistency and back-and-forth about the name of the Grand Prix. Is the name Anniversary Grand Prix or 70th Anniversary Grand Prix? (i.e. should the lead read first running of the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix or first running of the Anniversary Grand Prix?)
SSSB (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I ask that RM are put on hold pending a consensus here given that the result of this discssion may affect people's opion on the article title (including mine)
SSSB (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Struck through at 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC) as discussion complete[reply]

The lead as it stands now is correct. This is a one-of running of the Grand Prix of the 70th Anniversary, not the 70th running of the Anniversary Grand Prix.Tvx1 14:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Yes but alternativly you could say that this is the first running of an Anniversary Grand Prix with it celebrating the 70th Anniversary of Formula One, but you don't think that the approach we should take?
SSSB (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. At this time there is no indication of an intention to hold any other "Anniversary Grands Prix". No source whatsoever doesn't treat it as single semantic entity. If in say 30th years time they hold a 100th Anniversary Grand Prix we can always revisit then.Tvx1 15:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if at some later date there was another xxth Anniversary Grand Prix they wouldn't necessarily be related. This Grand Prix is celebrating the 70th anniversary of the World Championship which only happens once. Definitely keep as 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. The lead shouldn't mention that this is the first running of anything since if something will only be done once there's no point mentioning this. A7V2 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we have a pretty clear consensus for including the 70th (no-one against, already advertised), I'll implement.
SSSB (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2020[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This is an interesting discussion in that before the race, this would've been closed differently, but after, possibly due to how the FIA classified the race, consensus swung strongly against. The consistency argument is a strong one – AFAIK, the "[Year] [Location] Grand Prix" is a de facto, if not de jure convention – but there are always exceptions, for example, the 1950s Indy 500s, and the redundancy argument is also a strong one. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


70th Anniversary Grand Prix → 2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix – There is a uniform name schema for individual World Championship race articles: "YEAR NAME Grand Prix".

As was already agreed above, the "NAME" in this case is "70th Anniversary", as it indeed serves as a single semantic entity and can't be broken into "70th" and "Anniversary" without changing its meaning. So unlike some claims made in various recent discussions, the "70th" part can't serve as a substitute for the year (or indeed for the ordinal number of the particular race in a series, as in e.g. "2º Gran Premio di San Marino", which it is not in this case) even if it sort of uniquely identifies the season. I say "sort of" because even the year/season could be arrived at by different means as either 2019 (70th running of the World Championship) or 2020 (70th anniversary of the first WC race, as indeed intended by the FIA here).

There is no reason to deviate from this standard race article naming schema – as we use it on Wikipedia even for true one-off races (like Styrian or Tuscan this year). And additionally, even the official name of this 70th Anniversary Grand Prix doesn't omit the year ("Emirates Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix 2020").

So to summarize, there are three good reasons to stick to the standard naming convention: to maintain uniformity among the related article names; to avoid any confusion as to the year/season where any confusion could be easily avoided in the first place by explicitly stating the year; and to take into account that even the official name includes the year of the running. cherkash (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The first Formula One Grand Prix that took place was actually the 1946 Turin Grand Prix. Therefore the 70th Anniversary of Formula One Grand Prix was strictly 2016 (it's not the "Formula 1 70th Anniversary World Championship Grand Prix" (or some variation thereof)). This combined with not everyone knowing the World Championship started in 1950 and Cherkash's other arguments is more than sufficient for me to support this move.
    SSSB (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the 70th anniversary does not refer to the first running under grand Prix regulations. It regards the first season of a complete world championship of Formula One where the first race of the first full world championship season was the 1950 British Grand Prix. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There already appeared to be a consensus at the 2020 season talk page for having only 70th, although it looks like SSSB has changed their mind (not intended in any way as a criticism if it reads that way). In any case, this is an event which can never take place again. There's no reason in future there couldn't be another Styrian Grand Prix (perhaps as an F2 race or whatever) but there can never be another race commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the World Championship, which is what this race will be. Just because not everyone knows that the championship started in 1950 is not a reason to include the year. In fact arguably not everyone knowing that the WC started in 1950 is part of the reason for the race in the first place. Just like the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II there is no need to include the year since it will simply only happen the once. The fact that the official name includes the year is as irrelevant as always (although it appears to be after the rest of the name anyway), since we should use the common name, but of course 2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix etc would be valid redirects.
