Talk:List of red-flagged Formula One races

Missing races

The following races (at least) are missing from the list: 01 German, 98 Belgian, 98 French, 98 Canadian, 96 Australian, 95 Monaco, 95 Argentine, 90 Italian, 90 Belgian, 89 French, 87 Portuguese, 87 Austrian, 82 Canadian, 80 Canadian, 76 German, 76 British, 73 British. DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 2000 Monaco to that list. IIRC something happened down at the hairpin, and six/seven cars were stranded. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

2000 Monaco now added. DH85868993 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Couple of thoughts I would like others views on before going ahead with.

1)I think we need to mention 75% race distance being completed as a reason for most races not being restarted and also where a race is restarted, the method of restarting/resuming needs mentioning (Fresh start <2 lap / Average time / Straight continuation)

2)I suggest where more than three drivers are involved in accidents causing the red flag, we state the number of drivers rather than list all of them.

3)I don't think the constructor is of relevance, so suggest it's omitted. AlexJ (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all three (I presume you meant "Aggregate time" rather than "Average time"). I would also mention if half-points were awarded. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one, couldn't remember what it was called. Agree on mentioning the half-points too. AlexJ (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that we've removed the constructors from the table, should we also remove them from the "Records" section? DH85868993 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1981 Belgian GP

The 1981 Belgian GP was red flagged twice: after the start accident involving Patrese and Stohr, then restarted, and at the end, because of the rain. 201.80.168.223 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Tricky. Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 4 says: "... In the meantime, the race was still in progress with Piquet leading from Reutemann and Pironi, but apart from black flags starting to appear there seemed to be no attempt being made to bring things to a halt. Twice the leaders roared past the pits looking for a red flag only to find there was none and in the end it was Pironi who took the initiative by slowing right down and stopping in front of the pits after having made quite clear his intentions to the drivers behind him." So while the race was certainly stopped (by Pironi and the other drivers) it doesn't look as though it was red-flagged per se. DH85868993 (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Page title?

Shouldn't this list be titled List of red-flagged Formula One Grand Prix or Grands Prix? Especially since races articles states Grand Prix not race, this list should follow that convention. Was going to move the page myself, but wanted to see if there was any reason it is titled this way. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it wasn't a deliberate choice by the editor who created the article (which was originally titled "Red Flagged F1 Races"). Unfortunately that editor (User:WilliamF1) hasn't edited since 2009, so we can't ask him. It certainly wasn't a deliberate choice by me when I moved the article to its current title (I just used the existing word). One point to consider is that the list contains the 1950 Indianapolis 500 which, although it was a round of the 1950 World Drivers' Championship, wasn't really a "Grand Prix" per se. (Although having said that, it also wasn't a "Formula One race"). The list is really a "List of red-flagged World Drivers' Championship/Formula One World Championship races". I'm comfortable with the current title. DH85868993 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New table feedback

Would like to get my word out on the new table. In my opinion, it's absolutely dreadful. It's hard to see where races are compared to the previous one, which had races in the same season sorted into a section. It also contained more information, such as who was involved in the accident, while this one states who won the race which is completely unnecessary information unless the race was abandoned.

I'm going to start with adding back the information that was on the previous article. When I have time, I may continue more extensive work on it.

--Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you do that you might want to consider a few things. The previous table did not meet WP:ACCESS as it had col and rowspans. The year column is redundant as linking to the article about the race provides the year. The list is currently at FLC where no one has mentioned any problems about the table. Yes there is less info one the races but the previous table was completely unreferenced, this one is and unfortunately some of the sources don't provide details of accidents. That is more preferable than having an unreferenced list. The list has a number of supports at FLC which confer a consensus that the current state of the list is fine. As such I'm going to revert your reason change. I don't understand why you would want to revert the list back to a state when it didn't meet any of our guidelines makes no sense. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm not going revert back to my revision. I think it's a shame that we have to sacrifice a coherent article for a one that might as well not exist due to a few silly guidelines. Just my 2 cents. --Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't coherent it failed numerous guidelines. For instance the table was not in chronological order, there were a lot of failings with it. The guidelines are there for a reason, so they have to be followed. The new table makes it easier for the reader to view the data, especially the ability to sort races by ones which were restarted and those that were not. I agree its not ideal having less info about the accidents, but everything needs to be referenced. NapHit (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it was in chronological order, from latest to earliest. The new table is a mess that needs to tided. I accept, as silly as it is, that we can't have unsourced information on the article, but it's a pain in the ass trying to find a particular race, whereas with the previous table the races stood out. I don't see how you can argue with that; it's not really an opinion, it's a fact. --Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No chronological would be starting with the earliest at the top, which was not the case. Its not silly that information needs to be referenced, that is the founding principle of an encyclopaedia. Its not difficult trying to find a race at all, I think its a lot easier, its a mute point anyway as colspans shouldn't be included per WP:ACCESS. This is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, multiple people have supported the table in this format, so I don't see an issue about anything apart from info that is hard to source. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree with the referencing bit, but the presentation of the table does need to be improved. I would start by inserting a column for seasons, like in the previous article, and put races that were red-flagged in that season under that section. This would make it much easier to read. I don't see anything on WP:ACCESS that mentions colspans, so I don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, the article is in dire need of information, and correct information too. You've stated on the 1998 Belgian GP that the accident involved eleven cars, which actually involved 13, so your source is wrong. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't rudely dismiss my reasonable criticism as "simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am trying to help you with this table. I am trying to help improve this article for everyone. I didn't post that just to slag you off, I wanted you to take that onboard and attempt to do something about it. If you're not going listen to criticism, then why should I bother? --Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Five people have reviewed the list at FLC no one has said a column for seasons needs to be added. Its redundant because just listing the Grand Prix provides the year. Colspans are to be avoided per MOS:DTT, as for users reading wikipedia on screen readers they make reading the table difficult. I'm not rudely dismissing your criticism at all, but its a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you are the only person that has raised these issues. You also stated its a fact the table is worse than the previous one and that it is "absolutely dreadful". So Its a bit rich to ask me not to be rude, when you have outright criticised the new format. I have taken it onboard, the fact is, five other people at the FLC are in favour of the table being the way it is, that is a consensus. This is how wikipedia works, not one person deciding their way is right and ignoring guidelines. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you honestly think that criticising the table is rude then I have nothing to say to you. --Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Referring to work as "absolutely dreadful" is rude and not WP:CIVIL. There were other ways you could have said you didn't like the table without being so blunt. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of legend

I think the current legend for the "race restarted" column is inaccurate in respect to the races it describes. Currently a considerable number of races are labelled "restarted over a shorted distance" even though the originally scheduled distance for those races was effectively completed and classified and those races were merely resumed from the point at which they were stopped. This is in contradiction with races which were stopped and where the scheduled distance/number of laps was effectively shortened from what was originally scheduled, like e.g. in the case of the 1978 Italian Grand Prix. Tvx1 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no reaction to this, I'm going on and add another entry for "Resumed" in the key. Tvx1 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency

Concerning the 2014 Japanese GP the lap on which the red flag was shown was 46 with the results taken from lap 44. This would make it consistent with every suspended race since Canada 1997 on this list. Also the article for the 1991 Australian GP mentions the the red flag was shown on lap 17, so shouldn't that be reflected here as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.9.226.180 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the 1994 Japanese GP was stopped on lap 15 not 13, but was restarted with results as of lap 13.

Failed to make the restart

There doesn't seem to be consistency about who is listed here? Is it just people who did not restart AND were involved in the accident, or everyone who had retired previously as well?

It's unclear, because some of the races, such as 1973 British Grand Prix, list all people who didn't restart, but other races, like 2013 Monaco Grand Prix or 2011 Monaco Grand Prix only list those involved in the red flag incident who did not restart.