As a side note, strictly speaking F1 didn't exist until 1947 but since the regulations were of course already written before then the Turin GP was held to those new regulations, something for the historians to argue about. Also I think this move discussion needs more input so I will list it at the F1 wikiproject. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - I'm not sure I understand how it would be confusing to not have the year in the article title, or why we want to "add information" in the title. That is not what an article title is for. The first few sentences of the article make it quite clear what year the race took place if someone happened upon the article, and otherwise the only time it would be useful already assumes the person searching knows the year anyway (ie if they searched for it). Also, to respond directly to the three points made by cherkash, consistency should only be used to determine a title where the other four reasons are unclear (see Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles) which I don't believe is the case here (on all four of the other requirements I would argue including 2020 is unnecessary), I don't agree that having the year in the title would remove confusion as to when the event took place since that's what the article is for, and the official name is not relevant (so if someone could show that the common name includes 2020 then that would be a reason to add 2020). A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear I changed my mind from oppose to undecided due to WP:CONSISTENCY and the to support based on the first F1 race being in 1946.
    SSSB (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument per consistency (although as I explained above I disagree that it is sufficient), but I still really don't understand the reasoning of "not everyone knowing the World Championship started in 1950", or that arguably it shouldn't be called a 70th anniversary, therefore we need the year. Whether you or I like it or not, that's what they've called it. But to the point, there's only three ways someone will find this article. It could be featured on the main page, in which case text immediately before or after would probably have the year/date anyway, it could be through a search, in which case they would either search just 70th Anniversary Grand Prix (in which case they may or may not know the year, but will soon find out from the article if they don't know), or will search 2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix in which case they clearly did know the year. Finally they could find the article through a link, almost certainly from one of: the 2020 season article (so it would be obvious from the context), a driver or team/constructor article, where it certainly SHOULD be obvious from the context (and if in prose the year would usually be piped away anyway), or on the Silverstone page where it should be in the prose anyway (since this would be only the second time a circuit hosted two WC races in one season). I honestly can't think of a single context where having 2020 in the article title would help here. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly would be of help to some people, if not yourself. Not every reader has your knowledge. Can you think of a single reason it would be unhelpful? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What knowledge? The information would be in the article. That's what articles are for? Not everyone will know the race is held at Silverstone but we don't add that information to the title. It is unhelpful as it violates WP:CONCISE. When would it be helpful? A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it violates WP:CONCISE. The year the race was held is not frippery. Not everyone will know from "70th Anniversary Grand Prix" that it was held in 2020, so adding "2020" is helpful to those people. Obviously if it is seen as a link in another article, that information will not be otherwise evident. Article titles are not restricted to the top of the article in question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the criteria you outline also apply to the Styrian Grand Prix, but that has the year in the title. There may be another one in the future, but this isn't the future and there's only one Styrian Grand Prix. So no need for the year, right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there could be another Styrian GP. There can never be another 70th Anniversary GP, and if there was another Anniversary GP held in, say, 2030, then it would be the 80th Anniversary GP. I still don't understand how putting information in the article title would be useful but it doesn't really matter as consensus is against me anyway. A7V2 (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly true. They could theoretically celebrate the 70th anniversary of a different aspect of the sport in the future.Tvx1 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And when that day comes I would unequivocally support including the year! A7V2 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per cherkash, who made a good case. I don't see that the probability that there will never be another 70th Anniversary GP is enough to make "2020" redundant. It simply adds information, even though technically, one could work out the year from the anniversary. I particularly don't like there being one single GP with no year in the title. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support been mulling this over, and whilst there's unlikely to be another 70th Anniversary Grand Prix, consistency is key, and the consistency of race articles is "YEAR NAME Grand Prix". And in 10 years time, people aren't necessarily going to remember that the Anniversary Grand Prix was in 2020, so makes sense to have it in the article title. Also, this isn't so different from the 2020 Styrian Grand Prix, which is another one off (at least for now) race. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the consistency should be kept. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I believe it would be proper to wait for when the race week comes to see how the race is being promoted, with or without the 2020 in the name. I believe this move request has come a bit too early and thus we should not decide on a consensus until a bit before free practice Friday (7 August) as opinions may change. Admanny (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? This is race is already clearly promoted by the sport with the 2020 included in its name. Just look on the F1's site.Tvx1 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I opposed. See below. Admanny (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the official name.--95.248.50.157 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The race is clearly promoted by the sport with the 2020 included in its name.Tvx1 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Is "the sport" a reliable source? We should go with the common name as used by reliable sources. A7V2 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why on earth FIA and FOM would not be reliable sources??Tvx1 17:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: You said the sport, which is in a sense just an abstract thing, not an entity capable of publishing anything. Whether the FIA or FOM are reliable sources I will not say, but even if they are they should be avoided when other sources are available since they are not independent. Also this so called "The Sport" is also promoting the event as having "Pirelli" and "Formula 1" in the name but you aren't arguing for the inclusion of either of those in the title. We should go with the common name as used by independent reliable sources. A7V2 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TITLECON. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is never going to be another 70th anniversary Grand Prix so why is this additional disambiguation necessary? It makes no sense to complicate the title in this way 2020 is the 70th anniversary season of F1 next season will be the 71st year of formula one. It like adding a year designator to any other kind of one-off event. You wouldn't say this was the 2020 building of a house you would simply say it was the building of a house unless there is a need to add the year. The year is a redundancy which can be done without. Additionally, the Styrian and Tuscan Grand Prix are geographic identifiers and not commemoration of event identifiers. There is a greater than potential likelihood should the global pandemic continue into 2021 or race tracks hold multiple races again, or multiple races are held in a country again that the geographic identifiers could be used again. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained in the move proposal and some of the support rationales, 2020 is not univocally the 70th anniversary of formule one. The first formula one race actually took place in 1946. It is actually the first world championship race that took place in 1950. Adding the year thus does add some clarity.Tvx1 21:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Simply saying the addition of the year adds clarity doesn't mean it does. There is far far far too much being read in to the title of this race than is necessary. It is clear Formula one as we know it today with a world championship etc, first became formalised in 1950. How long do you want the race title to be? DO you want 2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix (World Championship) or something similar for the avoidance of all possible potential confusion, no matter how far fetched or imagined? What reasonable man is honestly confused by the title? Any confusion (if it actually even exists) is explained away in the lede of the article. Titles are not the place for synthetic, pedantic, and semantic distinctions dressed up to be made out to be confusion. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly – Sparkle1, you've inadvertently highlighted the confusion which makes adding the year anything but redundant. It's the 70th anniversary of the World Championship, not of Formula One. There could easily be a 70th anniversary of something else in the future, and it still be called the 70th Anniversary GP. The thing whose anniversary is being celebrated is neither obvious, nor mentioned in the name itself, and adding the year makes it a lot clearer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: This line is nothing but crystal balling "There could easily be a 70th anniversary of something else in the future, and it still be called the 70th Anniversary GP" There is no evidence of that sweeping assertion. This line is also hogwash "whose anniversary is being celebrated is neither obvious, nor mentioned in the name itself". If it is unclear write about it in the article. The addition of a year will not help remove the synthetics, pedantry and semantics here. Real evidence is whats needed here, not synthetics, pedantry, semantics and potential. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more crystal balling than when you said "There is never going to be another 70th anniversary Grand Prix", so that's that aspect covered. You think my claim that something is not obvious and potentially confusing, when you yourself got it completely wrong. That says a lot, really. Your argument is nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no actual evidence to support the claims of confusion please do so. Its all wild claims and unreasonable assertion so far. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What possible evidence of confusion could be more conclusive than your own confusion laid bare above, which you seem not to want to revisit? Anyway, it is not evidence which is required by this discussion, but consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero confusion here, you are reading things which are not there. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you above: "2020 is the 70th anniversary season of F1 next season will be the 71st year of formula one". Incorrect, and clear evidence that others could be equally confused or mistaken. Adding the year can only help similarly bewildered readers. As much as I am enjoying this enlightening badinage, we are here to achieve consensus, and this does not serve that purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand the contortion gone through to make the above claim of non-redundancy. The above is crystal balling as there is no evidence to support the claim that there 'could' be another 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. There is though clear evidence of the use of multiple different geographic locators for races held on the same track or held in the same country. Can you also please provide some evidence to support the claims regarding confusion over the 70th-anniversary title; it is currently assertion without attribution. It is claimed there is confusion but there is no evidence of confusion. If there does happen to in the future be a second 70th Anniversary Grand Prix then this article would easily justify being changed. Wikipedia is not for having titles for potential future occurrences with little to no evidence of occurring. The claims of a second 70th Anniversary Grand Prix are 100% absurdly far-reaching speculation at this point in time. If individuals genuinely believe there is confusion over the title in terms of what anniversary is being referred to then insert an explanation into the article here and the main season article. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sparkle1, you've actually perfectly highlighted one of the possibilities for confusion I originally mentioned in my proposal: you said "next season will be the 71st year of formula one" – but this is wrong: even ignoring the distinction between F1 and WC and assuming you actually meant WC, this season is actually the 71st year (while the next season will be the 72nd). See how confusing this could be? cherkash (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, please provide evidence of real confusion, not semantic distinctions dressed up as confusion. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:TITLE gives us several guiding principles. Consistency is one, but so are precision, recognisibility, conciseness and naturalness. 'Anniversary Grand Prix' hits all four of those for me, so I don't see why we would scarifice it to hit the other. Simple titles are more important than keeping unity with a formula that is mainly familiar only to editors. This proposal puts editor pedentry over user-friendlyness. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix" also hits four of those criteria. Consistency, precision, recognisibility and naturalness. Personally I think the addition of 2020 is so small that the negative impact of a slightly less concise title is outweighed by the benefit of consistency.