Which standard should be used? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The footnote for that column states that it should only be those who failed to restart as a direct result of the red-flag incident. Yet, it really should only list those who were eligible to take the restart and ultimately were unable to do so for various reasons. To be eligible one needs to complete the lap and return to the pit lane under their own power, or the first start attempt needed to be voided entirely (which could happen until the early 2000's). This disqualifies drivers like Maldonado in Monaco in 2013. Tvx1 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

The official restart is counted from the moment drivers are on the grid, not from the moment they leave the pit lane. Russell (although he left the pit lane) was not on the grid, the same situation that happened to Ocon who was not on the grid during the restart of the 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix. Should we put Max Verstappen (crash) and George Russell (gearbox)? Island92 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Island92:. Russell was able to complete the lap sufficiently enough that he is considered to have made the restart. I'll admit this has been a seriously grey area, but Russell was able to take the restart the moment he leaves the pit lane. A lap is a lap, the race is no longer a red flag by the time the cars leave the pit lane, thus there is where the restart occurs. Other editors can put input if needed. Admanny (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To add, Ocon as far as I remember never made it out the pit lane. His retirement is counted just like any other pull-into-the-pit-to-retire moment; his race ends and he is listed if he was running at the time of the red flag, but never ran again after the red flag lifted, which is when the pit exit opens. Admanny (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ocon did not leave the pit lane. Russell did, but entered again before coming to the grid. The problem is, according to the rules, from which moment the rolling start is considered? From the moment drivers leave the pit lane or when they are on the grid? Island92 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem. With a rolling restart, the driver in the lead controls the pace of the grid. They may go full throttle early or late, just the drivers behind cannot overtake. For this inconsistency, this is why I am considering the moment they leave the pit lane the point of restart. Plus, Russell completed most of the lap anyway, that has to be counted. Admanny (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The entire "drivers who did not make the restart" column just seems redundant to me anyway, I'd very much have the entire column removed, but now we're stuck with this mess. Admanny (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, especially after what happened yesterday. So far it has turned out to be a sort of bewilderment. However, it was a standing start: drivers came to the grid and stopped waiting for the five red lights. Island92 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Then what about the red flag at Emilia Romagna? That was a rolling start; there is clearly no consistency when a restart will be rolling or standing. Admanny (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, that is decided by Michael Masi. In both cases, drivers must leave the pit lane before because they must enter into the pit when the race is red flagged. That point can be considered the moment the restart worths, either for rolling or standing start. In addition, there is displayed a countdown by FOM before restarting the race (when drivers are in the pit lane, as yesterday). Island92 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The restart has to be considered when they leave the pit lane, as that counts as a lap...? Spa-Franks (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of red-flagged Formula One races. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606060738/http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1994/102/ to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1994/102/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128210448/http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Pages/HomePage.aspx to http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Pages/HomePage.aspx

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) 04:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Resulting in..."

A lot of these are superfluous and only appear on more modern races. Bahrain 20, Imola 21, Azerbaijan 21 - these are all disputable anyway as to why they were stopped. Indeed, Masi is cited on AZE 21 in the race page itself as saying he stopped it mainly because he didn't want it to end behind the safety car. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is specific verification as to why it was stopped, sentences such as "resulting in debris on track" is implying something unverifiable.
SSSB (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Belgian Grand Prix

Hey guys! Question regarding today's race. Technically, I'm pretty sure the first red flag was after the (second) formation lap, not on lap 1 - lap 1 was after the long delay. So the article should say that the lap concerned was the formation lap. Let me know what you think! Miki.krok (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. They waved the red-flag to signify the start procedure was aborted, but the session wasn't technically red-flagged, as it never begun.
SSSB (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - the rules for suspending the start procedure point to the article regarding suspending races, so technically it was suspended, which is equivalent to a red flag, hence why red flags were waved. Either way, the current mention of a red flag on lap 1 seems incorrect to me. Either it should disappear (if, as you claim, the session wasn't red flagged, why is a lap 1 red-flag mentioned in the table?), or be labelled as a red flag on the formation lap. Miki.krok (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you - either the entry should refer to the formation lap, or it should be removed. There was no lap 1 red flag today. 49 TL 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My argument is based on the article's definition of a red-flag, not the technical regulations. The second paragrapgh reads "A red flag is shown when there has been a crash or the track conditions are poor enough to warrant the race being stopped." You can't stop something that hasn't started.

If the regulations say that a red-flag is also used to indicate an aborted start procedure, then the article needs to be updated to reflect this (which would also be the basis for our disagreement).