    SSSB (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is adding "2020" not user-friendly? I agree that with the year added, the title still satisfies the criteria mentioned. The idea that "70th Anniversary GP" is more precise or more recognisable than "2020 70th Anniversary GP" is a very strange one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I could not agree more. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "70th anniversary" already gives us the year (1950+70=2020) so including it twice is redundant and looks ugly anyway, plus its a one-off so it doesn't matter (if it were held again next year it would be 71st anniversary etc) Buttons0603 (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained above the first Formula One Grand Prix (official name is "Emirates Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix 2020 was actually 1946 (which makes a 70th anniversary of 2016, 1950 was the first Formula One World Championship race). Additionally, let's agree to disagree on "ugly" and there could be other notable 70th Anniversary Grands Prix (there are non-f1 Anniversary Grands Prix).
    SSSB (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge of "other" potential events sharing this title, if it ever occurs, can be crossed then, should it happen to occur, now is premature.Sparkle1 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"70th Anniversary" only gives us the year if we already know it was the anniversary of something that happened in 1950, which, from the title alone, we do not. So it's a poor argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is claim is moot as a result of the explanation in the lede of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Titles should be of the utmost clarity before reading the article, otherwise titles wouldn't matter at all. We could call them all "Motor race" because hey, it's all explained in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is ludicrous and patently unhelpful. Titles should not clarify every possible potential confusion or this title and every other title would be monstrously unwieldy. An example could be to title this article as "70th Anniversary Grand Prix held in the year 2020 of the Gregorian calendar for Formula One motorcar racing held under Formula One Regulations and sanctioned by the governing body which is the International Automobile Federation marking the first race of the first world championship season held under Formula One regulations which was held in 1950 whereas other seasons and races were held before that held under Formula One regulations there is some dispute as to what constitutes the first Formula One race it could be as early as 1946 or as late as 1948" While every possible confusion is clarified, that, I think it would be universally agreed to be a ridiculous title. The race title is fine as it currently stands. Trying to provide clarity every possible conceived, dreamed up or hypothesised scenario, where confusion could potentially somehow arise, is not the job of an article title. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Trying to provide clarity every possible conceived, dreamed up or hypothesised scenario, where confusion could potentially somehow arise, is not the job of an article title." – Ya know, we just want to add the year, for clarity's sake. Or you could exaggerate to a ridiculous degree. Your comment is nothing short of bizarre. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: My reply was intentionally absurd to highlight the absurdity this has devolved to relating to the contortions being gone through in relation to trying to argue for adding the year. I was no different from you going to the other extreme by claiming that "We could call them all "Motor race" ". It is clear there is no consensus to move. It is also clear there is never going to be an agreement between you and I. I think it is best to leave this here before it truly devolves it complete banana republic levels of weirdness.
It seems the arguments put forward for adding the year is clarity, yet it has not been established that adding the year provides any of the supposed clarity being sought. The arguments advocating for a move have failed to provide any convincing argument that the title is actually confusing.
I shall post no more on this topic on this article. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
failed to provide any convincing argument that the title is actually confusing - you pointed out the potential confusion in your comment at 23:42 on 31 July 2020. When you pointed out it is not Formula One's 70th Anniversary (as the official name of the event suggests) but the Formula One World Championship's 70th Anniversary. So failed to provide any convincing argument that the title is actually confusing. is not true as you have acknowledge (several times) that it could potentially be confusing.
SSSB (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a consensus actually, particularly given that one opposer undermined his own initial claim that there was no confusion by getting the anniversary completely wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to reply again but I will not have my position misrepresented by someone determined to be blind to the fact that there is no need to add the year and there is no actual confusion. I will not stand by when another user takes pop shots at me and tries to imply that an idiot. I will not stand by and allow that. I suggest the user takes a second thought before making such ridiculous ill-conceived comments. Any further comments will be reported as necessary. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being told that my difference of opinion is being "determined to be blind to the fact" is equally insulting. You honestly think that your opinion is fact and those opposed are somehow bent on disruption. You go right ahead and report whatever you like. I have neither called you an idiot or implied you were an idiot. Your initial post makes your confusion very clear indeed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the FIA are using the year in official documents [1]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very nice but wholly meaningless when the major media are not using the year as part of their common parlance Sky Sports BBC sport Autosport. Also, Silverstone is not using the year to promote the race Silverstone. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the official governing body's usage is "wholly meaningless". What a thoroughly ridiculous thing to say. Those sources are news sources and those links are headlines. They wouldn't use the year regardless of which race it was, thus they are irrelevant. Silverstone don't use the year on that page but they use it on the drop-down menu. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here's Autosport using the year in a headline, clear as day. So by your own token, we should be using it [2]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is clear there is no consensus to include the year. Autosport clearly hasn't made their mind up over whether or not to use the year and It's clearly the same here. There is nothing convincing here to warrant overturning the previous consensus established regarding the article title. It needs to to be a clear consensus to change the previous consensus on the title. That is clearly lacking in this discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And some more: Telegraph [3], motorsport.com [4], official F1 website [5], racefans.net [6], Red Bull [7], Mercedes [8], Ferrari [9], Yahoo [10]... Plenty use it, others don't. So I think we should stick to the official FIA usage, like we would any other time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going round and round in circles with you there sod all consensus here and TL:DR posting is not going to change my position. Give it up and find something more constructive to do, I know I am and it seems most other people on this thread have as well and some left aeons ago. The grind has driven everyone else away, but it doesn't mean that being voluminous and exhausting is a form of winning. You are also cherrypicking only the teams which support your position other teams disagree. You also cannot invent a standard just because it supports your position. Sparkle1 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You admitting to not reading things you don't agree with speaks volumes for your debating skills. Read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is a consensus here, there are twice as many in favour as opposing. It exists, no matter how much you pretend it doesn't. At least I think that's what you tried to say. Oh, the grind has driven everyone away... I was no more cherrypicking than you were; I was merely countering your selective links with some of my own. The difference is that I did not sarcastically claim they backed up my argument, as you did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, you refer to a previous consensus not to use the year. Where is it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it. The question of including the year was only discussed between three editors there, and they all weighed in here as well. One changed his/her mind. This is a much more specific request to move and should be closed properly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: I have held off from returning to this discussion but there are few things I feel ought to be pointed out. Firstly, I'm unsure why you keep pointing out what sources such as the Formula 1 website use. This is a non-argument in favour of a name change - it simply carries no weight whatsoever (read Wikipedia:Official names). At the time I originally put my oppose no supporter had provided any evidence of use of the year. I thank you for providing some, however note in one case (the Telegraph article, [11]) they explicitly mention this issue of whether the year should be included and they point out that this will be the only 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. I am still not convinced that adding 2020 will in any way "reduce confusion". I just can't see how not knowing what year the race took place would ever be aided by having 2020 in the title given that it would be right at the top of the article anyway. As Sparkle1 points out, there is any number of different pieces of information that could be added to the title but none of which are being argued for. Apart from arguing for consistency (which is a separate reason to include 2020), can you give an example of a situation where including the year in the title would reduce confusion? If not then why bother to make this (in that case faulty) argument if, as you say, consensus is on your side? A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the official name – official names can sometimes be obscure, ambiguous or prone to being changed. That, I feel, is why they are sometimes discouraged on Wikipedia per the guideline you mention. None of those aspects apply to this official name, so I feel here it is a valid point to make, especially as we are talking about a basic modification to the title which already exists in every other Grand Prix article title. The Telegraph do question whether there could be another 70th Anniversary GP, but they are obviously not thinking about other series of motor racing, as someone mentioned above. With regard to your final question, it is not only here that the article title is seen. In future years, will everyone remember what year the race was held? I have said before that I don't believe everyone already understands what anniversary is being celebrated, and I think it's naive to think it's universally understood. I simply do not accept that every reader will automatically know which year this race was held when they see it linked outside this article (i.e. before they see the explanation at the top of this article), and adding the year is a simple way to ensure that they do, in the same way as we do with the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix. If I had typed that as Pescara Grand Prix, would you have known which year it was held? Would every reader know? I think not. I think it's presumptuous to claim that nobody will be confused.