If this is what the regulations say, I agree with you, and have WP:BOLDly changed the article.
SSSB (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Despite the laps being labeled as formation laps on screen, from the second one they classified as race laps. The red flag was shown during the third formation lap which wasn’t completed and classified then. Stating that the race was red-flagged during the formation lap is patently wrong.Tvx1 09:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're demonstrably wrong here. Since 2017, races that "begin" (in inverted commas) under the safety car are not counted towards the race, but instead shorten the race by a lap. At Germany 2019 we went from 67 to 64 laps because we did 3 laps under the safety car at the start, and when the lights went out the lap counter and timing screens showed "Lap 1 / 64", not "Lap 4 / 67" as they would have done 2016 and before. So when we restarted later on, we were effectively starting "Lap 1 / 39" (at least I think it was 39, if memory serves based on Brundle and Masi's comments). Spa-Franks (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m stating nothing but facts here. We don’t report our own synthesis derived from other races’ events but the facts of this particular race. The fact is that they did count a lap from the first part and two from the second. Or how else will you explain that they had three completed laps to deduce two from on countback and a race winning time of 3 hours 27 minutes??Tvx1 17:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: your "facts" are not supported by sources. As for your "how will you explain", a good place to start will be pointing out that the race time was 3 minutes 27 seconds.[1]
SSSB (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes even less sense. How did they arrive at one classified lap through a two-lap countback from just two completed laps then?Tvx1 17:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Looking at the sporting regulations: [2] article 51.14 reads: ...the results will be taken at the end of the penultimate lap before the lap during which the signal to suspend the race was given. If they completed three two laps behind the safety car from the 18:17 start, the "signal to suspend the race" was given on the third lap. Then the "lap before the lap during which the signal to suspend the race was given" would be lap 2, so the "penultimate lap before the lap during which the signal to suspend the race was given" would be the end of the first lap, the end of the lap they started at 18:17 local time, meaning they took the results at the end of that lap. Of course, this is just WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The regulations are the same as they were in 2019. I'm sorry, but I know I'm right on this one. The official start of the race was 18:17 CEST, as confirmed on the broadcast by Masi, Brundle, Davidson, and Croft. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not sure how saying this is OR? The classification is absolute. The safety car simply doesn't count towards laps 1-5, it removed laps 40-44. Like in Germany. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:OR becuase I don't see a source supporting what you say. Therefore it is our own analysis of the information. As for confirmed on the broadcast by Masi, Brundle, Davidson, and Croft. - WP:PROVEIT.

The safety car simply doesn't count towards laps 1-5, it removed laps 40-44. - not always the case. When races are started behind the safety car... as was done here...2016 Brazilian Grand Prix also springs to mind.

I know I'm right on this one. - that's not good enough.

The truth is that the FIA do not publish the time at which the first lap was counted, so we may never know for sure, we may have to rely on the analysis of secondary sources for this.
SSSB (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We can actually verify that lap 1 was completed at 18:20 local time, the relevant document is here. 49 TL 22:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

2016 Brazilian Grand Prix also springs to mind - this is irrelevant owing to the 2017 rule changes pertaining to safety car starts. Not sure how to "prove it" re Sky's broadcast unless you're asking for a timestamp in the broadcast. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what I would want. But 49TL's link renders that null.
SSSB (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not irrelevant. We actually did have both variants on sunday. ALL the physically driven laps were behind the safety car. No green flag was ever shown. Yet the the second set op laps were classified as race laps.Tvx1 08:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

2022 Monaco Grand Prix

I looked at some of the recent back and forth in the edit history about this race, and I suspect this is going to want conversation. My thoughts, anyway, and why this deserves the 'Yellow S':

• "Resuming a race" after its suspension by red flag, under current F1 rules has three possibilities available to the race director: a standing start, a rolling start behind the safety car, or suspension of the restart. It looks like the relevant regulations are under section 58 (with suspension rules under 57). https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2022_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_5_-_2022-03-15.pdf
• The "Yellow S" is indicated for "Indicates the race was restarted over a shortened distance". The above being true and a time limit being one reason for a shortened race distance, the 20 minute delay the lap 30 red flag caused was sufficient to prevent the race's full length to be run. In my opinion, it's irrelevant whether a standing or rolling start restarted the race at that point, because both are restarts; what matters is how far the race is run, to determine whether that race sees an "Orange R" or "Yellow S". It also doesn't matter whether the racing director intended that "if the cars only went fast enough" at the time of the restart, that all of the laps would be run. In this case, mathematics against the race clock meant all laps would never be run ANYWAY, when the race was restarted at lap 31.

The way F1 races used to be run, I realize that the meaning of "restarted" and "resumed" would be different; sometimes the race director would scrap the first lap or two of a race that has been started and say "do it over from lap 1", that a rolling restart meant a completely different "kind" of "resumption", and that there WAS no timer that artificially imposed the length of time (and thus the distance) that a race could be run in. That meant that a "Yellow S" would only be seen in cases like weather or darkness ending the race early...but this is the system we have today. The race length timer can also cut it short.

Skybunny (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been fixed simply by copyediting the key so that they yellow covers all races which ended over a shorter distance, rather than just those where there was a conscious decision to end the race early: Special:Diff/1090644225/1090648954 SSSB (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice, I guess that should disambiguate nicely!

Also, I hate myself a little for being this nerdy, but for what it's worth, I went back through the broadcast to figure out exactly when, and why, the race ended, because something didn't feel right about the two hour timer coming into play. Alas I was right.

Current rules have two timers that begin running at the beginning of a race session: a three hour timer (past which the race cannot extend for any reason once that timer is started), and a two hour timer (through which an active race session, not interrupted by red flags, may be run).

The race's first announcement of a start was at about 15:06 local, before it was suspended and delayed multiple times. The race ended almost exactly 3 hours later. This means that it was ALL of the 15 minute delay before the first two formation laps, the 44 minute delay after the suspended start after formation lap 2, and the additional 20 minute suspension after Schumacher's crash, that ended the running session well short of 2 hours (and left only 64 laps of running time).

So now we can ask ourselves whether or not the first "race stoppage" was during 'Lap F2' or whatever we would call it, since technically the three hour timer was going; or not, since all of the delays collectively were why the race ended short. (Schumacher's 20 minute red flag DID seal the race's fate as short, though).

Personally, I'm more than satisfied to say that the lap 30 suspension was "the single reason" why the race ended short, and that the formation lap "suspension of start" was not part of the race. Technically, as laps are recorded, it isn't; the formation lap only served to reduce the scheduled laps by one. Skybunny (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The three hour time limit countdown starts at the scheduled start time, not the actual start time (that's the two-hour limit). This means that the three-hour countdown started at 15:00 (when the race was supposed to start). See article 6.8 of the sporting regs (the link for which you posted in your original comment. The race started at 16:05 (or whenever it was).SSSB (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Race / Sprint

If a red flag happens in a sprint, will it be on the list or not? As far as I understand, only races are zisted [sic - listed], not sprints. 212.164.204.57 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. For the same reason we don't include red flags from quali, we shouldn't include red flags from sprints. Perhaps we need a article name change to better reflect this? List of red-flagged Formula One Grand Prix, (the same name convention as List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, which doesn't include winners of sprints). SSSB (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the name with the word "Grand Prix" would be wrong, since in my understanding (maybe I'm wrong) the Grand Prix is often associated with both the quali and the race (and a little with practices). 212.164.204.57 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Grand Prix can be used to refer to the weekend as a whole, or the main race. However, I think that it would be clear, from context and commonsense, that it refers to the main race in this case. SSSB (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, but what's problem with using the "List of red-flagged Formula One races"? After all, we already have the article "List of Formula One race records", and the word "Race" is also used there. 212.164.204.57 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem. I'm just thinking out loud about if there is a way to mitigate someone attempting to add a sprint red flag. SSSB (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How about just adding something like an FAQ on top of this article, where to write that red flags in sprints should not be on the list? 212.164.204.57 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it was moved to "races" because of the 1950-59 Indy 500s, which are World Championship races that are not Grands Prix. That makes "Grand Prix" not an option. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2023

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. Consensus is that "races" better reflects the scope of the list than "Grands Prix". (closed by non-admin page mover) MaterialWorks (contribs) 18:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