There are indeed many pieces of information which could be added to the title, as Sparkle1 did talk about, but only one which has been added to every single Grand Prix up to now, both Championship and non-Championship. Consistency is a very good reason to add the year, but not the only one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"In future years, will everyone remember what year the race was held?" - No. If I don't know what year the race is held I'm certainly not going to type in "2020 Anniversary Grand Prix" though am I? "I don't believe everyone already understands what anniversary is being celebrated, and I think it's naive to think it's universally understood." - That is explained in the article though, not the title. "when they see it linked outside this article" - The context it is seen in should make it clear what year it was, if that's important (eg it would be mentioned in an article about a driver, and would be in the part about their 2020 season). Do you know automatically what year the Peking to Paris or Paris–Bordeaux–Paris races took place? If I don't know when an event took place I can always click through to the article, but if it was really important and no other way to include it we can always just add the year to the prose, eg from Scipione Borghese, 10th Prince of Sulmona "He is best known for participating in (and winning) the Peking to Paris race in 1907".
Thankyou for explaining your reasoning for mentioning the official name. I disagree with your interpretation but at least we understand eachother. A7V2 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree — we are on different pages here but I do understand and respect your reasoning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly know that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The FIA seems to cut 2020 from its name. Compare:
Race classification for British: [12] - "2020 British Grand Prix"
Race classification for 70th Anniversary: [13] - "70th Anniversary Grand Prix"
And just to throw out any arguments that one-off races don't have a year in them: [14] - "2020 Styrian Grand Prix"
Admanny (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, when I mentioned the FIA source, it was rebuffed as "totally meaningless". Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: Given the FIA's the authority over this I would disagree that it's "totally meaningless". Admanny (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Admanny: the FIA have no authority here though, we should use the name used in the majority of independent, English-language, reliable sources, and not give any preference to the FIA's choice of name. So in that sense, the FIA's choice is meaningless. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the many explanations given here, that’s just not true. Nobody who doesn’t know when the F1 WC started can work out when this race happened.Tvx1 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add the venue, the winner - and everything else that readers might not know until they read the article - to the title then? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is redundant, you'll be removing all mentions of the year from the article then. Some of these arguments are stunningly ill-conceived. There's only one Styrian GP, but there might be another one even though we have no evidence whatsoever, so we'll put the year in. There's only one 70th Anniversary GP, but we think there won't be another one, despite the fact other series and other sports also use the "Grand Prix" title, and even though we have a similar total lack of evidence there won't be another one, we'll come down hard against adding the year. These arguments are moronic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1 and Bretonbanquet: Clearly there are others who disagree with you and feel that adding the year is irrelevant. Simply making the same claims ("Nobody who doesn’t know when the F1 WC started can work out when this race happened") isn't going to change anyone's mind. Per the many explanations given here, the purpose of an article title is not to give every piece of information, but merely as a way of uniquely identifying the article. There's no way, without already knowing, just from the title that this race was held in the UK, and yet you aren't concerned about that. Or since I feel it would be unnecessary to include that information in the title, should I also wish to remove that information from the article? (Or, more likely, this is just a pointless strawman you have built?)
If you feel the name of the 2020 Styrian GP article should be changed (which I'm quite sure you don't), then feel free to request a move! If not, well why keep bringing it up? Would it be fair of me to say to you to request a move on 1937 Australian Grand Prix since the race didn't actually take place in 1937, or of Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II since for those who don't know when she became Queen they won't know when that took place (without reading the article)?? As for the arguments being stunningly ill-conceived or moronic, well if that's how you feel then I wonder how you feel about users such as myself who are making such "moronic" arguments, and are unconvinced by your continued strawman tactics. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t know why you reduce this to the the two of us. There are five others beside me and Bretonbanquet who support the change so far. So cleary there are others who agree with us and think the year is relevant. And no matter how you turn it, some of the arguments brought here to oppose simply do not hold water. There is no need to make this personal.Tvx1 10:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Admittedly it was a bit clumsy of me to reply to two comments at once when it was only Bretonbanquet making the borderline uncivil comments, so I apologise for lumping you in. I replied to you two only since you are the only ones going after all of the recent oppose voters. I'm sure they've read the above arguments before deciding. My real issue with your comment was "that’s just not true" - as I said, others disagree. It is a matter of opinion whether it is relevant or not. And you haven't answered the question I, now DeFacto and possibly others have asked: why is it important to include one piece of information readers may not know, the year, but not others? A7V2 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: The chat about strawmen is in bad faith. My comments are not uncivil, or borderline uncivil. I have made no remarks about users, only their arguments, and I was not referring to your comments as moronic anyway. I clearly do not wish to change the title of the 2020 Styrian Grand Prix article. My question is why don't you want to? Per all of your arguments, you should want it removed. You are the ones who say the year does not matter, and therefore it is unnecessary? If there's another Styrian GP, then we can add the year then? I find it extremely odd that you and others want to exclude the year from one and not the other. Tvx1 is quite correct in that these arguments do not hold water at all. You ask why it is important to include the year and not other pieces of information? Because that's what we always do. How about why is it important to have the year in one one-off GP and not another? You simply cannot answer that, can you? cOs tHerE mIgHt bE aNoTheR oNe... so why not wait until there is before disambiguating, like we would anything else? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: "cOs tHerE mIgHt bE aNoTheR oNe... " - maybe I was wrong saying you were being borderline uncivil.... I'm not responding to you anymore if you want to make everything personal like this. You can say you were calling the arguments moronic all you want, but you have accused me of assuming bad faith, as well as being snarky and sarcastic. If you are legitimately trying to convince others of your view, this is completely the wrong way to do it. I'm not interested. A7V2 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: I wrote that in a response to you, but it was not aimed as a personal attack on you; that just seems to be the same argument trotted out again and again for one race and not the other. It is not personal. You accused me of building a strawman argument and "continued strawman tactics", a stance which I find obnoxious, and however you swing it, that is assuming bad faith. If it were not forbidden here, I'd have gone further than snarkiness and sarcasm. That is accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting something because I apparently cannot defeat your superior argument. I merely said your arguments don't hold water and some people's arguments are moronic. Again, you don't really answer my point, you just take issue with perceived personal slights. I don't know you, I am not commenting on you, but I find the whole argument against including the year to be very odd indeed, and it is frustrating to argue with people whose position is, at best, illogical, and who then accuse me of attempting to subvert the discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "If it is redundant, you'll be removing all mentions of the year from the article then. Some of these arguments are stunningly ill-conceived." in response to DeFacto saying that the year was redundant in the title (implied since this is a discussion of the article title and they linked to some naming policy). You also said "If people don't understand, screw them. Adding four digits to a title is just unacceptably long-winded, no matter who might benefit." as if to impersonate the view of an opposer (clearly not what any opposer has said). These are straw-man arguments as you are changing what people have said before rebuking. I'm not assuming bad faith. Changing someone else's arguments in this way is an easy mistake to make, one I'm sure I'm guilty of myself. I apologise I gave the impression I believed you were doing this deliberately. "I apparently cannot defeat your superior argument" - I don't know what you know. I am unconvinced by your arguments. I was in all honestly trying to illicit something more convincing with some of the questions I asked above but you and other supporters didn't answer them (in a way I was convinced by at least) so I was left with the same view I started with. "If it were not forbidden here, I'd have gone further than snarkiness and sarcasm" - I'm not going to reply any further in that case. A7V2 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: He didn't say that; he just said the year was redundant. "Implied" in your opinion – not in mine, after many years of dealing with the editor in question. Your quote of my words regarding the editor's statement lower down – I do believe it's a precis of his argument, yes. I was not impersonating him, I should have thought that was clear. Apology accepted regarding the strawman statements. In short, what I see here is a change to a blanket policy of including the year in the title of a GP, even stand-alone GPs. Nobody has given a convincing reason to change the policy we have always used. I believe convincing arguments should be made to change a policy employed since the beginning of Wikipedia, rather than editors like me being suddenly required to justify a continuation of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: I sort of meant it when I said I'm not going to reply any more but I really mean it this time. Your comments only make it harder for me to believe you've done anything but deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent the views of others. I'm not going to take any more part in this discussion any more. Please don't ping me here. It's not something I cared overly about but my views and reasons are above, no use restating. I am un"watching" and will not return here so there's no need to reply (unless you wish to address something I've said for others who might read it). If there's something relating to this discussion that someone feels I must see then please put it on my talk page. Goodbye, I hope our future interactions are more positive. A7V2 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely your prerogative, but it's a shame in a sense because my last point is entirely the crux of the thing really, and it says a lot that you don't want to address it. Why we have to go to such lengths to justify something we have always done, I have no idea. And why you don't want to address that, I also have no idea. I don't believe I'm misinterpreting anything. All the best, it's as likely as not we will agree on the next discussion in which we meet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: I didn't say readers won't be interested in when it was, just that it's not needed to disambiguate the title. Why do you think only the year, and not, say, the venue and the winner too should be added to the title? Using your logic, should they be removed from the article too, as they're not in the article title? And if there is another GP called "70th Anniversary", then we can start to worry about how to uniquely name them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Then it isn't needed for more than one other GP this year, so why only this one? Why does the Styrian GP title have the year in it? If there's another one, "then we can start to worry about how to uniquely name them" per your own damn comment. The year should be added because it is in all the other GP titles. The venue and the winner (for God's sake) are not in any other article title, so that's just another moronic, nonsense comment, like so many others. With this stunning contradiction, why is my and Tvx1's claim that these arguments don't hold water being questioned? The case for the opposition to this move leaks like a sieve. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: I haven't had 2020 Styrian Grand Prix on my watchlist, so might have missed any renaming discussion there. But here we are discussing just this article, and what happens in others is irrelevant. You haven't given a good argument for the date to be added to the title of this article which wouldn't apply equally to other facts in the article content. Other GP articles have it to disambiguate what would otherwise be duplicate titles, and those that have it without that necessity should probably not have it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, WP:CONSISTENT which had been raised several times.