List of red-flagged Formula One races → List of red-flagged Formula One Grands Prix – Consistency with other F1 lists (eg- List of Formula One Grands Prix, List of Formula One Grand Prix winners and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton). I read through the previous discussions above which have cited the 1950 Indianapolis 500 as a reason for not moving the page as it was not a Grand Prix, however this list appears to be the exception and not the rule as two of three examples I've given above include that race (and other Indy 500s) alongside an explanatory note. I would suggest that a similar note be added if consensus is to move. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. MaterialWorks ^{ping me!} 12:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely against it. The Grand Prix implies both free practices and qualifications, sprints and races. Otherwise, we will need to add all the red flags from practices and qualifications (and there are a lot of them). 'Race' is much more correct for me than 'Grand Prix'. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, every single practice and qualifying session that Lewis Hamilton 'won' should be included in List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton which is, of course, nonsense. The Grand Prix is the race. Qualifying and practice are preparatory sessions for the race and not part of it.

Per WP:CONSISTENT, there is no reason to not have these articles titled in the same style and as this is the outlier I have proposed it be moved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree per Grands Prix.--Island92 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title, by OP's own admission, is less accurate than the current one. 162 etc. (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Nobody has admitted anything. The IP has argued that it is less accurate, but this has been refuted. SSSB (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, someone disagrees with them. That’s not the same thing as being refuted. Tvx1 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: These opposes stand on weak ground. There is no consensus (amongst Wikipedians or secondary sources) about whether "Grands Prix" refers to the whole weekend, or just the race (there are several discussions around this on talk pages on Wiki). So any argument around this simply boils down to personal interpretation of the terminology. Secondly, I refute any claim that this change would mean we need to add red flags from quali or practice. As I stated above, it is ambiguous what sessions the term "Grand Prix" refers to and the first paragraph can clear up any potential ambiguity as to what does/doesn't qualify (as we have done at List of Formula One fatalities). The current title also opens up scope for ambiguity, as it suggests open it up for classic F1 races (like BOSS GP) and the Formula One racing#Sprint sessions, which are a race. SSSB (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then we simply add world championship to the title. And sprints are not races, they’re sprints. Also, while BOSS uses F1 cars, they don’t run races under the Formula 1 monniker and regulations. They are not relevant here. Tvx1 18:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  A sprint is a race. The FIA and F1 media can use all the fancy terminology they want, but the session is a mini-race to determine the start order for the main race. SSSB (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  No it isn’t. It was actually originally called sprint qualifying. It’s just an alternative form of qualifying which yealds bonus points for the championship. They are not seen as races in any way.Tvx1 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is not seen as a race, no. But from a literal point of view, it is (i.e. the way the session is run fits the defintion of a race, even if the rule book doesn't consider it one from a legal point of view). Which is exactly why Verstapen calls it a "sprint race" for example: [3]. SSSB (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per my comment above: "Grands Prix" is incorrect because of the 1950-59 Indy 500s, which are World Championship races that are not Grands Prix. That makes "Grands Prix" not an option. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• The event appears on List of Formula One Grand Prix, its winners (during this time) appear on List of Formula One Grand Prix winners. So it is an option exercised on other pages (with a note explaining the unique circumstances of the Indy 500. SSSB (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The first article actually deals with the full weekend events. The second article is one that maybe should be moved since we have decided to limit its scope to purely race winners and not thos of the recently invented sprints. Tvx1 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support for WP:CONSISTENCY with List of Formula One Grand Prix and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners. SSSB (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• At least at the moment, this is also not WP:CONSISTENCY, since Wikipedia has an article List of Formula One race records, and like this article (which does not include red flags from practices, etc.), first of all, it is about the race. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, as has been stated above, no one is proposing increasing the scope of this list. Perhaps, as the majority of Formula One lists are titled as "Grand Prix" and you have pointed out the only other one which is inconsistent with this naming convention, it should also be moved for consistency. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and suggest: perhaps one to move to WP:F1 but is it perhaps not better to change to "[...] Formula One World Championship races" as a standard in line with recent moves from "xxxx Formula One season" to "xxxx Formula One World Championship"? Spa-Franks (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support this as a compromise. It would require other articles, including those I've listed above, be moved for consistency though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this as it completely fails WP:CONCISE. SSSB (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted to get a clearer consensus. MaterialWorks ^{ping me!} 12:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Formula One has been notified of this discussion. MaterialWorks ^{ping me!} 12:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:RECOGNISABILITY - The current title is both more concise and easier for readers to immediately understand. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:BROKEN. This just appears to be a move for the sake of it. There is no evidence that the current title does not work for its scope. There is nothing that indicates that our readers and editors have any issue with understanding this article.Tvx1 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – Largely going to echo the comments made earlier by others. The proposed title would be misleading and it confuses an important but very subtle distinction. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment From the arguments made above, it sounds like this article is correctly titled and that "races" should be used rather than "Grands Prix". I'll be honest, I think both are concise/recognisable/appropriate so I'm not fussed either way so long as we are consistent. I felt it would be easier to move this article as the outlier but perhaps it should be the other way around and other articles be moved from "Grands Prix" to "races". I don't mean this to come across as WP:POINTY which is why I wanted to raise it here first in case other editors had thoughts they wish to put forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing should be moved at all. Each article has its own scope and thus own suitable title. WP:PRECISE will always trump consistency. List of Formula One Grands Prix, for instance, deals with the full events, not just the sunday race sessions, do its current title is completely correct. Other stuff is pretty meaningless to one article’s scope and title.Tvx1 14:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Tvx. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Article titles can be both precise and consistent, there is nothing in either policy which trumps the other. If your argument is precise though, List of Formula One Grands Prix is not precise as it includes the Indy 500s from 1950 to 1960 which were not Grands Prix therefore it would be more appropriately titled List of Formula One races or List of Formula One World Championship events (which would not be concise as has been pointed out above). Per WP:LSC, Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? Would most readers expect to see what is listed in this article (or indeed any of the ones that have been mentioned in this discussion) on a list of Formula One Grands Prix (of specific criteria) or a list of Formula One races (of specific criteria)? Honestly, I think they would expect it regardless which was used so the only question really is whether we be consistent or not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The only way to make all article titles both precise and consistent is if you throw WP:CONSICE out of the window. Lots of our article titles lack precision in favour of consiceness, and pelnty more do the opposite, or find a compromise between conflicting aspects of article naming criteria. For example, List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, which includes Indy 500 winners, but excludes winners of non-championship Formula One Grand Prix Grand Prix. Neither of these two conditions are specified in the title, but the scope it carefully specified in the lead. Another great example (probably a better one out of context, but less relevant to this discussion) is list of Formula One fatalities - based on the title you could argue that Paolo Ghislimberti belongs there, but reading the article clearly defines the scope of the content - which is how it should be. It is unrealistic to expect the list title to perfectly define the article scope (i.e be perfectly precise), while also being consistent and consice. SSSB (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  You may think this is the dumbest option (and I'll understand that; but I at least tried to suggest it), but what about "List of red-flagged Formula One Grand Prix races" as a title? 212.164.39.123 (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is a valid option. I would consider it an acceptable compromise between the precision, consistency and conciseness. SSSB (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That’s just a clumsy mess. It’s just aimed at a change for the sake of it.Tvx1 19:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Red flags in Australian GP, 2023

Will we continue to use lap 9 and 56 for red flags, instead of lap 8 and 55 in the 2023 Australian Grand Prix? On the YouTube review from the F1 or SkySports channel, it is clearly visible that the red flags were already on laps 8 and 55, why is 9 and 56 indicated? --- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.--Island92 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

1950 Indy 500

Someone talks about consistency, but someone removed the Indy 500 from the list? These races are present in other lists (i.e. the list of fatalities in f1 and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners) and she should be on this list. Yes, it didn't use f1 rules and f1 cars, most f1 drivers weren't there, but it was part of the championship, points were awarded for it (I'm not happy myself that the Indy 500 is included here, but it was part of the championship for ten years). It may sound rude, but we are rewriting the history of F1 by removing the Indy 500 from the list. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, 1950 indy 500, as I understand it, was included in it all the time of the existence of this article and now is not? This is also present in the template about f1 racing. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you would have us rewrite the history of the Formula One, and the Indy 500 by having it included in this list. It is not a Formula One race, so it cannot be a red-flagged Formula One race. The difference between this article List of Formula One fatalities and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, is that they explain (in the lead) that the scope of the list extends beyond the scope suggested by the title (i.e. they say something like, "This list includes the winners of the Indianapolis 500 race between 1950 and 1960, as they formed part of the World Championships, even though they were not run by Formula One regulations, nor are they referred to as Grands Prix."). Including this clarification is they only way the Indy 500 can be justifiably included in this list. SSSB (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Then let's include this clarification.