SSSB (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB: WP:CONSISTENT (I fixed your link) only applies if there isn't an obvious WP:COMMONNAME title for an article. That isn't the case here. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The year being present in every single other GP title (and no other factors have ever been used in a title, as I have explained to you) is more than enough precedent, and saying it's irrelevant is ridiculous. Claiming that you're simply not looking at very similar articles that have the year in their titles is a very poor defence. In fact, it's no defence at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bretonbanquet: the bottom line is common usage, and having the year doesn't stand scrutiny there. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Common usage isn't clear at all. Most sources mention the Grand Prix with year in context. (So they say "70th Anniversary Grand Prix" the same way they would say "British Grand Prix", the year is obvious based on when the article is written and what the article is about, 2020 and the 2020 F1 season respectively, longevity isnt a issue with news reports/articles) and several sources (seen above) use the year anyhow. The commonname is not remotely obvious in this case.
SSSB (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why including the year is justified.Tvx1 11:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – for the reasons already given. The year is irrelevant, there isn't going to be another 70th Anniversary Grand Prix (and if there ever is we can deal with it when it happens). This is one-off event, and the article name doesn't need to be longer for the sake of it. The details of when the event was, and the official race title, are clear in the lead section and the infobox. Also, that 2020 is not the 70th anniversary of F1 is irrelevant, that's not our problem. Tboa talk. 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add, there's never been a Grand Prix named like this before, so there is no need to worry about consistency in the title. Tboa talk. 19:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If people don't understand, screw them. Adding four digits to a title is just unacceptably long-winded, no matter who might benefit." Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Admanny's evidence and that it is redundant.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. "2020" and "70th anniversary" are imparting essentially the same information, and the page title does not need to do that. In the same way as we have 70th Academy Awards, not 1998 70th Academy Awards. Regarding PRECISE, at the moment, there is only one 70th anniversary Grand Prix, and the claim that there may be others in the future is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, in addition to being rather unlikely, given that the "70th anniversary" refers to Grand Prix racing as a whole, not just any single event.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They only impart the same information if the reader knows what the anniversary is commemorating. As has been explained, there are other standalone Grands Prix, all of which have the year in the title, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Why is this one different? Again, someone gets the subject of the anniversary wrong, rendering the claimed idea of redundancy incorrect within the same post. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (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.

Entry Lists[edit]

Island92 where is the updated general entry list? JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right here.--Island92 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a general season entry list though (if it were It would look something like our entry list. Also this changes, what is the season entry list know will no longer be so when Pérez comes back. And if we say "season entry list" in prose readers are going to assume we mean the original season entry list. The list that lists the drivers that teams expect to enter over the season. We should consider Hülkenberg a stand in for Pérez because that is what he is. And any secondary source will support this position.
SSSB (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right.--Island92 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Race Review[edit]

Still no review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.154.158.146 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude but either add one or stop complaining. Simply posting that here is unhelpful and unproductive.
SSSB (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering since every other previous GP has a review, if whoever wrote those reviews has retired it'd be good to know. I don't want to waste my time writing a review if someone else is about to publish one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil6875: first come, first serve with this kind of thing.
SSSB (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:70th_Anniversary_Grand_Prix&oldid=1197086769"