1) Or change the words "Since the first World Championship Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have been shown in 82 World Championship Formula One races" to "Since the first Formula Grand Prix in 1950, red flags have been shown in 82 Formula One races". The Indy 500 was part of the World Championship and that's a fact, and that means the words 'World Championship' are wrong.

2) And Wikipedia is based on sources, right? So the f1 official website includes Indy 500 races in its lists: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races/96/indianapolis-500/race-result.html and https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races.html -- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a follow-on discussion from the above RFC about the naming of the article. In my view, Indy 1950 should definitely be included in here as it was "a race that formed a part of the Formula One World Championship", which is one possible definition for "Formula One races" and why my preference would be, as I outlined above, to rename all discrepant articles to "x Formula One World Championship y" as per the season articles. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That is an incorrect defintion of "Formula One race". The 1950-1960 Indy 500s belong in a seperate definition, that being races which formed a part of the Formula One World Championship (or its precussor). It is worth bearing in mind that the Indy 500 was never part of the "Formula One World Championship", but the "World Championship for drivers" (which became the "Formula One World Championship" which is how it was part of the Championship despite not ebing an F1 race.) This is why Formula1.com proves nothing (it doesn't deal with Formula One rounds, but rounds of the World Championship for drivers and its successor the Formula One World Championship). The only way to include the Indy 500 is by specifiying that the list doesn't deal with F1 races, but races that formed a part of these championships. And I would argue that Indy shouldn't be here, because whether a red flag was thrown is based on the rule book. And the Indy 500 used a non-F1 rule book. If it is included a note would need to be added to deal with this. SSSB (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about adding an Indy 500 with the note "This race didn't use Formula 1 rules, but it was part of the Formula 1 World Championship" or something similar? There are already 700 notes, why not add another one? And I agree with the renaming proposed by Spa-Franks. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

So long as we specified that the scope of the list doesn't precisly match the title in the prose, that could work - but I am still not convinced it should be here. It would still strike me as misleading to put a non-F1 race in this list. Red flags (as in availabity as some guidance on use) are specified in the rule book and its usage is series specific. It does not seem appropraite to mix and match. @Tvx1: your edit led to this, any thoughts? SSSB (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m still against including it. It wasn’t a Formula One race in any way. Formula one isn’t synonymous with world championship. For the same reason we don’t include 1952 and 1953’s formula two races. Tvx1 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: After about 2 weeks, I still don 't understand why the Indy 500 is included in the Grand Prix list but not in this one? - 212.164.39.123 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Becuase the lead of List of Formula One Grands Prix includes the sentence "These figures include the Indianapolis 500 races which were a part of the World Championships from 1950 until 1960 despite not being named a Grand Prix." meaning that Indy 500 falls within the scope of the list, despite falling outside of the scope suggested by the article title. SSSB (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on SSSB’s comment, this article lists world championship races ran to formula one regulations red flagged under those regulations. The Indianapolis 500 has never been a formula one race and thus is outside of the scope. The world championship’s governing body merely awarded points for that event as well for a few years. What qualifies for inclusion in this article is only judged on the basis for this article alone.Tvx1 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Restarts 2018-present

@Island92 - we don't need to add a footnote for how every race is restarted. I agree with standing starts needing a note since the race is technically resumed with a quasi-formation lap (or possibly an additional column or explanation as this is starting to look messy). Europe 2007, Korea 2010, Canada 2011, Malaysia 2012, Japan 2014, and Brazil 2016 all had multiple laps under the safety car and then a rolling restart, just as Zandvoort 2021. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Colour of the R restart code (and other changes)

Is there an argument in favour of changing R from orange to green seeing as it's been the default way of restarting the race for the past couple of decades? Also I would like to make some changes in regards to use of the word "crash", I'd like to make it more consistent with the wording of the GP pages themselves; using "Accident" and "Collision" in these cases. TheBronzeMex (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)